Many years ago when my father decided to run for tax assessor of our small town I was shocked when he told me that he would be running as a democrat. My father had always been a staunch conservative with a passionate interest in politics. Anyone who knew him for more than five minutes understood that he was a conservative. When I asked why on earth he would run as a democrat he explained that he would not be able to win the primary against the incumbent republican, a life-long resident, but thought he could win the democrat slot. Sure enough he went on to win the democratic primary and then beat the republican incumbent with the support of democrats and just enough republican crossovers. Did I mention that he’s also a very pragmatic man?

The point of that story is to show that people can label themselves however they like, but it is their actions and their viewpoints that define who they really are. That is why it is ludicrous when people point to Colin Powell as a ‘republican’ supporter of Barack Obama, or as a ‘republican’ who rails against Rush Limbaugh or defends the biased judicial decisions of Sonia Sotomayor. Gee, can I just start calling myself the Queen of Texas?

What troubles me most is the belief by Powell and the press that they can sell this notion of Powell as just a disaffected ‘republican’ to the rest of us. Have we really become such a nation of non-thinkers that we would believe a supporter of the far-left Barack Obama is truly a republican? 

Like everything else these days, it makes no sense at all. 

For me the most maddening thing about the Obama Administration, aside from the fact that they’re ruining the country, is their assumption that we’re all idiots. Case in point: their attempt to excuse Sonia Sotomayor's bigoted statement about white males as just a, “poor choice of words.”  Please tell me, Robert Gibbs, what would be a better way to say that being a Latino woman makes you a better judge than a white male? 

Ordinarily when someone uses a poor choice of words this indicates that they stand by the meaning of what they said, they just wish they had said it differently.   In Sotomayor’s case, for example, a poor choice of words might have been, “…a Latino woman… would reach a better conclusion than some honky.”  

The Obama Administration, by purposely misdiagnosing the problem with what Sotomayor said, is hoping we’ll forget about her racist remarks. Since Obama voters aren’t known for their intellect, and since many of them see nothing wrong with bigotry when it’s aimed at white males, the “poor choice of words” ruse will probably work on them. But conservatives should do everything in their power to make it clear that Obama and his cohorts can’t fool all of us.

If you want try to gain some insight into the thought processes of the Left, the first thing you should do is go to your local middle schools and high schools and observe the behavior you see there. Young people, especially teens and pre-teens are highly motivated by how they appear to others, and this is the same for the Left. Ideally, as people mature they become less concerned with show and more concerned with substance. In the case of far left liberals, however, this maturing process never occurs, and the ‘green’ fad is perfect proof of this.

As a woman who loves decorating magazines I have long been disgusted by the ‘green’ movement, not because I don’t care about the environment but because of the ridiculous farce that it is. Here’s a typical article: Hollywood couple buys an older home in a canyon near L.A. and embarks on a ‘green’ renovation. They tear down most of the 4,000 square foot existing home in order to increase its size to a more ‘livable’ 8,000 square feet. They take two years to redo every surface in the home with the help of a multitude of workmen using loads of energy; they buy all new furniture and appliances and incorporate a 40,000 gallon heated pool. Then they pat themselves on the back because they used countertops made from recycled diamonds and solar heat for the pool (when it’s warm enough to do so). It’s a joke. They are treated as heroes in these magazines, setting the example for the rest of us slobs. In the meantime average Americans use far less energy in their homes and don’t throw away usable items every few years to redecorate, but they receive no recognition at all.

That, in a nut shell, is the way of the Left. Welcome back to high school.

A favorite question in political interviews these days is, “Do you hope Obama succeeds?” Rush Limbaugh has been blasted by the left-wing media for answering truthfully that he hopes Obama fails, a claim that he reiterated and expanded upon on his radio show today. His comments will certainly re-ignite the indignation of his left-wing foes and even some on the right who have taken to sing-songing that they hope Obama succeeds so that they can appear to be above petty politics.

My own contention is this: it’s a dumb question. The reason it’s dumb is because the answer depends upon how you define “success.” Whether or not something is a success should be determined based upon what the original intent was, right? For example, if you’re a magician trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat but instead you pull out a chicken, the trick was a failure from the magician’s point of view even if some people still thought it was a good trick. 

When we evaluate our desire for Obama to succeed, first we have to look at his intent. What is Obama trying to do? Well, it should be abundantly clear to everyone by now that he is trying to move this country in a leftward, more socialistic direction. The “stimulus” bill alone shows where Obama’s true priorities lie. Taking advantage of the panic mentality brought on by our financial crisis he’s hurried to pass a bill that contains tons of spending for pet democrat projects and government expansion but that has very little in the way of stimulating tax cuts.  Furthermore, his co-opting of the census shows, not surprisingly, that he plans to govern in the same way he rose to power:  through slick political maneuvering. Brace yourselves for more such maneuvering as he addresses the issues of illegal aliens and congressional representation for the District of Columbia, just to start with.

So if you’re asked, “Do you hope Obama succeeds?” don’t confuse Obama’s definition of success with your own. Like Limbaugh, I define success for the U.S. to be the preservation of the principles and systems that have made this country the great nation that it is: Individual liberty, adherence to our brilliant constitution, strong national defense, fairness in our justice system, and respect for the rules of democracy. As Obama strives to “change” all that, no – I do not wish him to succeed.

Why do people like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Gary Condit and others bother to hide their extra-marital affairs? Answer: because they know that the public – republicans and democrats alike - will disapprove of their behavior.  In fact they know that such revelations could seriously impact their chances for being or staying elected. Thus, when I hear the increasingly invoked, “It’s a personal issue” strategy, it’s pretty clear to me that the majority of Americans disagree.

Anyone who is in a position to influence public policy is fair game to be questioned about their own marital fidelity. It is our right, as the public, to ask this question in order to have a clear understanding of how these public servants regard the sanctity of marriage as well as to gain some valuable insight into their character and judgment. After all politicians can say whatever they want, and indeed some will say anything in order to get elected; but actions speak louder (and truer) than words. Once the question has been asked they can always refuse to answer. This is their right. Voters can then make up their own minds as to whether they will elect someone who has a problem with answering that question. That is their right.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager is now complaining that Edwards’ lie about his affair early in the primaries resulted in votes that he might otherwise not have had, and surely he is right.  Edwards’ own efforts to conceal the affair were paramount to acknowledging that he knew it would hurt him with voters.  He painted a false picture of the kind of person he really was just as if he had, for instance, claimed to be pro-choice when he was really pro-life. That, my friends, is fraud.

Say whatever you want about the Left, they know how to play the political game. In the battle of politics they are the sneaky guerilla fighters whose only rule is that there are no rules. They’ll do whatever they need to in order to win, and if that means fighting dirty then so be it.

Back in 2000 we had the spectacle of Al Gore challenging the results of his lost bid for the presidency and trying to win by selectively recounting ballots only in democrat-majority precincts. When that tactic failed democrats made unsubstantiated claims of voter intimidation and malfunctioning voter equipment. With all the integrity of the classic sore loser, Gore and company have been claiming ever since that George Bush is an illegitimate president.

This country paid a huge price for Gore’s hissy fit. We’ve spent billions to replace voting machines that weren’t broken, bitterness in the black community was artificially inflamed by erroneous claims of disenfranchisement, our unity as Americans was damaged with false claims of Bush’s illegitimacy, and every election is now circumspect whether there is good reason or not. In the eyes of a liberal democrat though, no price is too much for the rest of us to pay if it might buy them the power they seek.

Now, with the John Edward’s scandal unfolding, we can clearly see the price that Bill Clinton exacted from us when he tried to escape the public’s rightful condemnation by proclaiming that his extra-marital dalliances were a ‘personal’ issue. “It’s a personal issue,” has now become the first defense of democrat politicians and the battle cry of their defenders. The end game is to make personal character an irrelevant issue in politics – at least for democrats - and to try and portray the rest of us as petty busybodies for caring about it.  Alas, in the Lefts’ quest to win at any cost they have led their followers to believe that moral behavior is more than we have a right to expect from those who would lead this nation. 

In a time when voters are free to choose a president because they like his toothy smile or hip sunglasses, it is truly audacious to tell us that the issue of marital fidelity is out of bounds.  

As a sideline to the fight for the presidency we have the enigma of Michelle Obama: A highly paid lawyer, educated at Princeton and Harvard and potentially first lady of the United States of America. You might think that someone with her autobiography would look upon such a life with wonder and gratitude. Instead, seemingly oblivious to her status as living proof of the American dream, she derides this country for her inability to be proud of it. 

Here’s what she should have said: 

“I have been fortunate to live in a country that truly is the land of opportunity. Americans, as a nation, have worked and sacrificed to overcome the natural tendency people have to separate themselves by color, by race or by culture, and to discriminate against or distrust those whom we see as different from ourselves. It is a perpetual struggle fueled largely by human nature, and although we sometimes fail on an individual level, we have made great strides as a nation. For this I think we should all be proud.”

Had she expressed this type of sentiment and shown an understanding and appreciation for the complex, human struggles that America has risen above, she would have earned the respect and fondness of the American public on both sides of the aisle. Instead, her comments and attitude betray the sniffy, scolding mindset that is the essence of left-wing thinking.

So while their might once have been a time when we could thoughtfully consider Obama’s book in the context of his life’s experiences, perhaps balanced by his actions, now I can only take a sort of cynical pleasure in seeing the tables turned for a change. In the words of infamous lefties Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright: “The chickens have come home to roost.”

In Mary Grabar’s March 30, 2008 column at TH, “The Letter “A,” Spitzer, and the Misrepresentation of Puritanism,” she delved into the public’s reaction to the Elliott Spitzer scandal and the inevitable misplaced comparisons to Hester Prynne’s treatment at the hands of the Puritans in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter.

The defense of public officials like Spitzer and Bill Clinton, et al, exposes one of the many problems with the way liberals think. They seem incapable of making the distinction between branding a private citizen with the letter ‘A,’ and the reasonable expectation that the people chosen to govern us will behave with the integrity worthy of their office and, at the very least, within the confines of the law. 

No one has suggested that Spitzer or Clinton, et al, be branded, shunned or otherwise formally punished by society for their adultery (breaking the law, well that’s a separate matter). Indeed if we look at Bill Clinton today he’s not exactly hiding away in shame, is he? His ceremonious, post-Monica life belies this picture of puritanical vengeance that the Left pretends is taking place. The same will be true for Spitzer, once he gets past the legal repercussions of his actions.

The fact is, to our credit we are a nation that learns from its mistakes. We don’t brand people for adultery or burn ‘witches’ at the stake any more. But rather than acknowledge and be satisfied with this correction, the Left, in its infinite wisdom, would like to take us to the opposite extreme. Now we are told that we are bad to impose any moral standards whatsoever, even upon those whom we elect to govern us. 

No one is entitled to hold public office. Serving as president, governor or other high office is a privilege that only a tiny fraction of us will ever be honored with. Revoking that privilege merely places the individual back into the general population with the rest of us. Why this is seen as some terrible, mid-evil punishment, rather than a logical response to an official’s misconduct or poor judgment, makes no sense to any one but a liberal.

In the wake of the Elliott Spitzer/prostitute situation we are hearing the expected chorus of liberals, and a few overly zealous Christians, opine that we should not sit in judgment of him. Indeed Spitzer himself started it by defiantly proclaiming his actions to be a “private matter.” Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all shield ourselves from the judgment of others by simply invoking our right to privacy? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

In the words of our former first lady, Hillary, let’s all “take a deep breath,” and consider the real meaning of that phrase, ‘judge not lest ye be judged.’  I find it incredibly naïve and patently ridiculous that some take this to literally mean we shouldn’t form an opinion about people’s behavior. Does anyone really believe this is possible? Do we not all form opinions – or make judgments – all day long about the way people act, what they say, what they do, etc…?

‘Judge not lest ye be judged,’ is good advice, but just for a moment let’s show enough wisdom to understand what it really means.  Clearly it is a warning to people to not take it upon themselves to be the judge AND JURY. In other words, it is not up to us as individuals (or as a mob) to mete out someone’s punishment. In the Spitzer case, no one is suggesting that he be lynched, stoned or cast from society. And for the record, demanding his resignation is not a punishment. He is not entitled to be governor unless the people want him to be, and they no longer do.

Yes, we should all be mindful of our own behavior before we point the finger at someone else. But public officials must understand that they are in a unique position of responsibility that means their behavior will be held to a higher level of scrutiny. If they can’t live up to the scrutiny, then they shouldn’t seek these positions.