This is perhaps the greatest thing you’ll see today. Hilarious.

|

I had a meeting until about 10 p.m. last night so I got to catch the results as they came in. I heard Obama and McCain’s speeches last night on the way home and was somewhat surprised when I turned on the TV and Obama had not won California. Here are my thoughts on both races:

Republican

As a registered Republican, my caucus in Kansas is not until this weekend. Since it’s looking more and more like Mitt Romney is going to drop out of the race, I’m not sure I’m going to participate any more. Romney has been my favorite Republican, particularly since the Florida debates, but unfortunately, he has not resonated with Republicans, who are not voting for him for two reasons I can think of:

1. They want to say they voted for a winner. As McCain gains momentum, it is difficult to stop him.
2. He’s Mormon.

The second part is the one thing that no one is talking about, but I think that we are ignorant to think that it isn’t a factor, particularly in a lot of these close races. McCain has been portrayed as temperamental, the anti-conservative, and frankly, as of late, a little smug.

Mitt Romney looks presidential. Is that why people don’t like him? Is this the year of the atypical candidate? I felt like the back-room deal that was brokered in West Virginia was a dirty trick by the McCain camp, one that the Straight Talk Express used to be above. Apparently, it’s politics as usual with John McCain. I don’t trust Mike Huckabee as far as I can throw him. If those two run on the same ticket, I’ll be hard-pressed not to vote for a Democrat, unless of course that Democrat is Hillary Clinton.

Democratic

Barack Obama won 13 states last night (as of writing this, the New Mexico results still had yet to be determined, but Obama is ahead), while Billary won 8 states. However, she won the massive states of California and New York, which was what she was aiming for.

The interesting thing about this race is we’re now looking at a very interesting situation. The Republican party has somewhat congealed behind one candidate (despite the desires of ultra-conservatives who don’t like McCain), while the Democratic race may not be decided for a couple more months.

The discrepancy between Obama and Clinton is one that was very easy to see. Clinton won the coastal states, which solidified her as a typical Democrat - one who doesn’t care deeply about the flyover states in the Midwest. Obama, however, managed to get great turnout in states like Kansas, because he is a man that people can believe in. He inspires young voters and non-voters to believe that their vote actually matters. That is a good thing.

This is a defining moment for the election. This is where the Democratic party can either screw it up badly or become the party of the people. Barack Obama is a man of the people; at least he seems that way. He inspires folks like me, lifelong Republicans to reconsider who he’ll vote for in November. America needs the inspiring message that he can bring. They certainly don’t need 8 more years of a Clinton in the White House and politics as usual.

If the Democratic party wants to win in November, they should do their best to stay above the fray of dirty politics that have clouded the Republican side as of late. The longer it stays close like this, though, the more I expect Billary’s claws to come out. As many saw in South Carolina, that doesn’t bode well for the Clintons. We’ll see in the upcoming weeks what happens, but it is certainly shaping up to be another exciting election year.

|

I’d like to participate in both the Democratic and Republican caucuses in Kansas. Since the Democratic one is tomorrow and the Republican one is on Saturday, I can physically do it, but is it ethical?

I am a registered Republican, but Democratic caucus information states that you can change your registration on-site. I’m assuming the same is true for Republicans.

|

Up to this point, I’ve waited a while to comment on the presidential race of 2006-2008. Up to this point, both parties have been posturing and positioning and jockeying and not saying much of anything. There have been lots and lots of debates (and I’ve watched some of them), but up until the Iowa caucus, much of the rhetoric has been pretty boring - more laying tracks than talking about issues.

Saturday night’s back-to-back Republican and Democratic debates on ABC News were the best so far. The format - which basically involved Charles Gibson asking questions and then sitting back and letting the candidates respond in an organic, almost discussion-like manner. I loved watching it. Alli and I watched all 4 hours of the debates and they really were fascinating. It was almost as if all of the protective plastic of politics had been peeled back and for once, people started to answer questions honestly.

Of the Republicans, it was nice to see John McCain show some fire. Giuliani was much more cogent than I’ve seen him in the past. I felt like many of them seemed to take some shots at Mitt Romney and it began to look like they are threatened by him. I still am not down with Huckleberry and I’m convinced that Fred Thompson does not really want the nomination, but his results in Iowa forced him into focusing a little more on his campaign. Ron Paul continues to separate himself from the rest of the group. When the New Hampshire results come in, we’ll learn a little more.

Of the four Democrats, I thought that their “random” seating assignments were more than appropriate. John Edwards won that debate hands down. He separated himself from the rest of the group more than he has in the past and by aligning himself with Obama, he’s poised to make a serious move in the coming weeks and months. I think that an Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama ticket could be formidable come November. I like Bill Richardson, but I don’t really like his cozying up to Hillary, who I still can’t stand.

No one has won my vote yet. As the field is whittled down, it will be easier to make my decision. I have people I’m leaning toward right now. I’m hoping to have a better idea before the Kansas Republican Caucus on February 9 so I can participate.

|

No, not the movie.

I’m talking about the tendency of the media to classify someone as a “blue-state” person or a “red-state” person.

That’s unfortunate.

See, I live in the bluest of the blue states, Kansas. I voted for George Bush because, to me, he was really the better choice of two candidates. John Kerry never inspired anyone and so I voted for who I thought would be the best for the job out of the two top candidates.

There’s something inherently wrong with my reasoning, though: I’m purple.

I’m fiscally conservative (low taxes, small government, etc), but socially, I am at the very least a moderate, but I’m likely much more a little left of center.

Therein lies my dilemma (as well as that of many other people). Where is our political party? Over the past several months, the optimism that I maintained throughout the 2004 Presidential Race has been worn down. I realize that President Bush is probably doing the best he can, but the problem is that he (as well as any other president) usually has to answer to a strong lobby by his political party’s strongest proponents. For Republicans, that happens to be the religious right of the country. Now, I consider myself a part of the religious part, but why do we have to be considered “The Religious Right”. There are a lot of people that I know who are what might be considered a part of “The Spiritual Left.” Do I hold my own Christianity above theirs? Absolutely not.

Until we are provided with a viable, middle-of-the-road political party, there will continue to be the bickering and name-calling that exists in Washington today. A third voice needs to be heard…that of the level-headed, whose allegiance is not necessarily to lobbyists or interest groups, but to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

I think that I am young enough (29 this year) that it isn’t unreasonable for me to expect to see this come to fruition before I become an insignificant member of the polls. Unfortunately, the stranglehold on Washington by the red and blue parties doesn’t really allow for purple. Independents are looked down upon and have trouble gaining a large stage unless they are either completely loaded or completely crazy.

The question that remains is:

Why is it that our country only seems to function under a two-party system?

I can’t figure it out. This is AMERICA. The Land of Opporunity. The Melting Pot (mmm…fondue…). The Big Salad Bar. Isn’t it a bit near-sighted for the Powers That Be to think that we are all represented by two major political parties?

It just feels like there are large chunks of the country that are relatively ignored because their demographic just doesn’t fit into the system.

Until that happens, our country will continue to be sharply divided. I hope that someday we’ll see the end of that division.

|