Mr. Krauthammer hit a home run here.

This further shows our Democratic Party has been “hijacked” by a group called the Democratic National Committee, under the auspices of a Howard Dean.

Our entire Democratic Primary was absolutely flawed, and this “Un-Democratic Committee” let everything proceed as if everything was fine, and O.K.

One thing they could have controlled was what happened in Florida and Michigan, and I know there were additional irregularities as well.

I did the research on the Florida mess, and I will post my information in a week or so on that; but in summary it was the Republican controlled legislature and Republican Governor who forced through the decision to hold the primary one week earlier than it should have been. The people went and voted, and Howard Dean and his committee of sycophants all said nothing would count. Hillary Clinton won the primary vote there big time. Of course there was skullduggery there. Mr. Dean and his Washington Committee (since relocated to Chicago) were all in the tank for Mr. Obama. At the time, Hillary Clinton agreed to a revote, but Mr. Obama refused. Of course. He knew he would lose again. Note: I’ll post the whole story here in a week or so.

NEW SUBJECT: I commend the leadership here at PUMApac.org starting this NewDemocraticParty.org. We need that.

It’s time we the “people” take back the Democratic Party. We can do it now, and it can start right here under this new banner.

I am joining what I know will be many millions already in supporting a NEW Senator John McCain, and this great new dynamic Governor Sarah Palin, as the V.P. running mate. We are asking Senator McCain to give maximum attention to our economy. It is in a mess. I know all of us will be writing about that on these sites. We can not be a strong nation, with the condition we are in now. We can’t. More later.

And thank you all…. AND WELCOME please new PUMA friends. Let us hear from you. This is your site also.

Common Sense 12 or Common Sense Bruce

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Perfect Stranger
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 29, 2008

Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments — bearing even fewer witnesses.

When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.

Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama’s life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I’ve been with Barack Obama. We’ve toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever. Anything.

Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We’re all Democrats. He’s a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him — I am currently unavailable — to get Democratic things done. God bless America.

Clinton’s withholding the “I’ve come to know this man” was vindictive and supremely self-serving — but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn’t do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama’s character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.

Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that takes you only so far. It doesn’t take you to the public man, the national leader.

Who is to testify to that? Hillary’s husband on night three did aver that Obama is “ready to lead.” However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.

Obama’s vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron’s virtues, such as the fact that he had “reached across party lines to . . . keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.” But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.

Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama’s political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? “In fact,” reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, “the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of ‘partisan posturing’ ” — and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double-cross.

So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he’s out. Then there’s William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He’s out. Where are the others?

The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger — a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Read more from Charles Krauthammer at washingtonpost.com

YOU ARE ON TOP OF ISSUES! THANK YOU.
E-MAIL SENT..CAN’T GET INTO WEBSITE YET..
LOVE TO ALL PUMAS!

This is a history of the Dems since 1960. As an independent conservative (not a Bush or McCain fan), I found this very interesting. It helped me understand why all the Dems in my family and I left the party years ago. Many of you and I disagree on issues such as abortion and illegal immigration, but we can unite on the principles of our republic, the Constitution, one-person/one-vote, honesty and integrity, etc.

After reading about what happened during the caucuses and in Denver, I’d like to bring up something that concerns me about the Nov election. I lived in Chicago for 3+ years. I’ve seen Chicago politics in action. We will all have to be especially vigilant this year to be sure that all voters are REGISTERED US CITIZENS (and living ones at that). You may know the motto of the Chicago political machine: “Vote early and often.” Have a great Labor Day weekend! P.S. I like the Sarah Palin pick, too.

http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121944770970665183.html?mod=most_emailed_day

But I want to talk for a sec about…what’s in a name.

I certainly understand the urgency we now face to sever our ties from and to defeat the Obamacrats
this fall.

THAT not Obama Democrats is the term I have used all along because, from MY perspective, I’ve never considered the “followers” of Barack TRUE BLUE democrats in any way that I’d define us.

I would never have joined nor can I remain in a party that is ALLOWED to behave in this imperious manner.

Nor do I think they see themselves as democrats– not as we define ourselves

At least not those Utopian young ones who (even WITH The Tudors) don’t know enough history to realize that Thomas Moore MAY have invented the concept of Utopia, but he also BURNED questioning heritic Lutherans (who bore a likeness to PUMAs) at the stake–which kinda muddies the clarity of his vision to me…

That’s the Trouble with Obama styled Utopians. It’s all rapture and Euphoria unless you don’t happen to fit in or agree and then they…kill you.

(The older Obamacrat are more tragic to me–in a lala land of I Have a Dream fullfillment, they don’t seem to NOTICE that the kiddies are lining up behind…Wright and Farrakahn NOT Martin and JFK, And the Old Folk may have a tear in their nostalgic eye but the generation NEXT! internet meangurls and bullyboys have something more like a steely glint)

As some commentator mentioned, ALL the civil rights era set were openly weeping at the site of a black man running for president…

But Barack and Michelle’s sly ever shifting eyes were…dry. They are not living an American Dream, they are plotting a hostile takeover and have gotten closer than one would ever think…possible…by rubbing raw our fears and playing on our fondnesses.

All the while sending out signals of revolution that they THINK are too subtle for us old boomers to see. Like we never sent out any SIGNALS ourselves!
(we’d like our peace sign back please)

Raptorlike Republicans are FAR more VIGILANT and all they must do is make a slideshow of the Obama IMAGES; the third world dictator silkscreens, the new presidential seal, the world map with NO North America, the Camp Obama logo, the tickets with the inverted flag…torn straight from Leni Refienstahl’s storyboards

And something else that has alerted me…on those
comment sections where posters can declare political affiliation…have you noticed how many obama supporters declare NA…(not applicable?)

Obama voters say the Democrat designation is NOT applicable to them?

Then what were they DOING IN DENVER other than exploiting a sturdy construct that they will be more than willing to dismantle slash and burn (as they did to The Clintons) when (IF) they come to Power in November

I knew they were NEVER going to reconcile with the Clinton Camp quite simply because they won’t NEED the Clinton Camp–they are NOT democrats!

They are…Obamacrats…swearing allegiance to a MAN not a party or even a country.

Surely we pumas WILL work to defeat the current corrupt leadership of the DNC for I think ALL present agree that Howard and Nancy and Barack and Brazile (who I lay odds crafted the whole Obama Caper with her BFF Karl Rove)

But I question IF we must define ourselves as a NEW anything when WE have BEEN the backbone of the Democratic Party as long as we have been politically aware, in my case, fro 40 years! We BELONG TO one of the oldest continuous political parties in HISTORY

So, shouldn’t we…instead…rip the braids off Obama’s commander in chief shoulders and strip THE BRAVE NEW OBAMACRATS of the cynical USE of OUR long established franchise?

Shouldn’t we call ourselves the TRU BLU DEMOCRATS

Shouldn’t we force the Obamacrats OUT on the pavement to form their OWN party as THEY DEFINE IT

just wonder how long THE OBAMACRATS would last
out there all on their own…

Without the GOOD OLD Democratic Party.

People don’t want to waste their vote on a 3rd party canidate. My solution would be to change the election process. Allow a 1st and 2nd choice for all elected offices so people can vote 3rd party without wasting their votes. If no canitate get 50% of the vote, eliminate the least popular canidate and repeat the tally until someone wins.

Does anyone agree? The Dems and Reps would never allow this to happen though.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal call it a risky play to revitalize John McCain’s “maverick” image. Choosing Palin undercuts the argument that Barack Obama is too inexperienced, raising questions about John McCain’s age and judgment. But it could pay off: Palin–an NRA member and staunch pro-lifer–is energizing evangelicals and tempting Hillary Clinton voters to defect. An LAT analysis piece worries it’s a sign that McCain relies on short-sighted “gut-checks,” while an early version of the WSJ lead called it a “calculated bet.” It’s likely a bit of both–McCain’s a high-stakes gambler who knows the odds.

To continue reading, click here.

Barron YoungSmith is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.