The election process is winding down and if we are to believe the negative ads being bought by politicians, practically everyone running is a crook, a low life, unethical, untrustworthy, unreliable, a sell out to special interests, or just plain unworthy of being elected.

Some of the ads are bordering on slander, but it seems that candidates are fair game for undue and untrue criticism. It would be refreshing to see some law suits for slander and libel when the actual truth is revealed.

Of course, those who buy these ads are always upstanding, productive, trustworthy and guarantee that if elected they will solve all the problems that were caused by the other person, or at least, the party they represent. Some of the statements of blame really stretch the truth and require a cynical imagination to accept.

How many candidates have a set plan for solving the present problems? We hear promises, but few solutions. Details are lacking when it comes to a battle plan if and when the candidate is elected. The old saying about talk being cheap doesn’t hold true when looking at the money the candidates spend to get out their positive message and the negative one about their opponents. What’s this world coming to when you can’t have complete faith in a politician’s promise?

Millions of dollars are spent to get a job that pays a six figure income, but for some reason, the special interests are especially interested in funding the friends they have in office. They are also very generous when it comes to financing the negative ads against the other party. Well, we are supposed to get the best government money can buy.

It is ALL about power and money. Few politicians can say they are not grateful to their contributors. The McCain-Feingold bill was supposed to put all candidates on a more even level, but there are so many loopholes in it that is has actually become an “incumbent’s protection bill.”

The heavy hitters in the special interest class have found a multitude of ways to get the necessary funding to their favorites. The media still has carte blanche in their commentary and endorsements. The special interests have to be more creative in their approach to getting their message out, but the big guys don’t seem to be more than slightly inconvenienced in doing so.

It still comes down to the voter to pull the lever and it would appear that the negative ads work. Dumb people look at political commercials the same way they absorb the messages by commercial companies. They buy slogans, believe what they want to believe, and make their choices based on absorption of political propaganda.

Someone once said that people choose politicians by the political ads the same way that a mother looks at ads for diapers and buys the brand that has the best appeal. That sounds like a very good metaphor — comparing many politicians to diapers. Think about it.

It would seem that in a country of our size with educational opportunities for all, that the electorate would be more intelligent and more independent in their thinking before going to the voting booth and pulling a lever. Perhaps someday that will happen before it is too late.

It would seem that voting for people who are charged with making life-changing laws and rules would be based on ability, rather than popularity or perception. There is a lot of smoke and mirror deception in the political process and unfortunately, a majority of people will buy the product by appearance and the commercials.

It would seem that many people give more thought when voting for the American Idol than when voting for president or representatives. What a pity. It is no wonder we get the government we deserve.

What happens when a reporter isn’t in the tank for Obama? What happens when a reporter actually confronts the Dems with a tough question?

Joe Biden was finally asked a question about his “crisis comments”. How did Biden react? He got mad.

How did the Obama campaign react? They are not going to answer questions from this reporter or TV station anymore! (Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden)

Freedom of the press? The Dems believe in freedom of the press as long as you are asking softball questions:

Hey Sen. Obama, what’s your favorite baseball team, the Cubs or Sox?

Hey Sen. Biden, what’s your favorite train ride? the morning or evening shuttle?

The Obama campaign doesn’t like to answer questions.

Let me tell you this: If elected, Obama is going to be very secretive and will not have a good relationship with the media. Eventually, every criticism of Obama will be answered with a “you must be racist”.

Again, they don’t like questions, specially those questions that challenge them!

If ever there was a good reason to be a true Conservative, the current financial debacle is the finest example one could have. There are politicians who call themselves Conservatives and some of them really are, but as a group, the DC so-called conservatives are only paying lip service in order to secure votes.

Several years ago, Newt Gingrich and a group of Republicans drew up the “Contract With America.” It was a good contract promising lower taxes, smaller government and a better control over spending. The American people bought it and the Republicans took over Congress.

Then, the power and money factor entered into the mix and while they lowered taxes, they increased spending, expanded government and threw the country deeper in debt. The corruption and scandals finally made the public angry and they threw out many of those in office. The war in Iraq, initiated by either a mistake of judgment or an outright lie in order to protect oil fields gave another reason to change the balance of power.

Democrats promised change and there was change. One of the biggest changes was the cost of energy. The price of a gallon of gasoline doubled during the two years they controlled Congress. Also, the housing market took a nosedive and the stock market and banks hit bottom.

The Republicans agreed with the Democrats on the typical Democrat solution. They threw money at it. They started with a $700 billion bailout, but that wasn’t enough, so they added another $130 billion of pork into the debt that, as always, has to be paid by the taxpayers.

The voters are supposed to be grateful for the way the politicians “solved” the problem that was started and grown by both parties. The Democrats started the real estate boom by mandating sub-prime loans to people who couldn’t afford to maintain payments, and the Republicans, seeing a wonderful opportunity to make rich people richer went along with the program.

The results were predictable years ago, but as long as the people in power were making profits, the gravy train kept chugging along. Now the train has been derailed, but the engineers are still traveling in style. They get to keep the millions of dollars of their ill-gotten gains and have the audacity to publicly and defiantly state that they “earned ever dollar of it.” So did Willie Sutton when he robbed banks.

Politicians are adept and skillful when it comes to making promises. Even when there are no apples for the pie, they keep promising that if you elect, or re-elect them, the country will be safe, secure and prosperous. Those who vote for the Republicans or Democrats just encourage those who are incompetent, ignorant, or just plain dishonest. Granted, there are some in the mix who are not of that ilk.

The only way to get real change in government is to change the people in it or to change their attitude. Fear is a great motivator when it comes to attitude adjustment and not voting on the Republican or Democrat lines can send the most powerful of messages. Politicians know how to count.

The pure Conservative message is important. The true Conservative believes in family values, low taxes, small government, living within their means and making people responsible for their decisions and actions. The true Conservatives also believe in working for what they have and not depending on government handouts.

They believe in America for Americans and that minding one’s own business is a good thing. We don’t have to get involved in other countries’ problems and we should go back to domestic manufacturing instead of shipping jobs off shore. They believe in becoming energy independent and keeping the money and jobs in America rather than sending it to foreign lands to make sheiks and dictators wealthy.

If enough voters in America agree, they should vote for the true Conservatives and send the message to the Republicans and Democrats that the citizens want the kind of change that will keep America great. We are a generous nation, but we don’t want the politicians to give away that greatness to foreign interests. We don’t want one world government, and it seems like the politicians in power are pushing us to be part of that concept. We fought for independence and want to keep it.

For the voters who agree it is time to be defiant. The best way to do that is to vote on row D. That’s the Conservative line. Remember, row D as in Defiant. We get the government we deserve.

Before I share my comments on Sec. Powell’s endorsement, let me make this perfectly clear, as former Pres. Nixon used to say:

I love Sec. Powell.

He is an American hero.

He could have been the first black president in 1996 or 2000.

I would have been very proud to vote for him.

So what’s happened to a nice man like Powell? I don’t know and I don’t like it.

Frankly, I heard about Powell endorsing Obama months ago. Perhaps, Powell had second thoughts after Obama’s disastrous performance following the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Which Barack Obama is former Sec. Powell endorsing?

Is it the one who opposed the Iraq War as a very liberal state senator representing a very liberal Chicago district? What profile of courage is it to tell left wing constituents like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers what they want to hear?

More importantly, is it the one who opposed the surge? Didn’t Obama display incredibly bad judgement on the surge? How can Powell say that Gen Petraeus has done a great job? How can he support Obama, the same man who didn’t want to give Gen Petraeus a chance to finish the job?

Is it the one who has been so wrong on Al Qaeda? Obama does not understand the war on terror, except when he wants to invade Pakistan or send troops to Afghanistan. Obama needs to read world history and learn something about how the British and Soviets got bogged down in an Afghan land war.

Afghanistan is a long term project. It will take a generation of US and international support, primarily economic.

Like a lot of liberals, Obama wants to sound tough by saying that he will go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Let me say it again: Obama and the Dems do not have the stomach to fight the kind of war that they are talking about. The liberal anti-war Dems will turn on Obama as soon as Afghanistan starts costing lives and money.

The Power Line has some great news about the war that we are winning:

“Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that on September 10, four of al Qaeda’s five principal web sites went dark. They have been disabled ever since.

The result has been a crippling of al Qaeda’s ability to communicate with, and direct the activities of, its members and adherents around the world.

Qaeda’s already-low ability to carry out attacks in the West has been degraded even further.

Barack Obama likes to say that al Qaeda is stronger than at any time since before September 11, but that is silly.

In fact, the Bush administration’s devastation of al Qaeda’s organization has been one of its most notable successes, even if it is one that voters are in no mood to acknowledge.”

Why did this happen? Because Pres. Bush went after Al Qaeda everywhere, including Iraq!

It happened because Pres. Bush listened to Sec. Powell rather than a state senator named Barack Obama!

Is Powell endorsing the candidate who speaks about “hope and change” without specifics?

Is Powell caught up in the “personality cult” and all of the garbage about a transformational figure?

Does Sec. Powell fall for all of the “man of the world” nonsense? (Obama vows to ‘change the world’…)

Our friend Bill Katz of “Urgent Agenda” got it right:

“We seem to be creating a lot of halos these days, with very little substance underneath.”

What about all of that negative campaigning that upsets Powell?

He is right. Our politics is too negative. Unfortunately, we don’t hear any outrage when Obama’s people engage in negative politics, too.

First, of all it was the Dems who tried to push Obama as a Muslim. Where did The Drudge Report get that photo of Obama?

Second, it was Obama who played the race card with his “dollar bill” comments. Did Powell say anything about Obama’s race cards?

Third, it was Obama who refused to talk about his relationship with Bill Ayers. A few months ago, he was a friend down the neighborhood. Now, we know that it was a lot closer than that.

On Ayers, Rev. Wright, Rezko, the issue is Obama’s credibility not his associations. Obama has never come clean about these associations. Let’s hope that Rezko doesn’t come back to haunt Obama’s presidency.

Again, which Obama is Powell endorsing

Frankly, I find Sec. Powell’s comments quite disappointing.

I’m tired of this narrative that we are “negative”.

Again, who is outspending McCain on negative ads? Have you seen the one running during the baseball playoffs that McCain supported tax cuts for the rich?

Will Sec. Powell’s endorsement help? Not much. It may turn a vote here and there but most Americans understand that McCain owns foreign policy.

McCain has been endorsed by Sec. Kissinger, Sec. Shultz, Sec. Baker and Sen Haig. (I may have missed another one!)

Finally, did I tell you that the RCP average now shows Obama only 5 points ahead? The trend is that McCain is gaining and Obama dropping.

We will be happy to welcome Sec. Powell back to our side. We will forgive and welcome him back to the party of Lincoln where he belongs!

We know change is the only constant in the universe. The planet heats and cools in a cyclical manner. The earth’s life cycle began as a tropical jungle which is why we find oil fields in the artic. They came from jungle vegetation and dinosaurs that lived and died there.

We also had an ice age 10,000 years ago and the earth then warmed and the glaciers disappeared. There was a mini ice age during the middle ages and the world again warmed. Alarmists are crying that we will be destroyed by man-made global warming, and we must reduce our fossil fuel emissions.

Not all scientists agree with this assessment, but it makes good fodder for political speeches and media commentary. This is a dynamic planet and those changes came and went long before the industrial revolution. Politics is similar to the planet when it comes to change.

Politicians promise change. This is not a local or recent phenomenon because despots and dictators have used this technique to gain power. One of the more recent examples was Fidel Castro. He promised change when Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar was the leader in Cuba. The people believed what Castro told them and supported his efforts. Fidel Castro gave Cuba change. People often get the government they deserve.

In the eighteenth century a few people in the colonies got together. They didn’t like the way King George imposed his will (and taxes) on the citizens. They began a revolution to get a different and better form of government. It started with the Declaration of Independence and ended with a revolution. The colonists won.

They then wrote a Constitution that was one of the finest documents since Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from the mountain. The patriots gave us a Republic with the admonition “if you can keep it.”

Generally speaking there are several forms of government like monarchy, dictatorships, socialism, and democracies. America has done well with democracy whereby the people are supposed to have the power and the representatives are supposed to be servants to the people.

However, there was a great change from we were “being represented.” We then got the professional politician who stopped serving to “do his duty” and decided to make it a career path. The attitude shifted from a focus of serving the people to one of gaining power and money. This is where the political parties “do their thing.”

The candidates will tell the voters whatever will get them elected. They will promise actions and programs that have little chance of being enacted, but if the public believes it is possible, generally that person will be victorious in the election.

Politics has become a fine art. The successful politician generally stays in office because of Gerrymandering, voter’s habits, bringing back pork to the district, taking credit when things go well, and blaming the opposing party when disaster strikes.

Consider the political speeches and commercials flooding the media. The politicians have added another factor with the negative ads. Generally, it is the concept of: “Why bother talking about issue and principles when my opponent is far worse than I am.” “Vote for me because I am less incompetent or less of a crook.”

Of course, that is just the subliminal message and supposed to be subtle. Once in a while they will talk about what they have done to deserve support and what they want to do. Intelligent voters will pay attention to the positive ads, and consider the candidates who pay for the negative ads to be less then deserving of election.

The problem is that not enough people will vote on principles. They are easily influenced by past habits, fine speeches with style and little substance and brain washing by deceptive commercials.

However, sometimes, people will get angry enough to make some changes in their habits and vote independently. Let’s hope that this is the year to vote principles over politics.