My life is getting increasingly busy. It's an election year and my candidates are getting restless. To keep my Blog goin' I'm simply going to comment on what I see in the paper each day. Let me know what you think!

Is it me, or does the execution of Clarence Ray Allen sound like we're putting a lame dog down. I have blogged on the death penalty before. I don't support it anymore and this is another example of why. He was sentenced in 1982 - 23 years ago. I'd rather he took his last breath naturally laying in his cell. Not in the humane way he's going to go.

We got some Comet dust - That's just cool. I support NASA. Imagine for a second what our lives would be like if we didn't have the space program.

I bet the community in Florida where the two bat wielding boys grew up has a baseball program that gives everyone a trophy for participating. There just aren't enough consequences for youth today. They think they can get away with murder.

Seeingred - you kick butt. 70 comments to your Blog. That's somethin' You should run for office one day and your husband is right. Lose the picture. Remember John Hinckley's crush on Jodi Foster prompted him to shoot Reagan. There are a lot of nutjobs out there.

Happy Monday!

A liberal friend sent me this. It made me laugh so I thought I'd post it.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff has reached a plea deal with the Justice Department that could net him up to ten years in prison but before the left decides to pounce on this as another victory they better look at their own campaign contributions.

Abramoff wasn't just a supporter of the Right. He may have had conservative congressional targets but as a lobbyist you must work both sides of the fence.

I suspect that a lot of the Washington DC Elite are feeling like Hollywood did when Heidi Fliess copped a plea. Very, very nervous.

And they should. I'm a lobbyist and I can tell you that the days of doing business like Abramoff did business are gone. Sure some folks will still get away with a bribe here and there but it's very rare.

In today's world, whether your lobbying congress or your town board, influence isn't simply purchased. A good lobbyist will garner public support, demonstrate the facts and make a strong argument for their client. I'm not saying that campaign contributions don't help get you in the door. I'm saying once you get in you better have your ducks in a row.

I do not support limiting the amount of money people can give a candidate. I do support the full disclosure laws. They have brought about much of this change and that's a good thing. Unfortunately the public sees a $5,000 contribution and thinks that it buys a vote. Nope, not any more. More on that thought later.

So, it's not another piece of the "Great GOP Downfall" the left would like to see. A lot of people on both sides of the fence recieved money from this man. Everyone should be worried. Especially if your up in November.

Happy New Year!

p.s. to see a list of people who received checks there is a graphic on the left of this news story: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/politics/03cnd-abramoff.html?ex=1293944400&en=7d20defb9366ed1f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I, unfortunately, cannot take credit for the following. It was writen by a good friend who finally had to set the record straight on Iraq with his liberal friends. It created quite a dialog via e-mail and so I thought I would post it here for your insights. Enjoy.

it begins:

To my left-leaning friends:

I've stayed quiet for a year on the Iraq issue, but I can't anymore: I am completely bewildered by the average democrat's position on Iraq. Smart observers know that a pull-out would invite disaster and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, especially on the eve of the largest democratic election in the history of the Middle East. Sunnis are engaged in the process, and afterwards I expect that there will be a legitimate process-oriented government whereby moderates can begin to win the "war of ideas" within Islam, which Thomas Friedman has argued will be required before terrorism ultimately gets defeated from within Islam (an idea to which I fully subscribe).

So why all the hand-wringing from the left? On the evidence, it seems to me the answer is either one of two things: first, in large part the left truly doesn't want us to win this war and so is comfortable with language in that regard (such as Dean's prediction that we are losing and cannot win it), or two the left cannot stand the idea that we'd be unpopular with anyone, for any length of time, in order to achieve a difficult, historically-unprecedented outcome; this is why Americans (not only the left in this case) have become so pessimistic about the war over the summer. History has shown - in the U.S. and elsewhere since - that this process is always messy, bloody and prone to subsequent revision (anyone recall the Articles of Confederation of 1781?).

So for those who do not want Americans to pay the price of democracy in Iraq today (alongside the Iraqis, who pay an even dearer price), what is the source of this unwillingness: it is either ignorance of history (which breeds an unwillingness to stomach the unpopularity and missteps), lack of belief in the cause (this is an illegal war, or perhaps one just doesn't believe Middle Easterners deserve democracy), lack of belief in the outcome (Iraqis are incapable of democracy), or perhaps more insidious and disingenuous reasons: 2006 elections are coming and politics is not served well by a country united on the Iraq issue; or, anger at the reasons we went to war in the first place (yet remain irrelevant as to what to do now).

The only intellectually astute voice I've heard from the left is Joe Lieberman, who acknowledges that a pull-out is an idiotic idea and one that ignores the advice of those on the ground in Iraq, including the Iraqis (Sunnis and Shiites alike). And what reply does he get? Scorn and derision from his own party, which is so bereft of any workable strategy of its own that it has to condemn anyone that seems to be validating the one President Bush has chosen.

It is easy for me to look at the Republican party and say that the party positions on abortion, intelligent design, deficit management, Greenhouse Gas policy, and church/state separation are A) stupid, B) uninformed, C) destructive and D) out-of-touch with many in their own party. When it comes to the Iraq issue, however, the Democrats are downright embarrassing in their idiocy. Can someone persuade me that this isn't the case with a specific set of alternatives that we aren't already pursuing?

Robb

I write this as someone who recently changed his viewpoint on the death penalty.

I used to adamantly support it. Kill the criminal bastards; send a message that it will happen to others who are thinking about killing someone.

But the death penalty has simply become state assisted suicide. It's different for Tookie, he wants to live and has run out of options.

The act of carrying out the death penalty has also become sanitized. no more firing squad, electric chair, or gas chamber. Now a doctor puts a needle in your, you fall asleep. That's it.

I'd rather see'em rot in the hell of prison rather than get such humane treatment.

Sleep well Tookie!