After weeks of bashing Republican Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin over the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", it turns out both Obama and Biden voted AGAINST redirecting the project's funding, and both voted FOR the final legislation funding the bridge.

An added bit of hypocrisy can be found if you look closely -- another issue the Democrats have tried to use as an attack on the Bush administration is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet when given the chance, neither Obama nor Biden voted to send the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding to help the rebuilding of New Orleans.

But wait, it gets even better!  Biden, who continues to blow hot air about the bridge in Alaska, is responsible for $342 million in earmarks for Delaware, for things like an opera house and a water park. And the icing on the cake is -- can you guess? -- a bridge connecting two beachfront towns. The kicker? They already HAVE a bridge. A bridge that the head of the Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce says is just fine. And really, the bridge is just a shortcut anyway, since an extra 30 minutes is all it takes to get from one town to the other without using the bridge.

We've got bridges in dire need of repair in this nation, as recent tragedies have clearly demonstrated. Yet here comes Biden, deciding that HIS bridge gets priority despite the fact there's already a bridge that isn't in need of any immediate repairs.

Obama and Biden refused to redirect the "Bridge to Nowhere" funds when they had the chance, they refused to send the money to New Orleans instead, they voted to build the bride, and Biden himself has his own little bridge back home that is a complete waste of taxpayer money and is just one part of hundreds of millions of dollars in pork Biden sends to his state.

And yet these hypocrites still stand up in front of the American people and sling mud at Gov. Palin, still use their applause lines about the bridge in Alaska, and still spout off in disingenuous anger about "pork" and insist they will bring change to Washington. But Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain is the only one who has consistently refused to seek any pork projects for his home state of Arizona.

Bottom line: the Obama-Biden campaign will lie about anything and everything to get elected.

Senator Barack Obama claims he wasn't calling Governor Sarah Palin a "pig" with his remarks the other day. Judging from the audience reaction, Sen. Obama was the only one in the room who didn't make the connection between his remarks and Governor Palin's joke about hockey moms being pit-bulls with lipstick. Her remark got so much attention, it is unimaginable that it just never occurred to Obama that people would immediately connect his comments with Palin's.

Then, of course, Obama went on David Letterman's show last night and made a joke calling Palin the "lipstick" being applied to "the pig" John McCain. So as usual, the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too -- they expect to get away with slanderous remarks, to later deny the remarks were slanderous, and then make more slanderous jokes about the slanderous remarks. No doubt, anyone expressing further outrage over Obama's continued offensive jokes on Letterman's show will be met with more denials followed by more offensive wisecracks from the Democrats.

What surprises me is, nobody has mentioned that Obama's initial insulting remark about "lipstick on a pig" preceded yet another even more potentially crude and offensive bit of innuendo from Obama. Immediately after the "lipstick on a pig" slander, Obama made a remark about "old fish". Now, I'm not going to get into much detail explaining the obscene nature of the implied insult there, but I think everyone can pretty easily figure it out.

So, if Obama was indeed trying to make a not-so-subtle reference to Governor Palin with his "lipstick on a pig" remark, it seems to me that his very next comment about "old fish" has to be taken in the same light. And it is simply a disgusting way for a presidential candidate to conduct himself. Of course, disgusting behavior is nothing new for the Democrats, but this is really a new low even for them.

And even if we take Obama at his word -- a dangerous proposition, and not one I would ever recommend mind you -- then he was calling Palin nothing but "lipstick" and McCain the "pig", and further calling McCain "old" with the "old fish" insult. Right? I mean, whichever way Obama tries to spin it, either McCain was being called "old" and smelly, or Palin was being called a smelly fish. So which is it, Sen. Obama?

I'd also point out that, in Obama's version of events, him calling Palin "lipstick" still has rather overt sexist overtones. So she's just there to pretty things up, eh? Just comparing her to "makeup", right? Why not toss in a joke about shoe-shopping while you're at it, Senator? And really, we're supposed to think it's entirely appropriate for you to call Sen. McCain a "pig"? And "old"? And stinky? Really, you think that this spin on your slander makes it all acceptable?

Of course you do. Because how dare we even begin to question you, someone who lives so high above the rest of us unwashed masses down here on Earth, right? Palin's just some broad without substance and good for nothing but eye-candy, and McCain is just some old pig who smells bad, right Senator? I can't wait to hear you call Palin "sweetie" or whatever it is you go around calling women this week.

So yes, by all means, call Palin a "pig" or "lipstick" or a "fish", or call McCain a "pig" and "old" and smelly. Because one thing we'll never call YOU is "President".

That may sound like four crazy words, but history says it's not so crazy after all. The Democrats have only won a majority of the vote in California  during a presidential election four times since the FDR-Truman years, out of a total of 13 elections. Three of those majority victories were the last three presidential elections -- 1996, 2000, and 2004. The other was Johnston in 1964. Prior to Johnston's victory, Wilson's 1916 victory is the only other Democratic Party victory in California's presidential vote since the 19th Century (and even then, the Democrats managed only four other victories in the entire time since California became a state.

Even during the liberal hysteria that swept much of the country through the 1960's and 1970's while "flower-children" and leftist radicals flocked to California, our party managed to keep winning California election after election. Bill Clinton couldn't manage a majority in 1992, and had to accept a plurality.

Our party has a long history of dominating California during presidential elections over the last 50+ years. We've elected 15 of the 19 governors elected after the 19th Century, including 3 of the last 4 (meaning we dominated through the Clinton years and only gave it up briefly to Ray Davis before he was recalled by voters). Democrats rely on winning a thin strip of voters straight down the coastline, and we take the rest.

More than a quarter of California's population is foreign-born. Over 35% of the population is Latino or Hispanic. African-Americans make up only about 7% of the population. Women make up half of the population. California also has a large percentage of gay residents. In these numbers are some of the keys to recent Democratic Party success in California, but also the keys to our party's retaking of the state.

The immigration issue was such a force in the 2006 mid-term elections that the winning Democratic Party margin can largely be found in the overwhelming rise in support for the Democrats within the Hispanic voting population. Our party tried desperately to use this issue, but it backfired and could be the single issue that really cost us our majority in Congress, even more than the war issue. John McCain can remove this problem our party has developed with Hispanic voters, especially if Mike Huckabee campaigns for him in California among the Hispanic communities. Sarah Palin also can reach out to these voters as a mother and a churchgoer. Palin can also help with female voters in the state, if she focuses on family issues and particularly the role of women in the workplace and in taking more leadership roles in government. Cutting into the Democratic margins among female and Hispanic voters will go a long way toward eroding the Democratic majority in the state. If our party can successfully challenge the Democrats in California this election, we can not only retain the White House, but also bring California back into the GOP fold.

So the Democrats think it's fine and dandy to mock Alaska. More moose than people, a dozen people and some caribou, and other such snide insults have been tossed around by liberals and the MSM since Sen. McCain announced Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Apparently the Democrats think it's acceptable to spit on states with smaller populations. Well, unless it's New Hampshire -- do you think the Democrats would dare mock residents of that state as unimportant and their leaders as unqualified? How about Montana? How about Wyoming, which actually has a smaller population than Alaska by the way? Why don't the Democrats just come out and say it: the only people who really "count" to liberals are those living in California, New York, and a handful of other left-leaning states. If you live in any states in-between, well forget about it, you aren't important and your leaders are worthless.

Palin is the only candidate on either ticket who actually has executive experience. She also has "legislative" experience from city council work. She also has business experience, what some of us who aren't named "Biden" call WORKING for a living. And she has family experience. Someone needs to inform the Democrats and the MSM that despite their smug opinions, the life experiences of people NOT named "Obama" happen to matter, too.

I seem to recall a lot of hoopla made about the fact that Obama's life OUTSIDE of the United States, his time pontificating about his place in the world while he snorted cocaine, and his time as a father are all supposedly very important and this life experience (especially, in typical liberal fashion, the time spent in other countries) is supposedly an actual qualification to be president. Yet being a working woman, a working mother, fighting for education and ethics reform in her community, and running an entire state aren't qualifications. Obama can spend four years doing nothing in Congress, on the heels of his time spent avoiding voting on anything in Illinois, and that (combined with his time as a child living in places not called "The United States") make him the best choice to lead our nation and command our armed forces. Oh, I forgot, he knows how much arugula costs... I guess that proves his superiority to all those knuckle-dragging normal people who live in Alaska with the moose, right?

And besides the actually very positive comparisons we can draw between Palin and Obama, how about a VP-to-VP comparison? If the Democrats want to talk about experience and qualifications, I'd like to point out that while it's indeed true that Biden has spent more than half his life sitting in chairs during committee meetings talking endlessly about his liberal ideas for foreign policy, that's not actually "experience". My uncle does that, too, with the minor difference that he doesn't bore us to death. While Biden's been holding his little meetings to explain in extremely long detail what he'd do if he were in charge (all of it wrong, of course) and spending months running for president (where he called Obama too inexperienced to be president but said he'd be "honored" to be McCain's VP), Governor Palin was running a state. Biden talks, Palin works. It's that simple.

So every time the liberals and the MSM spew some new insult about Alaska and why Palin running a state isn't experience, we need to remind them -- LOUDLY, so they can hear us over Biden talking about himself -- that a few years running a state full of working people counts for more than doing nothing in Congress for a few years more. Both Palin and Obama have spent less time as elected officials than their running mates. The difference is that the time Palin spent counts for something, and that the narrative of HER life was spent here in America and she's smart enough to be PROUD of that fact.

[Side Note: Can Republican crowds PLEASE stop booing and jeering, or otherwise making extremely unhelpful negative displays, when Palin refers to Hillary Clinton and her supporters? If you are endlessly committed to working against our party winning over women voters, reaching out to former Clinton supporters, and generally recognizing the importance of the impact of Clinton's campaign on women in politics and presidential elections -- then sure, by all means, continue to be unhelpful and obtuse and utterly kill important lines in Palin or McCain's speeches. Boo your hearts out, create embarrassing moments on television at our party's public events. But if, just by chance, you are showing up at the events because you perhaps SUPPORT conservative issues and actually maybe LIKE Palin, maybe -- just MAYBE -- consider not booing when she's trying to help our party's outreach strategies, okay? Yeah, just think it through, people. Thanks.]

While some reports claim Sen. John McCain has decided on a running mate and that the person will be notified today, the McCain campaign is denying those reports this morning. But McCain's VP pick will reportedly join him for a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, and some reports claim McCain will formally announce his running mate at an Ohio campaign event Friday.

It's probably safe to make a couple of guesses regarding who it WON'T be. Despite continued speculation, Sen. Joe Lieberman is almost surely no longer in the running. With recent polling demonstrating that Lieberman would in fact hurt the GOP's chances in some very important states; with Karl Rove himself working to keep Lieberman off the ticket; and with conservative commentators like Robert Novak, Henry Olsen, and many other conservatives expressing open opposition to Lieberman as the VP nominee, the odds are stacked against McCain so alienating the GOP's base and ignoring polling and high-level advice. Not to mention that Lieberman himself thinks he'd be a bad pick, and even said so publicly several months ago.

Likewise, Tom Ridge's pro-abortion views would create similar problems for McCain with the GOP base. The fact that Ridge is scheduled to introduce McCain and the running mate at the Pennsylvania rally on Saturday is a good indication that Ridge won't be the VP pick. While some party officials claim Ridge would be acceptable to the pro-life base if McCain can convince them that Ridge would adhere to McCain's positions, the fact is that McCain himself has to do more to win over Christian conservatives in order to get them to the polls in November. With so much convincing and mobilization still left to do, McCain is not in any position to rely on convincing the base to

The remaining top contenders seem to be Mitt Romney (whose real record should immediately disqualify him), Tim Pawlenty, and one would think Mike Huckabee.  Yes, Huckabee's name has largely been dropped from most discussions, but any well-considered analysis should place Huckabee's name at the top of any short-list. He is, in fact, the most obviously beneficial choice.

Many conservatives are now realizing -- and regretting -- that Huckabee did not end up as the presidential nominee, such as Adam Graham at The Conservative Voice. Now, however, even some folks at previously anti-Huckabee conservative outlets like National Review are reconsidering a McCain-Huckabee ticket and finally realizing some of the obvious benefits that pairing would bring to the ticket.

I'd like to now explain my own views regarding why Mike Huckabee is the only potential VP candidate who very quickly solves or makes much easier two crucial problems for McCain's campaign.

First and most important, it mobilizes the base who otherwise will simply not be excited enough about the GOP ticket to not merely favor them and vote for them, but actively go door to door to turn out the vote and work hard to get this ticket elected. Sure, these voters are probably much more inclined to vote for the Republican ticket against Obama anyway, but that is not enough. If they don't act as the foot soldiers in key states, if McCain cannot count on them to actively work for his election, and if he cannot guarantee a large turnout from this key constituency, he will not win the election. And right now, he simply has not got their full trust or their full commitment to vote, organize, and turn out for him.

Mike Huckabee will not only bring these voters onto the campaign, he will energize them and rally them to do the grassroots work the campaign desperately needs in order to confront the formidable organization Obama has developed on the ground. The Christian base has demonstrated for the last 28 years that they are instrumental to Republican success at the polls, and when they fail to turn out in large numbers and do the grassroots work to elect conservatives, we see election results like 2006. That will happen again this November for the presidential and Congressional races, if the presidential ticket does not mobilize the right people at the right time. Now is the time for McCain to pick the one and only running mate capable of setting in motion the sort of mobilization it will take to win: Mike Huckabee.

Secondly, Mike Huckabee will also solve another key issue facing McCain's campaign: shoring up the South. Conservatives make a huge mistake if they underestimate the potential danger in the next ten weeks that faces us in Southern states. If we do not sweep the South, we will not win. Obama's campaign has the money and the ground campaign to force our party to expend a lot of resources in the South, lest we risk an upset in a few key states that would cost us the election. Mike Huckabee can and will solidify our dominance in the South, and no other candidate can do this. His appeal here is on several levels, beginning with the already mentioned ability to mobilize Christians and churches to confront Obama's organizing head-on. Add to this Huckabee's immediate strong appeal as a former governor from the South, and his personal roots in the poor and working class community. He speaks from personal experience, and can engage voters on economic and social issues because he understands them. The voters respond to him, they know he understands their concerns and their difficulties, and this is why Huckabee made such a strong showing during the primaries.

If McCain is largely freed of the need to expend excess resources in the South, every penny he saves there is a penny spent in swing states or to actually challenge Obama in typically "safe" Democrat states. And here, too, Huckabee has a strong role to play that nobody else but McCain himself could play. Huckabee, like McCain, can make a strong argument to the Hispanic voters, a group that has absurdly been ignored and marginalized by our party at a time when they are surging in relevance. If we concede the Hispanic vote to the Democrats now, they will solidify their hold on those voters and we won't just risk loosing this election, we will in fact guarantee a growing electoral tidal wave against our party in the years to come. NOW is the time to make a stand and fight for this up-and-coming block of voters, at least to win over enough of them to deny Democrats a huge coalition majority that includes overwhelming support from the Hispanic community.

McCain has some appeal to the Hispanic voters, but he has an opportunity to make more inroads and shrink the size of Democratic dominance in that voting block. Mike Huckabee would help strengthen this drive to win over a larger percentage of Hispanics, because perhaps no other Republican candidate has spoken more eloquently and forcefully to the issues concerning Hispanic voters while making his arguments in ways that in fact appeal to some of the most heartfelt core beliefs of the GOP Christian base. If that base can be won over to Huckabee's arguments concerning immigration policy, and if this in turn allows those voters to assist in Huckabee's outreach to Hispanic voters in states like Arizona, Nevada, and California, then the GOP has a chance to establish a base in a few Western states from which to work to build a larger Hispanic voting block for our party. Mike Huckabee should be McCain's "ambassador" to those voters, and any other candidate in fact works against this strategy and ultimately would instead ensure Democratic dominance of a growing Hispanic voting population that will soon play a deciding factor in elections for many years.

Mike Huckabee also brings strong credentials to the education issue, which is not appreciated as the important issue it could be in targeting key constituencies in certain states like Michigan. Huckabee would have a very strong argument, much stronger than the Democratic presidential ticket, regarding education reform and an unquestionable commitment to improvements and innovations in education policy. Members of teachers unions would be especially open to Huckabee's arguments, and that is no small thing in states that are currently facing big battles concerning public education and the teachers unions. These happen to be some of the same states where Huckabee's resonance with poor and working class economic issues also would have strong appeal, and that combination would further strengthen the grassroots work of his Christian supporters in such states, and it could solidify the GOP's hold on certain states while winning over a few of the swing states in this category.

There are a few assertions and lies about Huckabee that some of his detractors put forward, but those are easily refuted. The primary "negative" that other conservatives use against Huckabee is the tax issue, but that is in fact a non-issue. We should obviously consider Ronald Reagan's time as governor in California as a comparison, for example; we should consider Huckabee's platform regarding the Fair Tax during his presidential campaign; we should consider that McCain himself once opposed President Bush's tax cuts but now has vowed to make them permanent; and we should consider that there is a difference between Huckabee's views on how a governor must run his state compared to his views on the role of the federal government, ultimately the key factor for anyone serious about Federalism.

But really, perhaps the most important thing to consider is that our party's fate in November will not rise and fall on foot soldiers on tax policy doing grassroots, energized campaigning. It is simply the blunt truth that fiscal conservatives will largely support the GOP ticket because however much they might grouse about Huckabee's tax policies during the primaries, in the end they know the above points (Reagan's record, the Fair Tax, Federalism, etc) are true and they know the severe economic dangers that exist if Obama wins. Even with all of the complaints about President Bush's economic record in terms of government spending etc, in the end fiscal conservatives are some of the most dependable voters for our party because differences tend to be very small and nuanced, and they know ultimately what is economically best for this nation and vote accordingly. It is a matter of overall agreements and shared philosophy, a matter of practicality and finance.

This is why it happens to be very different from the issue of whether Christian conservative voters, for example, need to be mobilized. One cannot realistically compare the motivations of people organized around issues of spiritual faith and core moral beliefs (I will not vote for someone who is pro-abortion, for example, because it is a personal moral principle about which there can be no compromise), to people who have differences of opinion about the degree to which a particular tax policy should be tweaked or debates over how much deficit is too much etc. Fiscal conservatives do not believe that their Creator and Lord will judge them based on their commitment to a specific percentage drop in fiscal spending. Christian voters know that they can actively mobilize and oppose abortion and other issues regardless of the November vote, and that there is a long-term strategy they must adhere to or they will cease to be relevant anyway (so voting pro-abortion would be the same as not voting at all anyway, since they lose on their issue and they lose influence with the party). This is why I say that the facts about Huckabee's record on taxes, his commitment to different policies at the federal level, and the overall superiority of Republican economic policy should make it very clear that McCain should not view his VP selection as a way to shore up fiscal conservatives who still express any worry about his campaign, because it is simply a non-issue.

Mike Huckabee is the only rational choice for the VP nomination. I have faith that John McCain will make the right choice, and that he is aware that some choices -- Lieberman, Ridge, and Romney most obviously -- will cost him a significant portion of the GOP base, will add no real advantages to the ticket, and will thus cost him the election. Mike Huckabee will shores up the base, shores up the South and thus also saves resources to go on the offense in key Western states rather than on the defense in the South, he moves the GOP strongly in the direction of cutting into Democratic Party dominance of the Hispanic vote (adding to the ability to go on offense in the West), he speaks to working class and poor voters -- particularly in important Mid-Western states, and he has the ability to make targeted appeals to certain voters like teachers and mothers regarding education and health care in several important states as well.

If McCain does not pick Huckabee, then the GOP has signaled a sea change in terms of their commitment to Christian voters, and we will see a return to the domination of the party by moderate fiscal conservatives who have for years fought to wrestle control of the party back into their hands and to leave behind the policies that are most important to social conservatives and Christians. Our party must look to the future, and that means the future beyond November 2008. It will be a future without the support of social conservatives and Christians, with a tiny single-digit support among one of the fastest-growing voting blocks in the nation (Hispanic voters), and with a dwindling dominance in the South, if the party fails to nominate Mike Huckabee as Vice President.

If Obama wants to make the "elitist" label stick, he is doing a marvelous job. Consider his remarks about McCain's and Clinton's suggestions that the gas tax be suspended during summer months. Obama says it wouldn't be worth it, because it would only save an average of $30 per family and is simply a short-term solution.

Let's try some simple math. Summer is about three months long. Divide $30 by three, and you get $10 per month.

For people who actually work for a living, unlike Senator Obama (and I don't just mean that as a slight against Democratic politicians, I mean it even more literally, in light of Obama's tendency to skip work), $10 a month can in fact make a difference.  You can buy a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a carton of eggs, and a five-pound bag of sugar with that $10. That's an extra week's worth of staple grocery items at a time when prices for such goods are on the increase, and if you are a parent with mouths to feed, an extra week's worth of those groceries every month is very helpful.

Or that $10 could be seen as a little government subsidy for the energy bill each month, during summer months when energy bills run higher. A ten percent subsidy on the first $100 of your electric or gas bill can be a big help for a working-class or poor family.

How about using the $10 for an extra three or four gallons of gas, to get to work or pick up the kids from school or take your family to the park? I don't know anybody who would turn down $10 per month in free gasoline, do you? Look at it that way, and it doesn't seem so worthless after all, does it?

An extra week's worth of groceries each month, a subsidy for your energy bills, or three free gallons of gas every month -- that's what the gas tax suspension equates to for working and poor families in this country, and that is why this simple proposal can be a helpful little short-term friend for a lot of households. When people are already struggling to support their families on just a little bit, every extra little bit helps.

Obama and others like him dismiss the importance of such things, precisely because of their contempt for the average family. Already displayed through things like his dismissal of gun ownership and church attendance as things embraced only by bitter rednecks, Obama's elitist attitudes and utter failure to relate to working Americans is further clarified by his new opposition to helping those same Americans buy more food, more gas, and pay their bills. Maybe someone needs to point out to him that he can use his own $10 a month in savings as a government subsidy for pricey arugula.

One of Obama's criticisms of the gas tax suspension is that it would in fact increase demand and thus not help bring down prices. Well, the first rather obvious problem with this snotty attitude is that it pretty much debunks Obama's own suggestions, like the plan to stop buying oil for the strategic reserve. If there is more oil on the market, the price would go down, right? Oops, wrong, since increased demand would drive the price higher again, remember? Anything that brings down the price inherently would raise demand, and increased demand is at the heart of Obama's claim that prices won't drop.

Obama also keeps repeating the empty rhetorical line that gas tax suspension is just a short-term solution when what we need are long-term solutions. So, it appears that Obama doesn't think that sometimes short-term relief is necessary while bratty elitists work out their long-term solutions. When did Senator McCain (or Senator Clinton) state that the gas tax suspension is the only plan? Why does Obama falsely pretend it's an "either-or" situation? Because he's disingenuous, he can't relate to the day-to-day problems working people face, and he pretty much looks down his nose at and resents any idea that isn't his own, that's why.

(And apparently, Obama must've forgot that in fact, gas tax suspension was his idea previously. Yeah, that's right -- he voted for a gas tax holiday THREE TIMES.)

People are hurting right now. They will be hurting more this summer, as gas prices and energy bills and food prices rise even more. Yes, obviously we need long-term solutions, but in the meantime something should be done to help people get by while the grand schemes for the future are debated and studied endlessly. The gas tax suspension is a simple idea that admittedly brings short-term, moderate relief, but that is something a lot of families would benefit from in the here and now. The here and now, however, is someplace that Obama doesn't seem to live in. He resides on some alternate plain of existence where he transcends the problems and shortcomings of us mere mortals, where change, the future, the inadequacies of those he seeks to rule, and the just massive size of his own great big brainy brain are the only concepts he has time to contemplate.

Me? I'll take the $10 a month, thank you. I work for a living, and I've got bills to pay.