*sigh*

Ryan is sending me texts that are blatant attempts to "guilt" me into posting. Yes, I have been neglectful of my blog duties... but, DAMN I've been busy. It's not easy opening a casino, after all.

The best I can offer is a quick summary of what I have read from Ryan's posts, and any opinions I may have concerning them.

While the conservative voter out there probably is quaking in his/her boots at the thought of an Obama Presidency, it is far from a foregone conclusion. The man is incapable of holding his own in an "unscripted" environment... and that is very un-Kennedy-like, in my opinion. He can try to look like Kennedy, he can take lines from Kennedy's speeches, and he can paint himself the new King of Camelot all he wants... but it all boils down to delivering on promises.

Kennedy did not win in a landslide. In fact, unless my memory is wrong, the '60 election was the closest in modern history until you get to the 2000 Bush/Gore election. Kennedy was very unpopular his first 100 days, and it only got worse by the end of his first year. Prior to his death, Kennedy was a very "polarizing" politician... you either loved him or hated him, and LOTS of people hated him before November of '63.

However, most of mainstream America was so shocked by the assassination that they all came to believe that the "possiblity" of real change was what had been taken away, at least as much as JFK himself had been taken away. I'm a life-long Democrat, and even I know that Jack's mystique was built on the "what if" more than the "what was" of his Presidency.

Obama doesn't have that luxury. He can't afford to have a bad "100 days" and a really bad first year will not bode well for the "mid-terms" in '10.

Why is this important?

Because, if the GOP is worth even a shread of its former self, then it will continue to pound home the message that "collective" actions and programs are NOT the answer. It is far easier to point fingers at failing policy and say "See? It isn't working" than it is to defend policy that isn't working (ask Bush this question right now!). Obama continues to talk about BIG solutions to BIG problems, but he offers no answers to the questions of HOW (or more imporantly, HOW MUCH?) these solutions will be implemented. In short, he is running on NO SUBSTANCE... the same way Kerry did, the same way Gore did, and the same way Carter did.

Mac has substance... but it is getting lost in his "muddy" delivery and often can't be heard through his rabid defense of "clean" campaigning. Were he a bit more worried about winning and a little less worried about looking like a mud-slinger... I think the gap in the polls would be far greater.

Now, that said, I am forced to admit that Ryan is also very correct in another of his assessments... I have no Party. As a national organization, there is so little left of the Party that I grew up supporting as to make no difference at all. No "mainstream" aspect of moral, faith-based, conscience-driven, pro-America is left within the leadership of the DNC... nothing. The Deans, the Pelosis, the Gores, and the Clintons have removed the last vestiges of "conservative" Reagan-Democrats from the formula, and all we are left with are the absolutely impotent Congressional "Blue Dogs" that effect nothing within the Party.

While I admire Mac, and I am more than willing to cast my Presidential vote for him... I'm not sure he was the best candidate to run in '08. I know, the "people" made their choice... but I still feel that if the GOP is going to win against Obamania, then it needs a far firmer voice than Mac's. This is where I feel Thompson, or Romney, or even Huckabee would have been better off. They all have a commanding presence on a stage or on a TV screen... and Mac simply does not. He doesn't... simply a fact.

End of rant... I'll try and do better with another post later.