"What was grandma doing at the flippin' sand dunes?"

"I have read the constitutions of a number of countries - including the Soviet Union's. Now some people are surprised to hear they have a constitution, and it even supposedly grants a number of freedoms to its people. Many countries have written into their constitution provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. If this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional?

The difference is so small, that it almost escapes you; but it's so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: we the people.

In those other constitutions, the government tells the people of those countries what they're allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the government what it can do only those things listed in that document and no others.

Virtually every other revolution in history just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters, and the government is their servant. And, you young people out there, don't ever forget that. Some day, you could be in this room - but wherever you are, America is depending on you to reach your highest and be your best - because here in America, we the people are in charge ..."

-President Ronald Reagan
From the State of the Union
January 27th, 1987

That excerpt from his address was on the back of a picture my mother recently sent me. The picture on the front? The classic Howard Chandler Christy painting, "Scene at the signing of the U.S. Constitution."

How could a nation whom embraced such a man and the ideology he routinely espoused, only a single generation ago, be on the precipitous of electing his antithesis? A man whom sees that sacred of documents, our Constitution, insufficient because it lists, "Only negative liberties, what the government can't do to you, rather then what it must do for you..." (2001 Chicago NPR interview). I am left dumbstruck at how many Americans I overhear in cafes, gyms, at work, and about town who think this new candidate's interpretation of the US is a "purer" form of Americanism. As if it is a return to her greatness and a fulfilment of her true promise ... when it is anything but.

I spoke to an interesting individual at the NV RNC State Party Headquarters this afternoon. They have what was described to me as "a program" administered by a particular woman. This woman, through her "program", decides who and who will not be accepted as a Republican primary candidate for congressional districts in Nevada. My district is currently held by a Democrat. The GOP opposition won his right to run against her by beating 4 other candidates, including a professor and a bail bondsman. He will be crushed at a rate of about 70% to 30% in 5 days ... again.

The description of whom the primary candidates were for 2008 lead me to believe only one thing - the threshold this "program" employs can simply not be that high. I assume this is so because the incumbent Democrat is seen as unbeatable, so why not throw every and anybody at her, right?

I have an appointment with this woman, who runs the "program", after election day. Now I don't know if I will ever achieve my ultimate dream to serve in "this room", as Reagan described it. But one thing is certain ... I sure as hell am going to TRY and fulfill our 40th president's eloquent request: "America is counting on you to reach your highest and be your best ..." Because we can, we MUST, do better then this.