I’m easily amused, but I thought this was funny. For the fun of it I went to Obama’s sight to see what he has to say other than “hope” and “change” (remember to start cheering loudly when someone says either of those words). So I glanced at his bullet points for the economy and then clicked the link to read his entire economic policy and this is what showed up.

It's a bad link and I was able to find the real economic policy pdf (it's the same as what is on the html page). There are a few decent ideas, but the answer in the end is that, yes, our economy will lose with these policies.

Or type as the case may be (don't read this Grandma). Not that anyone cares about who I support for the nomination, but I thought I would share anyway. I had been a Fred Thompson supporter up until he dropped out. For me it basically boiled down to two candidates after Fred – Romney or Giuliani. I have a great deal of respect for and McCain and I value the opinions of Old Zach, Delegate Saxman, Tom Coburn, and others, but I can't support a candidate with this type of record. And the thought of a President Huckabee sends shivers down my spine. The sooner that guy gets out of public “service” the better.

The two biggest issues facing our nation are the threat of a terrorist attack and the lack of a desire to make real change to the fiscal policies of the nation. With those two issues in my mind, the best candidate left in the field is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is far (perhaps miles) from perfect, but when he says something I tend to believe him. When he says that a tax package should include spending cuts, I believe he will work for spending cuts if elected. And quite frankly, I think he's the one guy that will go in and grab the bull by the horns to get things done.

If you had asked me a year ago if I would be supporting Rudy I would have told you that you were crazy. He's got more baggage than Air Force One and three KC-130 cargo planes can carry, is not strong on the 2nd Amendment, and has positions on other social issues I disagree with, but the bottom line is that he is the best on the biggest issues facing our nation. As an aside, I still wish Mark Sanford were running.

I have some friends who are big Romney supporters, but I agree with Norm, he gives me the willies (I agree with Norm here too). I do like that he has business experience, but in the end Mitt Romney is nothing more than the Massachusetts Republican version of Mark Warner. Campaign doesn't work out? Change your views a bit and maybe you'll get 'em next time.

That is not to say that views do not change, they certainly do, but changing ones views for the sake of political expediency leaves me less than inspired to support that type of candidate. So when Romney says he supports the Bush tax cuts now, should I believe him? I am not sure. What I do believe is that I can believe him until it is no longer the expedient thing for him to do.

Don't get me wrong, I will gladly take a President Romney over McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, or Obama, but the right man for the job right now is Rudy Giuliani.

I recently (and finally) finished reading Michael Tanner's Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. It is a decent book that points out many places where the Republican Party has gone astray. Tanner certainly does not have much love for President Bush.

One topic I had never given much serious thought to is term limits. Tanner mentions them in his book and the more I think about it the more I like the idea. The likelihood of them being enacted, I regret to say, is about as probable as me going to Mars.

The idea certainly resonates with voters. Tanner notes that during the 1990s “voters in 21 states approved term limits for their members of Congress.” Unfortunately those victories were overturned in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. In the opening paragraph of his dissent Justice Thomas writes:

Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.

I am certainly no lawyer, but that seems reasonable to me. And I imagine I am much more likely to agree with Justice Thomas rather than Justice Stevens (who wrote the majority opinion).

Tanner used two simple quotes that got me thinking.

Former Congressman and current South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford stated, “If I’d viewed my career in Congress as the next 30 years of my life, I think I would have been a lot more hesitant to bring up Social Security.” I would suggest that Social Security could be replaced by any issue.

Former Congressman Matt Salmon noted, “The independence that comes from limiting my terms has enabled me to vote against the bloated budget deal of 1997, and to challenge my own party’s leadership.”

Where are those who challenge the leadership now (on either side of the aisle)? Once in Washington our Congressmen and women seem to fall in line and shut their traps, worrying more about their career trajectory than the fools that elected them.

I do not know what would have to happen for term limits to be passed into law, but I can dream, can’t I? Nothing would warm my heart more than to see a bunch of unemployed career politicians.

I'm a week late and $7 short, but better late than never. I wanted to thank Joe Blackburn for stepping up to the plate and challenging Walter Stosch. Every Virginian who values the money in their pocket owes Mr. Blackburn a debt of gratitude.

It will be interesting to see what Walter Stosch shows up next session. I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully Blackburn scared him back to the right.

The other interesting part of this, as Norm has noted, will be if Allen can repair his image with the conservative activists who are baffled by his endorsements of Stosch and others. I believe it will be a long, very long, road back.