Leading Through Derision?

“Last week, the other party, they gave their pitch. … What they offered … was an agenda that was probably a little better suited for the last century, … you might as well have watched it on black-and-white TV, put some rabbit-ears on the convention hall.”

-

President Barack Obama, Addressing an Iowa campaign audience,

regarding the 2012 Republican National Convention

How disappointing is this? Our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges. Our people are deeply and pretty much equally, divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Instead of getting the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together, we continue to get derisive comments like this … comments that are more likely to come from a Community Organizer, to incite agitation.

Presently, the nearly-equal political halves of the U.S. population are most easily illustrated through the opposing views of the DNC and the RNC, on solving our nation’s current problems. These include our lagging Economy, our incredible Debt, the stance on Abortion, Energy policies, Environmental policies and National Security. To illustrate my point about the counterproductive nature of President Obama’s derisive leadership style, I want to take a look at how that applies to just one of these topics. Hopefully, if I can get you to understand my views on this issue, you’ll see how it applies to the many others.

Tax Relief has been a consistently contentious issue that I think serves well to share my perspective. A very condensed version of the GOP's Platform on this is:

We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income. Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter, and fair. A reformed code should promote simplicity and coherence, savings and innovation, increase American competitiveness, and recognize the burdens on families with children. To that end, we propose to extend the Bush tax cuts-pending reform of the tax code, to keep tax rates from rising.

Of course, the unabridged version of this has many other facets, with several of them being understandably arguable. With that understood, it still seems to me that, in order to draw together the opposing halves on this issue, our nation needs a leader willing to say something like, "Though I don't agree with your stand on this, I can see where you're coming from and I want us to sit down together, to find a solution that works for us all." However, what we continue to get is our President leading the endless drumbeat, stating that all Republicans care about is further enriching "Millionaires and Billionaires." I find this derision to be personally offensive. I'm not a Millionaire or Billionaire. But, thanks to getting the sort of opportunities mentioned in the GOP Platform, I have been able to earn a lifestyle that is well beyond the dreams of a kid (me) who started out as the youngest of three kids, raised by a single-Mom in a time (the Fifties) when that title wasn't even in use yet. Thus, I pretty much resent the implication that I and others like me, are so intellectually and morally inferior that we get up every morning thinking, "What can I do today, to benefit America's Millionaires and Billionaires."

Additionally, I have to say that I find these specific derisive comments from the President to be particularly aggravating as a result of his using "the last century" and "black-and-white TV" as negative connotations. I was born in the middle of the last century and there were some pretty great values that I was given then, foundational values for my life, that I'm deeply disappointed to say have not survived well into this century. For me, a great example can be seen when I tell people, "I'm confident that on the first Sunday after I was brought home from being born at St. Anthony Hospital, my Mom and my Grandma Ray took me to the Second Avenue EUB Church, along with my Brother and Sister. On my first Sunday, I was shown the value of Faith, Family and Community. They remain my life's priorities. Sadly, in this century, fewer and fewer children are even exposed to these great values. And, why disparage black-and-white TV? Are Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech or Neil Armstrong's first step on the surface of the moon any less valuable because they were broadcast utilizing the best medium available at the time - i.e. black-and-white TV?

I guess, if the derisive comment I'm addressing was an exception, it wouldn't be so bad. That certainly isn't the case, though. It continues to be central to the demeanor of the Obama-led Democrat Party. Sad example after sad example can be cited at this week's DNC in Charlotte, NC. Case in point, former Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland, stating that, "If Romney were Santa, he would fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."

As I said at the outset; our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges and our people are deeply divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Another man who called Illinois home when he was elected President, Abraham Lincoln, sized up this situation by looking to wisdom expressed by Jesus Christ, when he said,

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Also as pointed out earlier, our nation is crying out for the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together. It's obvious, from the behavior addressed here, that Barack Obama either doesn't have the wisdom or the interest (or both) to do this. That, however, remains the sort of leadership we need. For this, I recommend Mitt Romney. A guy who was born in the same year I was, who grew up with Faith, Family and Community as his life's priorities, who watched MLK Jr. and Neil Armstrong on black-and-white TV and celebrated their victories, as we all did.

What Does a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” Look Like? - Why the Answer is Critical for 2010/2012 -

On my Twitter Bio, I describe myself as “A Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. As you might expect, I’m often asked to provide my definition for that description. And, when I’m asked for this, it’s not uncommon for the inquiry to be accompanied by the question, “Is that like a 'Compassionate Conservative'?” … I get the impression that many don’t like that label due to its association with Bush 43.

Since I was referring to myself as a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” long before I heard GWB call himself a “Compassionate Conservative”, I’ve felt comfortable saying that my sense is that the two are substantially different. Otherwise, until lately, I haven’t felt especially moved to offer further definition of “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. However, when I was recently notified of a new Twitter Follower named Gina Bella (@ginabella) I was motivated to change my perspective on this. When I checked Gina’s Bio, to my surprise, I found that she also describes herself as a “bleeding heart conservative”. My immediate reaction was to think, “Hmmmmmmm. I guess we’re a movement. We should probably have a clear definition for our brand.”

As I began to seriously consider my meaning of “Bleeding –Heart Conservative”, I quickly realized that I don’t really fit my own definition. You see, when I think of “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, I’m thinking of the guy in the photo (President Reagan), comforting those grieving the loss of the Challenger Shuttle Crew. Although I like to point out similarities between myself and “The Gipper” – e.g., I, too, can say that I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me – I know I don’t measure up to the standard he set. Not many do. I guess, at best, I should call myself an “Aspiring Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, though I probably won’t make that change to my Twitter Bio due to their 140 character limit. Regardless, it struck me that, with Reagan as the standard, defining itself as the party of those aspiring to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” could be pivotal to the Republican Party in regaining its significance in American politics. With that in mind, I finally felt compelled to offer my definition.

As noted, I see Ronald Reagan as having set the standard for what it means to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. And, as I see it, the key components of that standard are:

1. Focusing on what we stand for, not what we’re against. In other words, accentuating the positive. Remember, Reagan always saw us as striving to be “The Shining City on the Hill”. I don’t remember him ever being apologetic to anyone about us while blaming our condition on what he inherited from predecessors.
2. Being absolutely clear about what we stand for. The C&W lyrics “You’ve got to stand for somethin’ or you’ll fall for anything” may seem corny but they carry great truth. Being wishy-washy is a surefire way to invite attack from those who oppose you, who are not well-meaning.
3. Not forgetting Reagan’s “11th Commandment”. Simply stated, this is not speaking ill of your fellow Republican. The converse of that is just as true – i.e., Boldly, speaking well of your fellow Republican … even when their popularity is down in the polls. I can’t think of a better example here than the way Former VP Dick Cheney has been speaking out lately. Too many have shied away from him due to the way our last administration was inappropriately disrespected and far too few have spoken out in agreement with him, as he has been courageously shining the light of truth.
4. Constructively engaging those who oppose us, who are well-meaning. Don’t confuse this with the current administration’s foolishness in offering to sit down with lunatics like Ahmadinejad. President Reagan clearly understood that there is evil in this world and he was unafraid of calling a spade a spade, in that regard. But, when sitting down to negotiate with foreign leaders; he first strove to connect with the fellow-human-being on the other side of the table. More importantly, when dealing with domestic political opponents, he started by showing complete respect for those across the aisle ... his fellow-Americans. Moreover, whether or not he was in general agreement with another person, he was willing to selflessly embrace and acknowledge any superior ideas they offered.

Certainly, there are other important aspects to being a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. Likewise, beyond defining itself as the party of those aspiring to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, there are other essentials to bear in mind, as the Republican Party works to recapture its influence. But, I can’t think of anything better suited to serve as our cornerstone, as we rebuild and prepare the party for the coming 2010 and 2012 campaigns.

The President Bush/Senator Daschle Hug - 7 Years Later

SEP 11, 2001. A day of great loss for our nation. But, at the time, out of that loss, there was the prospect of great gain. For me, that was symbolized by seeing President Bush and Senator Daschle hug, as the President arrived to address a joint session of Congress, shortly after the 9/11 tragedy. Sadly, our nation has let that prospective gain slip through our fingers.

Like most Americans who remember 9/11, there are specifics that stand out in my memory.

- We were still living in Orange County, CA and we were just waking up when the news started to come in. When I saw the 2nd plane go into the twin towers, I told my Wife, "This is no accident. You're gonna see that replayed over and over and over."

- Since I've had the experience of dining at Windows, the restaurant at the top of one of the WTC towers, I thought to check their Website. It was strange to see "views" on that Website ... "views" that no longer existed.

- It wasn't long before I went out to put up Old Glory on our Fountain Valley townhouse and during the day, we went to join others in prayer in the Sanctuary at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (CCCM).

- I recall worrying about my Wife going to work in a high-rise in the City of Orange and I remember the eeriness of seeing one of the first planes on approach to John Wayne, after air travel resumed.

But, I also recall that sense of potential gain, resulting from the loss. In addition to the Bush/Dascle hug, I remember:

- The pews being even fuller at CCCM.

- Drivers going out of their way to be courteous on the Southern California freeways.

- EVERYONE standing, with a hand over their heart and singing "The Star Spangled Banner" and "God Bless America", at Angels games.

- A sense that, as a nation, we were making a conscious effort to gain strength through our differences, instead of letting our differences divide us.

I truly thought that we were exhibiting what we said we were ... One Nation, Under God. God's Word teaches us - "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28. It appeared to me that this was exactly what was going on but, maybe even more tragically than 9/11 itself, we failed to nurture our newfound gain.

Currently, we see little, if any, evidence of that prospective gain. Looking at the current presidential race provides proof of just the opposite. Once again, its just one candidate pitted against the other, based on their differences. I think that's pretty sad. With that said, I'm not endorsing a "Can't we all just get along, lets all get together and sing Kum Ba Yah" approach. Staying with the musical theme, I do believe that "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." But that doesn't necessarily mean that because others see things differently than I do, that makes them wrong or bad. It just makes them different and I think the synergy of the best of our differences was a key element, leading to America's greatness in the first place. Although we didn't nurture the opportunity that the tragedy of 9/11 gave us to regain that quality, it doesn't have to mean the opportunity is completely missed. One of the qualities that all of the current presidential candidates like to tout is their ability to lead. My prayer is that at least one of them will show the courage of their convictions and from this point forward, choose to lead by example in this regard.

Is Our Choice Bush-McCain or Obama/Biden-Reid/Pelosi?

“Bush-McCain!” … the Democrat’s one consistent mantra, since John McCain became the Republican’s apparent nominee for the 2008 presidential race. Although McCain is obviously his own man and his presidency would be significantly different from that of President Bush, you can understand why they want McCain to be saddled with Bush’s unpopularity … currently ranging from 25% to 33%.

Since, according to the National Journal, Barack Obama (D) has the Senate’s most liberal voting record and Joe Biden (D) has the Senate’s 3rd most liberal voting record, isn’t it more appropriate to link Obama/Biden with the current liberal (D) congressional leadership … Reid/Pelosi? In 2006, the Democrats became the majority party in both houses of Congress, establishing the Reid/Pelosi administration. The Democrat’s winning campaign strategy was summed up, at that time, by the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, when he said, “The days of the do-nothing Congress are over,” adding that Americans spoke “clearly and decisively in favor of Democrats leading this country in a new direction.” Considering that the current unpopularity of Congress ranges from 14% to 18%, it appears that the “new direction” Reid/Pelosi had in mind was a level of “do-nothing” where no man has gone before. Now, aside from “Bush-McCain!”, the central Obama/Biden theme has been “Change!” It boggles the mind to consider the depths of “New Direction”/“Change” an Obama/Biden-Reid/Pelosi term will mean.

Character v Diversity

An African-American from Generation X, two White Guys from the Silent Generation and a woman from Generation X. Arguably, the greatest diversity the U.S. has ever seen in its leading general election candidates for the Presidency. I think that’s a healthy thing.

The progress our nation has made on the topic of diversity is, surely, the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. But, he taught us not to judge people based on observable differences – e.g. the color of skin (or the age of skin or the shape of skin). Rather, his instruction was to base judgment on content of character.

Character, then and not diversity seems to be the important consideration in determining the best candidate for President. But, what is character? J.C. Watts Jr., one of my favorite ex-politicians (I do wish he would get back in the game) says, “Character is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking.” I think that makes a great character “yardstick”. So, lets consider the things that first come to mind about these candidates that we’ve come to learn they did “… when nobody (was) looking.”

With Obama, I immediately think of the nearly 20 years he sat under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright. I find that deeply troubling.

In Joe Biden’s case, I’m mindful of the plagiarism he admitted to in school and that was obvious in his 1988 Presidential Campaign. He’s proven that you can’t take him at his word.

A year ago, “… when nobody (was) looking”, Senator John McCain was traveling coach-class and carrying his own bags because he was willing to stand up for our nation to win, even if it cost him his election. I find it very hard not to stand up for a guy who is willing to stand up for me like that.

Recently, Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin learned that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant. Quietly, giving being Mom priority over being a politician, Governor Palin provided her daughter the love and support she needed to begin dealing with the young woman’s challenging circumstances. Although the press tried to eviscerate her for it, it made me proud to know that someone with this sort of character is willing to serve us, as a nation.

Are there other matters to consider along these lines that would reflect more positively on Obama and Biden and more negatively on McCain and Palin? Perhaps. My recommendation is that we all give these matters our full consideration, in this same light and right away. November 4th is coming fast and we all need to be doing our best to determine the best candidates based on the Substance of their character and not the Style of their presentation.

The Better Angels of Our Nature?!?!?!?

Yesterday, Figgins and I heard Senator Ted Kennedy endorse Senator Barack Obama, as his choice for the Democrat Party's 2008 Presidential Nominee. Kennedy did an expert job with what I recognized as an old-style-politics approach to whip the audience into a frenzy. To me, this approach magnified the irony of the current "Change Candidate" exulting in the endorsement of a man who has been in the U.S. Senate since 1962. But, whip them into a frenzy he did. The challenge for Figgins and I, as we listened, was trying to find substance in Kennedy's passion-evoking rhetoric. For us, this reached its peak when Kennedy described Obama by saying, "... he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to the better angels of our nature." At that, we just cocked our heads and looked at each other. Though neither of us said a word, you could tell we were both thinking, "What the heck does that mean?!"

Since this is Figgins' first time around with a Presidential campaign, I knew we would need to draw on my experience, in order to try to answer that question. As I thought back and as I considered that much of the endorsement event's rhetoric made allusions comparing Obama to JFK, I realized something about this comment did seem familiar. It did remind me of feelings that had been stirred up in me by JFK's Presidential candidacy when I was just a young teenager. Though I probably couldn't have pointed out a single thing I objected to with the Eisenhower administration or with the heir-apparent, Richard Nixon, there was just something excitingly appealing about that handsome young Kennedy, his beautiful young Wife, their idyllic young family and the emotions he aroused with his rhetoric.

Reflecting on the time of JFK's Presidential candidacy ... what that time was like and how I felt then ... was an interesting reverie for me. But, of course, looking back, I couldn't limit my consideration to just that "moment in time". I, also, had to consider what followed that time. In my view, much of what followed that time causes me concern for what could follow the present time. A time when, like those days of "Camelot", we elected a President who's rhetoric was inspiring but, in many significant instances, it lacked substance.

With these things in mind then, I knew it was important for me to respond to this question with advice for Figgins. Advice I'd like to pass along to all of America's youth, who are getting involved in Presidential politics for the first time. Advice that comes from lessons I didn't begin to fully grasp until I was nearly thirty years old. My advice would encourage our youth to be as fully involved as they can be in the Presidential election process and that there is nothing wrong with getting excited about a particular candidate. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with looking to a leader for inspiration ... in fact, the ability to inspire is an excellent leadership quality. But, most importantly, before you commit yourself to a candidate, be sure they have the substance to match. If they inspire you by talking about "change", demand to know in detail "change from what and to what". And when they use rhetoric that makes your pulse race, discipline yourself to ask, "What the heck does that mean?!" and don't rest until you have a crystal clear answer.

MLK v LBJ?! NO CONTEST!!!!!!!

Figgins has been confused about some recent incidents in the current Presidential campaign where some candidates have been accused of trying to "play the race card". Thankfully, Figgins was born and raised in a time when race is much less divisive than it was when I was growing up. So, I've been drawing on my experience from that former era to help him understand.

Senator Hillary Clinton's recent remark, indicating that President Lyndon Baines Johnson was more deserving of credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has been central in this. Although I'm not able to look upon Mrs. Clinton's heart, I told Figgins that I doubted if she had any malicious intent towards Dr. King, in making her comment. However, I went on to say that I do think her intent was self-serving political leverage and it led to a blunder that was harmful to everyone involved, including herself.

I don't often think of Mrs. Clinton and her Husband, former President Bill Clinton, having much in common with me but, in this regard, it struck me that there are four things that we do have in common. (1) We were born in the 1940s, all within the same 14 month period. (2) We were all born and raised in the Midwest/Mid-South. (3) We are all White. (4) We all should remember how differently those who weren't White were treated by the culture we grew up in and how very wrong that was.

If you don't recall what our culture was like in the time prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or you haven't studied it, I recommend that you find a book called Once Upon A Time When We Were Colored, written by Clifton L. Taulbert. Clif was born in the mid 1940s too but he was born in the South, he isn't White and his book does a good job of capturing what that time was like.

I can't imagine anyone living in that time not noticing Dr. King and what was going on with the Civil Rights Movement. I certainly noticed. But, frankly, Dr. King wasn't a hero to me then. However, one day I heard him say, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Those words were like seeds planted in me to bring about a much needed change in my heart. No doubt, those words impacted others differently but Dr. King and those striving with him deserve the credit for the plantings that brought about a much needed change in this nation's heart and I suspect that included the heart of this nation's President at the time, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Its a shame that Senator Clinton would make such a self-serving and harmful comment. However, maybe its good that it happened, if for no other reason than to refresh our memory of how far our country has come since 1964 and how thankful we should be for those, like Dr. King, who were willing to live and in fact, to die to accomplish this. Its, also, a fond reminder to me of a time when my Wife and I got to worship with the flock at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, in Atlanta, where both Dr. King and his Father once served as Senior Pastor. The Bible Study that day was from Romans 8. Probably, the best known part of that Chapter is verse 28 ... "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [His] purpose."

Greater Love ...

Of course, the biggest story of this week has been the tragedy of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. For those as young as Figgins, I'm sure its particularly stunning, not having encountered this sort of thing before. I'm among those who still remember details of what they were doing when they heard of JFK's assassination. So, I've encountered this sort of thing before but that doesn't mean I can fully explain it to others, especially those who are dealing with it for the first time.

Naturally, the most common question seems to be "Why?!" The answer to "Why?!" these sort of things happen seems simpler to me. You can label it however you see fit but for me, its just sin. The more challenging question for me is "Why?!" would someone like Benazir Bhutto knowingly and willingly put herself in a position where this was so likely to happen. She was an attractive, intelligent, woman of means who was married, with children. She had twice-served as Pakistan's Prime Minister, already. And, she did this in the face of facts that included: her Father had been hanged by a former President of Pakistan, her Brother had been assassinated, her Husband had been labeled as corrupt, she had been exiled and the day she returned to Pakistan, she was greeted with an assassination attempt similar to the one that ended up taking her life. And yet, she vowed that none of this would deter her political campaign or her fight for human rights. "Why?!"

Ironically, the most common response I've been hearing to answer this paraphrases the Gospel of John, when Jesus says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." I say "Ironically" because Benazir Bhutto was Muslim, not Christian. But the irony doesn't mean its not true. What Jesus said applies to anyone, regardless of their gender, faith, nationality, etc. Benazir Bhutto did, knowingly and willingly, lay down her life for her friends. My hope and prayer is that Benazir Bhutto's friends ... her fellow-Pakistanis ... will honor her by keeping her great love alive in themselves and to allow it to continue to propel them towards the goals of democracy Benazir Bhutto had in mind for them.

As Figgie and I considered all this, a renewed sense of thankfulness emerged. Thankfulness that we live in a nation that Benazir Bhutto openly acknowledged as the inspiration for the goals of democracy she had in mind. A nation that has been blessed with Patriots, akin to Benazir Bhutto, from the battlefields of Lexington and Concord to the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Patriots, all of whom, rest in the truth and inspiration of those words spoken two thousand years ago ... words that honor them all and today, especially, honor Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto ...

"Greater love hath no man than this,

that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Rediscovering America's Strength

This past weekend, Figgie (Figgins) and I had a few discussions about the 2008 Presidential Campaign. It seems that this campaign has already been going on forever and its not even 2008 yet. The election itself is still about 11 months away. Its all pretty new to Figgie though and while he hasn't registered to vote, he has seemed pretty keenly interested.

Our level of interest seemed to ramp up over the weekend, as a result of media focus on a certain "Celebrity Endorsement." This isn't a topic that generally carries much weight with me. However, Oprah Winfrey was at the center of this and though neither Figgie nor I are fans, we recognize her unique celebrity status. The factor that stirred my interest most was that she wasn't just lending her name, as an endorsement for a candidate, she actually showed up at a few campaign events to say why. So, we tuned in.

I ended up telling Figgie that I was disappointed with what I heard. Generally, there were comments about need for change, followed by the name of the candidate she is endorsing, as the preferred change-agent. This is a theme I've heard countless times, for numerous candidates (both real and fictitious), since before I was old enough to vote. What I didn't hear was much substance about the need for change or details of the "something better" we need to change to or specifics of plans for accomplishing these improvements.

So, there we were, with our interests stimulated but not gratified. What were we to do? Well, the first step was pretty obvious ... we needed to face the fact that, going into it, we knew better than to expect much from a celebrity endorsement. And, frankly, we had to admit that our critique of the event was pretty obvious and easy. Those steps taken, we decided to check a source with a track record of fulfillment for us, when it comes to political observation ... Charles Krauthammer ... a Syndicated Columnist who, when I see him on TV, I spontaneously shout, "My hero!"

To my astonishment, we came away from reading Krauthammer's column for this past Friday, in The Washington Post, with a sense of disappointment too. His comments were about one Presidential Candidate's Evangelical Christianity and how he had used that to "manipulate" another candidate into having to discuss his Mormonism. As usual, Krauthammer expressed his views intelligently and interestingly but, at the end of it all, he just pitted one candidate against another, based on their differences.

But then it struck us! Ironically, we realized that "My hero", Charles had actually come through. He had pointed us in the right direction by pitting one candidate against another. We realized ... that's what they all do. Regardless of the forum, its Democrat against Republican, Left against Right and Pro versus Con on: abortion, energy, environment, immigration, Iraq, taxes and pretty much any issue you can think of. How does that make us better? I don't think that's what led to our success, as a nation, in the first place. At the outset we pitted ourselves against Britain to gain our independence but we didn't do it just one person's way. I seem to recall that we drew on the best of the differing ideas of those we now honor as our Patriots ... John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, etc. These were all very different guys. Where would we be if all they did was pit themselves against each other, based on their differences? ... In a place where there is only a Union Jack and no Old Glory, that's where! ... So, why is it that that's all we do today? Although Oprah didn't persuade me to support her guy, I'd bet that he does have some good ideas and that he, genuinely, wants to do his part to better our nation. Likewise with both the Evangelical Christian and the Mormon. As a matter of fact, that's probably true of all the current mainstream candidates. So, why is it that not one of them seems to have the courage to offer what we do need ... not just change but leadership, with a vision aligned with the beliefs of the majority and with the common sense to embrace the superior ideas of others, even if the "others" are political opponents. Now there's the candidate I'm looking for! One who can lead us to rediscovering the strength that made America great in the first place ... the synergy of the best of our differing ideas.

After basking for a few moments, in the illumination of the "Aha moment" we'd had, it occurred to me that I'd recently heard a similar point of view. As I reflected on this, I realized it was what I'd heard about a new book called Common Ground - How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America., by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. If these two, literally, political polar-opposites have come to this conclusion too, we're more encouraged, we must be on to something!

As a relative newcomer to considering Presidential politics, this all seemed to be a bit convoluted for Figgie. But I sensed it was sinking in and beginning to comfort him. As soon as we came to today's conclusion, he wandered off to one of his favorite spots ... the living room couch. There, he was able to look out and enjoy the sunny, though chilly, mid-December day. No doubt, it was that comforting view, along with the enlightened vision, resulting from our examination of today's topic, that had him peacefully snoozing in no time. I was thankful he could do that so easily. He is such a good listener but I know that takes a lot out of him.