SOTU — An updated drinking game for 2015


The State of the Union tradition arises from the following line in Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution, “He shall, from time-to-time, give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” While not required to deliver a formal speech, every president since Woodrow Wilson has made at least one State of the Union report as a speech delivered before a joint session of Congress. Before that time, most presidents delivered the State of the Union as a written report. Since the advent of radio, and then television, the speech has been broadcast live on most networks.

George Washington delivered the first regular annual message before a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1790. However, in 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of delivering the address in person, regarding it as too monarchical (how prophetic, given our current ruler). Instead, the address was written and then sent to Congress to be read by a clerk and this practice was followed until the early 20th century.

How I wish that were still the case. Even better, in our age of technology, just post the text version of the #SOTU online so we can read it in our Facebook news feeds or from a link on Twitter. Instead, we are going to be made to sit through a cacophony of over-the-top applause from the sycophants, arms-folded scowls from the obstinate and circus-like chicanery from the leads of both the House and Senate. We might as well queue up our favorite calliope music to play in the background the entire time the speech is going.

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union speech on Capitol Hill in WashingtonWe are going to be treated to well over an hour of promises, edicts, vehement calls for change and a showcase of biological props in the gallery to illustrate all of the points being sold by the President of the United States of America. We then have to sit through the minority response, the alternative response, the off-the-beaten path response and the ever elusive who-gives-a-damn response. THEN we get to sit through hour after hour of political analysis. We’ll have the propagandist wing of the Democrat party, aka the Mainstream Media, telling us how brilliant and amazing the speech was. Turn a channel or two either way and you’ll have the opposite view doing their best to convince the audience that the president has sealed his fate as a lame-duck and has dug a near insurmountable hole for any potential Democrat presidential candidates.

tumblr_lybfd7jwJC1qzx3jto1_1280Which brings me around to the point of today’s blog. If we must be forced to deal with this travesty of what our Founding Father’s envisioned, many have devised coping mechanisms to get us through tonight’s ridiculous display. Let’s all play the #SOTUdrinkinggame! Take a moment before tonight’s speech and come up with a list of terms/phrases/words that you believe will be used over and over again. Anytime you hear the #POTUS (President of the United States) utter anything on your list, take a drink. Here’s a partial list of what I plan to use tonight:

Words/phrases that result in taking a shot

  • Any use of: fair, fair share, equal or leveling the playing field
  • It’s time to help the middle class
  • Need to reduce income inequality
  • Declares victory on the state of the economy thanks to my policies
  • Under my policies, unemployment continues to drop
  • It’s time to Increase the minimum wage
  • Global warming remains our top concern (or, 2014 was the hottest year ever)
  • ISIL (pronounced – Eye-sill)
  • Islam is a peaceful religion
  • The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam
  • Charlie Hebdo (this may actually be worth two shots)
  • Affordable Care Act is working
  • Immigration reform/Dream Act
  • Free college
  • Any mention of someone who wrote him a letter or sent him an email
  • For each guest invited by the administration who is called out in the gallery

Items that require a shot:

  • For every 10 uses of the word, “I”
  • For every 10 uses of the word, “Me”
  • For every 10 uses of the word, “My”
  • For every 10 uses of the workd, “Mine”

There was a time when the State of the Union had it’s purpose, but that has long since been forgotten under the heavily crafted showmanship it has become. Under our current administration, it might as well be named the State of the Fundamental Transformation of America, since this president has no problem enforcing parts of laws he likes, changing parts he doesn’t and ignoring others as he deigns unnecessary. It’s like the worries of Thomas Jefferson have come to life with this Administration when they made it clear they came to rule and not to govern.

Some final thoughts before tonight

There are some subjects the President will not touch. He will not acknowledge the Republican tidal wave during this past mid-term election (I’d be shocked if he does). He will not mention the continued success of Governor Scott Walker’s conservative policies in Wisconsin. He will not mention that, despite his policies, the success of frakking on private lands is what has led OPEC to drop the price of a barrel of oil by such a degree that many states are seeing gasoline prices below $2.00 a gallon. He cannot afford to shed any light on policies that succeeded to which he is diametrically opposed. He will not waste a single breath on reducing the size of government. He may say he has a plan to reduce the debt, but when you go through the litany of new programs he plans to offer, it won’t take a mathematician to realize it’s just another lie meant to placate the low-information voter. He will play to emotions, but will not once employ logic. He will pull at the heartstrings, but he will not apply reason. In short, he will pander to his followers like the Pied Piper, playing a mesmerizing message to those who want nothing more than to be lied to and told, “Everything will be all right as long as you believe in the power of government.”

And for that reason, I’ll be playing the #SOTUdrinkinggame with much gusto. It’s about the only way I’ll be able to make it to the end.


ObamaCare: Gives You The Right To Mandatory HealthCare

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

This morning I woke up to a beautiful wife, a warm shower and a screaming baby. And you know why? – Because of my own choices. I strapped my son into the backseat of my white Ford Controur and took him to a daycare that costs me $700 a month. And you know why? – Because of my own choices. Ben, my neighbor, got up the other day and tried to buy health insurance. He couldn’t submit his application though. And you know why? – Because of Obama’s own choices.

With these new healthcare exchanges having finally set sail, my fellow Americans have been run down, denied and revoked in a myriad of repudiated outcomes. My mother is employed part time for Hallmark and was told she can no longer work above 30 hours per week because her employer is now forced to provide healthcare for all “fulltime” employees.

Obama_Talks_longThe obvious albeit delayed notion that the inherit flaws perpetuated by the current administration for three years have been completely disavowed. When inquiries were launched in light of targeted IRS attacks, the president claimed he knew nothing. When the smoke settled in Benghazi and millions asked for a presidential account, there was “no knowledge of a threat.” When millions (yes, millions) of Americans lost their healthcare plan that they chose, the president apologized because he noted that he was “sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me. Obviously,” he said in an interview, “we didn’t do a good enough job.”

Insurance companies may one day fall prey to the persistently alluring blade of governmental takeover. With insurance companies now forced to provide certain benefits in their healthcare plans that they no longer have the freedom to control, many individuals are switching to what I like to call, “The Private Patient Trial Plan.” Basically, you are without insurance, but are desperately trying to acquire it through the 600 million dollar healthcare website that won’t load your application.

Is your moral clock starting to tick yet? More deluded and deceitful than the disastrous healthcare plan itself, we’ve learned that the white house administration knew prior to this “new revelation” that Americans would lose their healthcare plans. Time and time again, the American people have watched and waited for explanations to our coming crisis. It seems that our current president doesn’t understand the concept of honesty. I watched a video recently about Kathleen Sebelius in which Senator Jon Cornyn from Texas was quizzing her on several statistics centered on healthcare projections. After several seemingly unanswered questions, the senator commented that, “The only thing I can conclude is it’s impossible to do something in this Administration that gets you fired. It’s impossible. You can lie to the American people, you can consistently misrepresent the facts but it’s impossible to get fired.” *


If the president had a valid excuse for eliminating any chance at grandfathered healthcare plans, the level of deceit may not have been as high, but the disparaging and utterly vicious disregard for American freedom has all but exasperated a majority of the US. Millions of Americans fought vicariously through pregnant women for the right to “freedom of choice.” The only difference is that this issue isn’t a matter of life and death – oh, that’s right, it’s healthcare. Remember that the government didn’t offer pregnant women multiple options for what to do with their baby (and they had to choose one of those options). No, women were given the so-called right to take their child’s life. Yet, today we are witnessing a multitude of liberal voters who support this kind of legislature.

Instead, they choose to support a president who has been notorious for “I didn’t know” statements. On November 14th, Obama told reporters that, ““I was not informed directly that the website would not be working, as the way it was supposed to, had I been informed I wouldn’t be going out saying, ‘boy, this is going to be great.’” I wonder what my boss would say to me if I delivered a similar “apology” after a disgruntled customer complained about a product I had designed. **

We heard the president tell us that we would be able to keep our healthcare plans if we decided not to partake in the new healthcare plans. This was a very clear statement, especially since it was spoken over 20 times to the American people. See the following for an annoying reminder here. The problem with this idea lies in the technical details surrounding the true nature of “keeping” your current provider and plan. In the Affordable Care Act, the grandfather status may be retained assuming no changes are made to the plan. The legislation is flawed because ObamaCare prohibits certain types of “inefficiencies” in healthcare plans. Thus, those who currently pay for a cheap and skimpy healthcare plan will never be able to “keep their plan if they like it.” It’s just like many other government mandated decrees in which the American people are forced to comply without proper input – since the government knows best for you, you should not be able to make certain choices voluntarily.***

And now, after a monstrous backlash from the public about broken promises, the president chose to cancel all healthcare plan cancellations for one year without asking Congress. You have witnessed an unconstitutional and unilateral act by your president; that should bother you. Perhaps you don’t recall the first unilateral recall. After the law was passed, the president decided to offer companies with 50+ employees a one year furlough from the law. I’m assuming this is his way of prolonging the fall before the sudden stop at the bottom.

Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps you have seen your country fall short of upheld liberties and that has affected you. You might be feeling deep hard-set emotions in your stomach. That unsettling thrush of passion might just be your sense of freedom jutting through you from within. It’s like a powerful ocean wave that crashes against you when you feel your nation has been threatened. That’s your patriotism speaking – so don’t keep it bundled up inside. Claim your pride for your country and be a voice for freedom.

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” – George Washington






Sequestration Review – in case you’ve forgotten how we got here.

Sequestration.  It’s a major topic of discussion in the news and on the internet.  But, really, the discussions there focus on what the talking heads are saying.  Frankly, many people just ignore talking heads now – or never really cared in the first place.  So, I thought I would provide a bit of review.  What is it?  How did it come about?    Note – during this discussion I will use a lot of words that have meanings different from their common dictionary meanings – ie. “cut”, which means “a reduction in the rate of planned growth,” in this context.  I have attempted to indicate differently defined words in “quotation marks” when possible.

During the last debt ceiling “crisis,” the President and congressional Democrats demanded that the debt ceiling be raised without debate and without any conditions.  The Republicans demanded that a debt ceiling increase be accompanied by offsetting spending “cuts” (see above).  The Democrats countered that they would discuss spending “cuts” only if the Republicans agreed to tax increases on people earning incomes above some level (approx. $250,000 per year, but it fluctuated depending on the day and who was speaking).

Of course a “grand compromise” was reached in the nick of time and the following plan was hatched and passed:

  1. The debt ceiling was increased slightly in order to keep the credit card turned on at least until sometime in mid-2013.
  2. The Bush tax cuts would be allowed to expire at the end of 2012 for higher income earners, increasing their tax rates by about 2% (an unadvertised provision was also the sunset of the social security payroll tax holiday that raised EVERYONE’s taxes by about 2%).  The Dems have dreamed and fantasized about this for ten years, and finally got it.
  3. To appease the Republicans, it was agreed that a bipartisan, bicameral “Super Committee” would be formed that would try to reach a future compromise on future budget cuts over the next ten years that would be binding, assuming they weren’t modified by future legislative action.  This committee was to be composed of some of the most disagreeable members of both parties from both houses of Congress.  They were to be locked in a room and not come out without budget cuts.
  4. If the Super Committee failed to reach an agreement (which was pretty much a foregone conclusion), then a “sequester” would kick in, forcing automatic budget “cuts.”  The automatic budget “cuts” were designed to be to some of the most basic functions of the Federal Government – ie. Defense spending, and to programs that had some of the most visibly painful consequences if cut.

That’s where we are today.  Of course, the Super Committee did nothing and proposed no cuts.  Sequester kicks in on March 1.  The very idea with sequester (which the President INSISTED be in the legislation) was that no politician would be able to abide by the sequester cuts and another deal would be reached doing away with the required cuts.

That may still happen.   If it does, then last year’s debt ceiling “compromise” worked out just beautifully for the Democrats – and especially the President.  Taxes were raised – publically on the “rich, but really on everybody; the debt ceiling was raised without much fanfare; and there were no spending “cuts.”

The glimmer of hope that we have here is that the Republicans in Congress SEEM to be OK with allowing sequester to happen as planned.  Originally designed to specifically target spending that the Republican base holds dear, the thinking was that Republicans would come back to the table as sequestration loomed and eliminate the “cuts.”  But they haven’t yet shown many signs that they are going to.  That is precisely why we’ve heard such a drumbeat from the White House about how horrible the sequestration will be – teachers and firefighters will be fired, we will have to mothball the US Naval fleet, no Blue Angels airshows, closing down the National Parks, turning criminals out into the streets, children sick and dying without proper medical care, old people eating cat food.   Every day brings a new dooms day scenario from the White Houses designed to get the Republicans to break under the public outcry against the apparent end to government spending as we know it.

But – It’s beginning to seem like the American people may be catching on.  I may be wrong.  I may be giving the public too much credit – they did reelect the cult of personality Barack Obama, the friendly face of Communism is America – but it seems like we’re not buying what he’s selling this time.

Then again – there is probably a pretty good chance that Boehner and the Republicans will cave again.  They always do.

November 6th is our D-Day; or, How moderates never win

One of my heroes is George S. Patton, Jr.  I’m sure it’s beginning comes from the magnificent performance given by George C. Scott in the film, “Patton.”  I have since read and watched biographies, read histories and even had the privilege of interviewing a man who served in Patton’s 3rd Army in the European campaign, Arnold Whittaker.  As I began thinking about this topic, I realized Patton’s famous speech before the 3rd Army kept running through my mind.

Patton told his men he didn’t want to receive any word about holding position or staying on safe ground.  He said to let the German’s do that.  He wanted his men to know they were to be advancing all the time.  He believed all Americans love to win — love the sting of battle in whatever form.

“When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.”  (Patton, June 5th 1944)

To win, Patton knew he had to be decisive and committed.  So let’s apply this to the current political climate in this country.  I hear from many that the majority of Americans want to be in the middle — they want everyone to get along.  They don’t want to win the debate but settle for a “middle of the road” moderate point of view where everyone is a little right and a little wrong.

Politicians are given a special seat at the inside-the-beltway table if they can tout their “moderate” positions with pride.  Citizen’s in our country go through great lengths to claim they are not for either side, but remain “independent.”  This is a wonderful self-appointed title.  It sounds so erudite, so cultured and sophisticated.  You can imagine the voice of Thurston Howell III with his ivy league drawl saying, “I don’t choose sides.  I’m an Independent.”

This notion is anathema to an overwhelming majority of Americans and this can be demonstrated by looking at the last 40 years of presidential elections.

1980 – Reagan v. Carter

1980 Electoral College Results

In the run-up to the 1980 election, this nation was in a state of depression.  Not just in terms of economic and energy policy, but in how we thought of ourselves in the world.  We were filled with doubt.  The misery index was never higher at 21.98.  Interest rates were through the roof, lines at gas stations stretched for blocks, and inflation was ballooning out of control.

Would any argue with me if I said Jimmy Carter represented a clearly liberal way of governing?  That he was solidly identified as on the left?  Would anyone call him a moderate?

Enter Ronald Reagan.  Ask yourself the same questions?  Was he a moderate?  A maverick that walked that middle-of-the-road line to governance?  Or was he clearly right-wing and conservative?

When the electorate was given the choice between two very clear alternatives, the conservative won and won soundly.

1984 – Reagan v. Mondale

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Reagan/Bush, Blue denotes those won by Mondale/Ferraro.

Four years later it was time for another race.  Again, Americans were given a very clear choice between a right-wing conservative in the incumbent president and the challenger, Walter Mondale.  The DNC convinced themselves that the reason Carter lost was due to not being liberal enough and Mondale would be the alternative to what they believed was a war-monger with his finger on the button. And, when the polls closed in November of 1984, Reagan managed to surpass his impressive landslide win from four years earlier.  Reagan won 49 of the 50 states.  A resounding win by anyone’s measurement.

Given the choice between a decisive conservative agenda and one that was liberal, American’s voted for the conservative.

1988 – George H. W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Quayle, Blue denotes those won by Dukakis/Bentsen. Bentsen/Dukakis received one electoral vote from a West Virginia faithless elector. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state

Spurred by the red tidal wave of conservatism, the Republican primary was a no-brainer for Reagan’s Vice President, George H. W. Bush.  For most, Bush (41) was considered a vote for a third term of Reagan.  He ran on the same conservative record.

The left, believing their strategy was still correct, nominated the Massachusetts liberal, Michael Dukakis.  The thinking this time was to select a northeastern liberal rather than one from the mid-west or the south.  In one aspect, this was a more successful campaign in that Dukakis was able to win 10 states plus the District of Columbia.  Though a dramatic improvement over Carter and Mondale, it was a still a huge defeat as Bush (41) took the other 40 states with ease.

The American populace had been given a clear choice for three election cycles and when shown stark differences, opted for the unabashed conservative.

1992 – Bush v. Clinton v. Perot

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Quayle, Blue denotes those won by Clinton/Gore.

Here’s where things begin to shift.  It will mark the first time in modern history when a president is elected without garnering 50% or more of the popular vote and an independent, third-party candidate, will cost a sitting president his bid for reelection.  Running for a second term, Bush (41) started to make noticeable shifts toward a more moderate stance.  He was labeled as disconnected from the ‘common man’ when he was incredulous over the cost of a loaf of bread during a photo-op at a grocery store.  In an effort to combat this notion, he began to support greater social spending initiatives and supported tax increases in an effort to gain support from the Congress.  His famous, “Read my lips,” mantra, about not signing any bill raising taxes, pushed to the side.

But, there was more to this race than just Bush moving to the center.  A third-party candidate, Ross Perot, was actually leading in the polls early over both Bush and Clinton, due to his fiscally conservative speeches, utilizing white pads and a no-nonsense delivery that never pulled punches.  He was a businessman, not a politician, and championed this as his best attributes.

Toward the waning months of the campaign, Perot inexplicably made a decision to drop out of the campaign, but returned later and attempted to regain his lost momentum.  It was too late.  The fiscally conservative candidate had lost the confidence of many of his followers, while the more centrist Bush was in a battle with the dynamic orator in Governor Clinton.  Clinton was very much a leftist candidate, but his great smile and mesmerizing charisma obfuscated his liberal underbelly.

The electorate was left to choose from an incumbent who had moved to the center, an untrustworthy fiscal conservative, or a dynamic, but liberal candidate with a clear message.  The voters opted for the latter, though Clinton became our 42nd president with only 43% of the overall vote.

The candidate with a clear stance, unmuddied by trying to be a moderate, won.

1996 – Clinton v. Dole v. Perot (again)

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Dole/Kemp, Blue denotes those won by Clinton/Gore.

The 1996 presidential election was like a bad Hollywood sequel.  Bill Clinton?  Check!  An aging war hero?  Check!  The short Texan with the odd voice and no political experience?  Check! No one doubted the service Dole gave to his country, but similar to how the DNC failed to understand the country wasn’t looking for more liberal candidates from 1980-1988, the GOP made the mistake of thinking the country would vote for someone because they had served in battle and had been “around a long time.”  What it did was show the American people that Dole was chosen for no other reason than he was “entitled” to it — the elder statesman.

Clinton recognized the need to embrace the accomplishments of the heavily conservative Congress, a body he lost control over in 1994.  Welfare reform, acknowledgement that universal healthcare was a mistake, and lower taxes were all parts of his campaign.

And the high-pitched Texan, who believed everyone had forgotten about his last failed attempt, was ready and raring to do it again, this time to Bob Dole.

In the end, the numbers were almost identical for Dole as they had been for Bush (41): 39.2 million popular votes.  Bill Clinton actually received two million more popular votes over 1992 with a total of 47.4 million.  Perot lost support with only 8 million votes.  Everyone else stayed home.

Clinton showed he was happy accepting the conservative accomplishments of the Congress.  It wasn’t that the American people had much of a choice, so they opted to keep riding the horse they knew — the one that seemed to be okay being more conservative than he had been four years prior.

2000 – Bush v. Gore

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Cheney,
Blue denotes those won by Gore/Lieberman.

Was there a more contentious race in modern history than Bush v. Gore?  Hanging chads.  Voters who admitted they didn’t know how to use the voting machines or line up the right names.  Results that were fought in the courtroom and escalated all the way to the Supreme Court. Bush took 50.5 million votes to Gore’s 51 million.  Yet, the electoral college went toward Bush with 271 versus Gore’s 266.

Gore pushed a much more liberal agenda.  Bush favored a more conservative one.  In the end, the nation opted to put their support behind the conservative, though by one of the slimmest margin’s in modern history.

One additional observation that may explain why that race was so close.  Bush’s selection for VP was Dick Cheney and he very well may have been the nudge that gave Bush the win.  He was a known, conservative entity with a wealth of experience.  On the flipside was Gore’s selection for VP.  Joe Lieberman had long been viewed as a hawk with some fiscally conservative leanings.  In a sense, Gore balanced out his own liberal leanings with a much more centrist (if not right of center) running mate.

Americans were given a choice of a double-conservative ticket versus one that had elements of both.  Though confusing to most, the conservative ticket won.

2004 – Bush v. Kerry

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Cheney, Blue denotes those won by Kerry/Edwards. The split vote in Minnesota denotes a faithless elector’s vote counted for John Edwards. Each number represents the electoral votes a state gave to one candidate.

One could argue that with the terrorist attack of 9/11, an incumbent president who supported the military and espoused politically conservative principles would have little chance of losing a bid for reelection.  But, a war-weary nation was starting to reveal itself.  The DNC dove back into the back of their political playbook and opted for another northeast liberal in Senator John Kerry.  The American electorate was given a very clear choice (something they hadn’t been given in the last three elections) to make — the current conservative incumbent or embrace the much more liberal opponent. And, whenever there has been a clear-cut choice given to the American people, the conservative agenda ends up winning.  (Notice I say the conservative agenda versus a specific party?)  Though closer than any of the elections of the 1980’s, there was no doubt that George W. Bush had won a second term in office.

2008 – McCain v. Obama

Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states/districts won by Obama/Biden, and Red denotes those won by McCain/Palin. Numbers indicate electoral votes allotted to the winner of each state. Obama won one electoral vote (from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district) of Nebraska’s five.

For some reason, political strategists seem to forget the age-old wisdom proffered by the American philosopher George  Santayana (1863-1952) who said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (from “Life of Reason I“).  It is beguiling to me that when the 2008 presidential election cycle was put before the American people, the GOP put a war-hero on the ticket who had “earned” the right by having been around awhile — one who was also known as a “maverick” for his tendency to break with his party.  John McCain was Bob Dole all over again with one notable exception, the title, “Maverick.” This was supposed to be the merit that would get those elusive ‘independents’ (moderates) to vote Republican.  Really?  Even though Bush (43) had been running to the middle(much like his father did) since the Democrats won majorities in the house and senate during the 2006 mid-term election, he wasn’t “middle” enough.  McCain was going to be the answer.

On the Democrat side, the young and well-spoken Barack Obama, with a dubious background, hidden college records, and questionable political associates and mentors could not have been more liberal.  From his own biographies, he grew up in a family that despised capitalism and colonialism, found relief with Marxist professors and groups in college, experimented with drugs and alcohol, and found a church home under the guidance of a pastor that embraced Black Liberation Theology.  There is no question that Barack Obama was a far left candidate for any who wanted to look past the his polished veneer.

Yet, the choice for Americans was for a liberal or for liberal-lite? Obama ended up winning the night with 365 electoral votes.  In essence, he mopped the floor with the hapless McCain and his “middle-of-the-road Maverick” reputation, who took only 173 electoral votes.

When Americans were given a choice between someone with a clear agenda and someone who was trying to be a self-described moderate, they opted not to support the centrist.  They wanted to vote for someone who wasn’t afraid to pick a side.

Obama v. Romney?

The 2012 election results will be known by the end of the night on November 6.  There is no doubt that the American voter is being given a choice between two very different candidates.  With the addition of Paul Ryan to the Romney ticket, there is no doubt about the fiscally conservative message being offered.  Ryan also has a history of supporting limited government, individual liberty, and has demonstrated a strong desire to reform the aged and overbearing tax code.  They are also going after the tabooed third-rail in politics — entitlement programs for seniors.

But, rather than serving up platitudes, cleaver campaign slogans, or empty rhetoric, the Romney-Ryan ticket has tangible plans and documents they can point to and let voters read.  They have objective financial data they can quote and use in front of an audience.  They are not afraid to articulate a clear position that is rooted in a conservative ideology.

The current administration is also providing a very clear difference.  They want to continue along the same path they have been laying out for four years.  They want Americans to accept the current status quo and to reward Obama with another four years of the same.  They are going to run on bigger government, more spending and more Americans living off the government dole.

There is no doubt Americans are being offered a clear choice between a liberal agenda and a conservative one.  Let’s remember our past, as Santayana reminds us.   We are being given a clear choice between two agendas and this time Americans will side, as they have over the last 32 years, with the conservative one.  Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a middle-of-the-road losing proposition.

It’s the message Patton evoked in his address to the Allied invasion force on the day before D-Day.  No one wins sitting in the middle of the road.  Winning requires a decisive and clear vision.  And history has shown embracing conservative principles is a winning strategy.

November 6th is our D-Day.  I’m going to keep taking advice from General Patton.  He seemed to know his history, too.