WHAT has the United Nations done to oust Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's head of state?

But won't.

Which puts the Dems in an awkward position.

Fight for him when he'd only be number 59?

Or preserve their political capital and let him slide?

It's a terrible quandary to be put in.

And you know who helped put 'em there?

GOOD OLE' SAXBY CHAMBLISS, that's who!

Had he lost they'd be expending every effort to force Franken in, but he didn't; he won.

Which makes things much, much harder for the Democrats.

...I'm weeping.

God bless this finest among nations.

I can't sleep.  I'm too excited by the prospect that he could get a life sentence.

Everyone, cross your fingers.

Folks, I am an eager beaver when it comes to heaping praise upon praise upon praise on liberals.

Not Leftists.

Liberals.

For anyone who thinks I'm nuts listen to Dennis Prager; the genius will tell you the same thing.

Thomas Friedman is a liberal: a good old fashioned, left of center, reasonable, thoughtful liberal.

Do I disagree with him about a whole host of issues?  You betcha, as Sarah Palin would charmingly say.

But I know he loves his country, doesn't always blame us first, wants genuinely to lift up not only his fellow Americans but also those around the world, particularly those stuck in the Middle East debacle.  He is a decent and honorable man.

He wrote a column printed in yesterday's New York Times (shocking, I know) called "Calling All Pakistanis."

READ IT.

He asks WHY Muslims around Pakistan, and the world for that matter, are SILENT, not quiet, but SILENT, when it comes to their fellow Muslims murdering innocents all around them...but will protest for months about a Danish cartoon about someone who has been dead for centuries (Mohammad).

He wonders WHY a RUMOR printed in Newsweek about Korans being flushed down the toilet at Gitmo (totally untrue, incidentally and they admitted it to their credit) cause riots, stampedes and more but the Mumbai (it's Bombay) Massacre yielded not a single condemnation, protest or vigil from the masses.

And he suggests that perhaps terrorists KNOW that while a supermajority of Muslims would be unwilling to strap on the dynamite and shoot the rifles themselves, that they silently appreciate what they do each time they murder en mass.

WOW, folks.

WOW.

What an indictment.

From a LIBERAL.

In the NEW YORK TIMES.

THE NEW YORK TIMES!

Remember the New York Times, all?  The same paper that ran thirty some odd front page, above-the-fold stories about the abuses at Abu Gharaib? 

Remember the New York Times which used George W. Bush as a punching bag for eight straight years?

This is the same, failing, miserable newspaper that has gone out of its way to shame itself with everything from the Jason Blair incident to advocating unabashedly for Barack Obama.  They have no shame, the people at that paper.  The New York Times is, like virtually all of its peers in the Old Media, an arm of the National Democratic Party!

By printing Tom Friedman's column yesterday they may have gained back an ounce of much-needed credibility.

But getting back to my point...

I want to praise publically Thomas L. Friedman for his truthful, courageous analysis in yesterday's column.  He asked questions all thoughtful people ask.  I wonder if a head of state or two in the Muslim world paid any attention.

Good people around the world, faithful and unfaithful, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Atheist and more, are ALL wondering why most all Muslims insist on being silent, and therefore ultimately complicit, when it comes to fanatics murdering in the name of Allah.

It was a rivering work of art, that column.  Enrich yourself and read it. 

God bless this finest among nations.  It'll continue to stay the finest among nations if people both right and left of center think rationally and intellectually honestly about the major problems we face.  Tom Friedman went along way to maintaining America's greatness with that one column he wrote.  Bravo.

Folks, please refresh my memory, and no, I'm not being sarcastic.

2000 was a mess; Bush got little prep time.

1996 was the first election for which I was eligible to vote and Bill had already been in office four years.

Can someone tell me if President-elect Obama is assuming more control than he should?

What's precedent?  Is he eviscerating it?  So far as I know, George W. Bush is still in charge.

Is what Obama's doing normal? 

I wonder...

I thought you were supposed to leave the guy in the White House alone till the Big Day and assemble your Cabinet and advisory posts and what not; he seems like he's doing an awful lot more (the bailout, Mumbai (it's really Bombay, but...), etc...

Can someone provide a historical context for me?  Thanks; I'd much appreciate it.

God bless this finest among nations.

Good news just in!

Saxby Chambliss has defended successfully his Georgia senate seat.

Praise the Good Lord Jesus, everyone!

He just helped us avoid a supermajority on the part of the Democrats; that would have been a catastrophe.

God bless him.

(And my favorite political personality in the world, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, for helping him.)

Crisis averted.

Now at least we have some kind of bulwark.

God bless this finest among nations.

One last entry for today, folks...

I want to explain what kind of critic I'll be.

In a word: measured.

I do NOT intend to be hyperbolic, cruel or immoral in my criticism of President-elect Obama like those on The Left were of President Bush.   I refuse to be.  I will not lie, I will not make fun of his children (who are adorable, I might add), I will not be unkind or uncharitable.

I will substantiate my opinions with facts, I will refrain from engaging in personal attacks and I will offer him praise (as I just did in the entry before this one) when I feel it is due. 

One of the good opportunities I have being a blogger when the opposition is in power is to prove democracy is at its most vibrant when the public discourse is balanced and civilized.  Unfortunately, The Left deprived us of such civility these past eight years.  It'd be terrible of me to criticize how they were and then turn around and do the exact same thing after watching my guy lose.  I won't do it.  I'll be better.

So keep your eyes open for praise and rational criticism; that's what you'll be getting on here for the next four years. 

This morning President-elect Obama introduced New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as his nominee for Secretary of State.  Also, he nominated current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; he should be staying on for approximately one year.  Lastly, he introduced James Jones, a retired Marine, as National Security Advisor.

All of them are good, solid picks.

Would I have preferred John Bolton for Secretary of State?  Yes.  (Don't laugh, he's smart, tough and a good manager.)  But I have confidence in these three picks.  They're patriots, appear to be practical and not driven exclusively by ideology and are experienced.  They'll make for steady hands guiding a new and inexperienced head of state.

Thus far (thus far, I said), President-elect Obama looks like he's making some very smart choices.

I hope this current trend continues. 

I would like to convey my sincere congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama.

He won a good percentage of the vote and made history as the nation's first minority President.  The campaign was long and hard-fought and he out-did Senator John McCain.

I pray that God blesses him with the wisdom and sound judgment he will need to help navigate America through particularly turbulent times, and I wish him well; he is my president.

God bless him.

I had some awful tooth issues that wouldn't go away.

About to start right back up!

God bless this finest among nations.

That a president who makes my country weaker takes over;

That a president who doesn't value hard work takes over;

That a president who thinks the country is in such dire straits that it needs to be rescued (by Him) takes over;

That a president who has no regard for our Armed Services takes over;

That a president who loves raising taxes takes over;

That a president who Hamas, Ahmedinijad, The Castro Brothers and Chavez endorsed takes over;

That a president who favors infanticide takes over;

That a president with radical, terrorist ties takes over.

Wednesday morning we could very easily wake up to a President Elect Obama.

Hillary Clinton would have been better than this.  She's more of a man than he is for God's sake.  She'd protect me better.

God bless this finest among nations.

Question to President Bush:

WHY ARE YOU NOT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION OFFERING A STEADY HAND IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS?

WE ARE IN A FREE FALL.