Hugh Hewitt has hit a new low- he is now advocating that Republicans vote for Romney because he has more money than McCain.

In this afternoon's show Hewitt is reporting that Obama raised $32M last month to McCain's $7M.  Apparently this means McCain will get slaughtered financially by Obama assuming he is the nominee.  Does this mean that Clinton will NOT be spending anymore money on attempting to secure the nomination?  Does this also mean that despite the rhetoric "conservatives" will take their chips and go home?  Pathetic.

I was astounded last week that the "conservative intelligentsia" is as much a bunch of arrogant elitists as the Democrats they have been criticizing.  Case in point Hewitt's question - "what does it mean that Limbaugh, Hannity, Santorum, Ingraham and Hewitt all support Romney".  Well nothing - other than the bloviators have gotten too full of themselves. 

Are we that stupid?  Everything McCain has done / supported has been supported by Bush.  Is Bush then center - left?  Please just stop assuming I have "stuck on stupid" tattooed on my forehead. 

I will be voting for John McCain if for no other reason than the pundits don't want me to.

I am a conservative and I will be voting for McCain.  Why?  Because the "conservatives" have been betraying us for years so I might as well vote for an honest liberal. 

I was upset with John McCain for McCain-Feingold until I remembered that BUSH signed it into law - with the pathetic "well it is not great but better than what we have now" line.

I was upset with John McCain for the gang of 14 until I remembered that such a compromise did nothing to the country really and may have simply gotten a few guys through a little faster.

I was upset with John McCain for his questioning of the pharmaceuticals until it occurred to me that if these "patriotic businesses" were so great to Americans - Canadians would be subsidizing the cost of medications for Americans and not the other way around. 

During the Reagan years I was a child but I grew up believing that Reagan would have done more if Congress would have had a Republican majority.

It is my understanding that we had a golden opportunity between 2000 - 2004/06 to make "conservative" ideals understood and permanent.  Where were the "conservatives" then?

Yesterday on Hugh Hewitt I heard of the country's certain doom if Romney (or Giuliani) were not the nominee. The end of the Reagan era, the end of conservatism etc etc. So this morning I decided it was about time to look into the candidates - after all my primary is just around the corner on February 5th.  My only source of info is the internet so I visited Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Huck's sites (sorry Fred I think your out soon).  What I found surprised even me.

In the interest of full disclosure - I have already stated I do not like Romney.  Perhaps deep down he holds all the right convictions - I just can't listen to him (something about his voice).  I also think he does not answer questions directly but as even Hugh has acknowledged will answer in deference to shrewd political calculation.
Anyway - I really did not like the site.  It seems there is no hierarchy with everything from MittTV to MittPhone fighting with each other for attention.  The various pictures of Mitt all seem to catch him from an angle - what is that his good side?  Then the issues page (GROAN) what is this - we get a history lesson and Romney Plan - Blah Blah Blah.  I still have no idea HOW he plans to achieve his plan.  

Truthfully - my man was originally Giuliani.  If only because he had a track record of springing into action in the face of a crisis.  His website has that great picture of him looking serious and strong and....that's about it.  The entire site seems to lack passion and quite frankly appears a bit lazy.  It is as if the web-designer got all video insert happy.  Please I have no time to click on each video.

Next I went to Huck -  it was immediately obvious that he had less money as there were less gimmicks but in the simplicity there was one great feature - the bullet point.  Finally someone who appreciates that they are talking to the already converted and gives me a clear answer. 

Finally I went to McCain.  McCain the old guy, McCain the gang of 14, McCain the head RINO and what did I find - McCain the only one with a great Website.  The site has a hierarchy, it has pictures of Americans not just the candidate, it has continues slideshows with great quotes from his supporters, it has clear easy to understand plans (in bullet form) and HOW to accomplish this.  I must say I was surprised (also because he was way hot as a young man!).

So - now I am really confused.  In a world of new media how much does a website reflect its candidate? 

I am still not ready to forgive or forget for campaign finance reform or the gang of 14 BUT McCain gets points for hiring a great web-designer. 

I live in a little gem of a neighborhood right smack in the middle of Los Angeles.  As with many Los Angeles areas our six little blocks just North of the 10 fwy and between two major off-ramps has its own name.  Lately (or was it always?) Los Angelenos find the need to be more specific about where they live than simply indicating they live in Los Angeles.  So, one no longer lives just in Los Angeles but in Koreatown, Hancock Park, Park La Brea or West LA.  Sometimes even those designations are too broad and must be narrowed down as in the case of West Adams.  West Adams thus is further reduced to Harvard Heights, Western Heights, Kinney Heights etc. Wherever one lives the one designation one does not want is "South Central".  So although my house is IN the South Central Planning Area it is known as Western Heights.   Such designations beget the inevitable Block Clubs and Homeowners Associations originally intended to be nothing more than Neighborhood Watch Groups but have since evolved into raging unchecked and bullying activist organizations with their rage typically directed at their own constituents.  Were there bloody bodies in the streets no doubt the DA would be asking for injunctions against them but the bodies are not piling up and their power is ever increasing.  Thus the street gang (100% Democrats) I most fear is NOT the local thugs for which there is police but my own neighborhood block club. 

First Offense:  Stolen Property Rights.
When we bought our house over ten years ago now there was little interest in the area.  The homes were old, the freeway too close, the nearest cross-streets too transited and there were no residential friendly business nearby (we are surrounded by restaurant supply businesses).  Today the freeway is still too close, the major streets too transited and there are still no residential friendly businesses nearby BUT the homes have been restored / remodeled / and sold to people who know they live in South Central despite our catchy name and would prefer to live elsewhere. 

About five years ago, the local gang - I mean block club - decided that the homes needed to be preserved for all posterity.  With the help of the bigger cosa nostra - aka West Adams Heritage Association and Los Angeles Conservancy they successfully assumed control over the exterior of our house under the auspices of the Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ).  Don't get me wrong - I am not opposed to "preservation" especially of public landmarks but my 1927 Monterrey Colonial house is not a landmark simply because of its age.  Nothing remarkable happened in it - no one of particular note lived in it and it was not designed by a famous architect.  It is just old - with lots of elbow grease it is perfect for us. 

It is one thing to "preserve" a neighborhood as single family residential with appropriate setbacks and height restrictions but it is quite another to specify the type of exterior side yard walls, roofing material, paint, accessory buildings, landscaping, additions to / removals of anything and everything on the house as the all-encompassing HPOZ mandates.  The HPOZ board - all appointed by various government agencies no less - must review and approve any and all work prior to the city even looking at it.  HUH?????? 

As if that was not enough the neighborhood gang of 60 was successfully able to implement its evil plan OVER the objections of 180 petitioners.  The Planning Commission stated that they did not understand why we would object if other areas of the city had not.  Denying the designation because of the pesky majority would set a bad precedent - like Democracy or something.  

So now my un-remarkable house has a governing board that makes sure that I re-roof the house with not only appropriate materials but the appropriate color shingles.  At least the board in my neighborhood promised not to specify the paint colors of a house - as in their opinion they would consider them a "reversible" condition.  So I painted my house rust, blue, green with a single yellow window just to tick them off.  And they say Republicans want to legislate how people live.

OK - enough of campaigns and elections.  There are enough pundits out there talking the election to death.  I am certainly NO expert.  My blog was intended to talk about things that are of particular interest to me such as books, movies, theater and the declining state of liberty in our own back yards.  

So......first on a lighter note.  The best book I read last year was.......The Hummingbird's Daughter by Luis Alberto Urrea.  Some have compared his writing to Gabriel Garcia Marquez.  I personally think he is much better.  The writing is a perfect balance of description and action.   I prefer to read Marquez in English simply because it seems to move a bit faster.  When I was reading One Hundred Years of Solitude I would find myself jumping to the next paragraph just to get on with it.  With Urrea however, I would linger on each sentence just marveling at its perfect construction.  As for the story - it cannot get better.  An alleged true Mexican Saint?  Even Juan Diego did not perform the alleged miracles attributed to the Santa of Cabora.  If you like history, romance, and suspense this book is definitely for you. 

Hillary;
Once again you have betrayed the female code.  As if "staying by your philandering man" was not enough now you pull the tears in public.  We never cry in public - we always cry in private and then only to win an argument we are at brink of losing with our man - provided "our man" cares about us.  Crying in public over the state of the union is weak and pathetic.  What ?  Are you going to cry to Putin that you really really care and he is not being sensitive to your needs?  What is next?  Peace Baking Summits at the White House? 

Ms.  Rice feel free to cry at the next cabinet meeting.....

Is it just me or is everyone over this election already.  About the only thing I know is that I will vote (reluctantly and sadly) for whomever is left on the Republican side after this fiasco and only because they might be slightly better than a Democrat.  Why reluctantly - well because none of them are the ideal for me.

Huckabee - while at the very least more entertaining to listen to and at the very least sounds sincere - I have truly no idea what he stands for.

Romney - is anyone else annoyed by his timpanic voice and that urgency to respond that makes him talk over himself while not saying anything.

Giuliani - I don't seem to remember what he looks like - anyone seen him lately?

Thompson - every once in a while he awakes from his slumber and rips off a singer and then seem to doze (spelling correct?)

McCain - the wounds are still fresh on my back  - can you say gang of 14.  

AND while I will not take my legos and go home (I never played with barbies)  I will however not give anyone any money this year.