Remember seeing the old black and white film clip of President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Mr. Roosevelt spoke in righteous indignation (quote)..."December 7, 1941-- a day that will live in infamy."

Now flash forward to August 18, 1976; a day-- as time progresses-- that will live forever in infamy, for both the Republican party and America. Hardcore political junkies can never forget it.

On that fateful day, one of the most electrifying floor fights in political history took place in Kansas City, Missouri, where Gerald Ford and  Ronald Reagan were virtually deadlocked in the delegate count going into the final vote for the presidential nomination.

Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, he lacked the amount necessary to secure victory. The convention had opened with both candidates pulling out "all the stops" to win.

But then Reagan committed his biggest career political blunder-- he alienated his core conservative support:

In a bid to attract liberals and centrists, Mr. Reagan nominated Richard Schweiker for his V.P-- the Arlen Specter of his day. The move immediately backfired, infuriating conservatives who despised the liberal Pennsylvania Senator.  Many of the crucial uncommitted delegates who were leaning to Reagan, now fled over to the Ford camp.

This would be Reagan's day of infamy, and it would indeed, have consequences...great consequences.

Had he gone with his first choice --conservative New York Senator, James L. Buckley-- political historians agree the nomination would have swung over to Mr. Reagan; but the blunder allowed Ford to gain the momentum he needed to win the nomination.

But yet, the final balloting for president was electrifying. As the first states began to declare, the drama and suspense were palpable in the air. Ford won the nomination with 1187 votes to 1080 votes for Reagan; and despite his blunder, it was that close...107 votes .

Reagan endorsed Ford at the close of the convention, and delivered a truly inspirational and magnanimous declaration of "party unity", an eloquent stirring speech that far overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address.

In an ironic quote from a story in the August 20, 1976 edition of the "Kansas City Star," it read..."Some delegates left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate".

SOME DELAGATES? All the delegates!

Anyone on that convention floor who had heard Reagan's reconciliation speech, immediately realized they had made a grievous mistake in picking Ford; and thus we ended up with Jimmy Carter- the smiling peanut farmer-- a disastrous 1-term president whose damage to America is still resounding to this very day.

Yes, the delegates had left the convention "wondering" (knowing) if they had voted for the wrong man.

And how 'bout 1996? The Republicans nominated Bob Dole. What chance did a meandering, plodding speaker like Dole have against slick Willie Clinton?

But despite the obvious mismatch, the Republican delegates again had voted for the wrong man, nominating Mr. Dole on the basis that "it was his turn," and because of his staunch loyalty to the party, he "deserved to be nominated."

Predictably, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" (as they had done to Ford) ridiculed the dignified Dole to no end, portraying him as an ancient, senile, clumsy, and bumbling dolt, who could not even maintain his balance on a stage.

After the liberal media had sliced and diced Dole to pieces, Clinton won in a landslide.

So as before, the Republicans--in their vain attempt to "be fair" to a party loyalist-- we again harken back to that quote..."wondering if they had nominated the wrong man."

Ever since the untimely death of the political genius, Lee Atwater in 1991, the Republicans inexplicably have lost their ability to survive media attacks from the left, and it has cost them dearly.

Atwater was George H.W. Bush's media guru, who crafted the controversial Willie Horton campaign ad, and suggested that a video clip of Michael Dukakis--looking foolish riding atop a tank-- be incorporated in to a second negative campaign ad, that almost overnight saw the liberal Dukakis give up a nine-point September lead in the polls, to a turn-around where Bush won in a November landslide.

But if it hadn't been for Atwater, again it would have been a case where the Republicans would've nominated the wrong man, and the weak, meek Dukakis would have been in the Whitehouse, and in plenty of time to appease the blustery Saddam Hussein, and his 1991 takeover of Kuwait may have gone unanswered.

But what if Reagan had won in 1976? There would have been no Jimmy Carter's destruction of the CIA; no disastrous Community Reinvestment Act; no stagflation; no gas lines;  no Iranian hostage crisis; no Russian invasion of Afghanistan; and probably, no rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Other than that, Carter would have been a legendary president.

But consider if the Gipper had won:

Reagan would have strengthened the military, shored up the economy; and unlike Carter, would have been no naive whipping boy, genuflecting before our Mideast enemies.

But it was not meant to be. If only it were not for those misguided 107 votes on August 19 of 1976, how different would our nation be today?

Even as late as spring, 2008, the litany of Republican political stupidity has continued on unabated.

Last year, in the initial primary days, the Republicans were on the verge of nominating Mitt Romney--an honest, experienced, self-made, super rich businessman-- who had an actual plan to re-invent America's economy using traditional means: fiscal responsibility, tax cuts to stimulate private investment in new plants, and create new industry.

But despite him being perhaps the most accomplished man to ever run for president, Romney was lampooned unrelentingly by the other Republican candidates for his religion, his 1994 "flip-flop" on abortion; and his stellar economic and political achievements were marginalized by a carping, jealous, liberal media.

Romney was shamefully victimized by his own party, and the very man the GOP needed most to shore up a sinking economy, had himself been sunk by sheer Republican folly, who got just what they deserved: death by stupidity-- political party suicide-- the nomination of  the boring, stodgy, John McCain, who had practically zero chance against the youthful magnetism of Barack Obama.

And if that were not enough, the shining charisma of Sarah Palin, who's brilliant acceptance speech for VP had won her legions of both partisan and non-partisan support, was mishandled so badly (stupidly), that within 4 weeks, she had been annihilated politically, with the public led to believing that she was little more than a female Homer Simpson: a dismayed, chuckle-headed, moose-hunting housewife, who just somehow happened to win the governor's seat of Alaska.

Of course, once again it was all courtesy of a jealous liberal media, borne of Republican political stupidity.

But only if Lee Atwater had been around for the last 20 years... who knows? This late, brilliant media strategist may have gone on to guide the Republicans to victories in 92, 96, and 2008; but the former architect of George Bush's victory in 1988, died of a brain tumor at the age of 40-- the peak of his political success and power.

Atwater-- considered the Republican Party's best political tactician of the last century-- was feared for his readiness to skewer democratic opponents, and his skill in carrying out those attacks.

But ever since his passing, the Republicans have done just the opposite -- played fair 'n square, and have been the party of the nice guys-- a surefire way to lose every election.

If the Republicans insist on being nice guys, they've gotta be smart; innovative; win on ingenuity-- try something different-- start the 2012 nomination for president right now.

That’s right...start now! It would capture the political spotlight; it would force the liberal media to see the Republican stars in action, firing away at the inexperienced arrogance of Barack Obama, and professing smart political and economic solutions of their own.

Imagine Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney on a national speaking tour: Palin for her expertise in energy, and Romney for his brilliant ideas to revive the economy.

Imagine Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor speaking together-- another dynamic duo, who now serve in the House of Representatives. Cantor for his brilliance on budgets and numbers, and Bachmann for her fiery patriotism, both denouncing the treasonous liberals in the Obama administration.

All four of these Republican stars, given a national forum, could outshine the false, "tele-prompted" popularity of Barack Obama, and expose him for what he is-- a shameless, supercilious liberal, who has but one agenda-- tax and spend America into socialist oblivion.

Picture a touring Republican cavalcade of stars-- a premature primary campaign-- warning America that the media is out to subvert all conservatives, and every voter must trust their own instincts, because there is no truth anywhere in American politics; only lies; only traitors (Arlen Specter), with liberal democrats strictly out for themselves.

Or it could be known as "the Republican Truth Squad of the Stars," revitalizing the party, re-energizing the nation; and demonstrating that there is hope--yes hope-- for the United States to once more be great; or as Reagan so artfully professed..."morning in America again."
 
Who-- besides the lying liberal media--says the Republicans don't have any ideas, and lack any true leaders? Let them be seen!

Stop the defeatist myth that there is no one who can defeat Obama in 2012. Stop it dead in its tracks! The democrats are behind it all--joined at the hip with the leftist media-- and the Republicans must put an end to their lies, or they will once again be victimized by their own naive stupidity.

Elections do matter; and not the best candidate, but the smartest political party, invariably wins; and not always to the benefit of the country as a whole.

The Republican fairness and "decency" doctrine continues to yield disastrous results in the form of 3 liberal presidents, who have appeased our enemies, and supported calamitous socio-economic policies, where America's long term survival as a great nation may actually be in doubt.

Lee Atwater--wherever you are-- what would you do?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

After the 2001 attack on September 11, Saddam Hussein, on behalf of his Baathist party, sent a message of sympathy to the American families of those who had perished: "I have well pondered over your emotions regarding the victims of the two towers. All I can say in presenting my condolences, is to reiterate the Muslim's linguistic formula for occasions like this: "God has created us, and to him, we return".

At that time, Saddam had said he did not know who was behind the attacks, and affirmed that he would not offer condolences to George W Bush, whose father he blamed for the hated U.N.sanctions against Iraq after the First Gulf War.

Now contrast this to the way the 9-11 news was received where the Islamic extremists dominated the population. There were wild celebrations in downtown Riyahd (Saudi Arabia), and parades in the Palestinian territories in Gaza and West Bank. The Iranian mullahs could not contain their joy. Score one for the Muslim fundamentalists!

Since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1978, those 'devilish' Muslim extremists have been at it ever since. They are avowed enemies of America, and they have the determination to go to no end to see America's eventual downfall

After 1979, "Khomeinism" was exported; Shiite fundamentalists were organized and nourished financially from Iranian petrodollars. Had Khomeini not assumed power in Iran, (one of the major OPEC oil exporters), "Islamic fundamentalism" would not have been the issue of global concern it is today.

Khomeini attempted to provoke the Muslims everywhere to revolt and establish an Islamic government modeled after his own, and be subject to the outside influences of Iranian chicanery and bribery.

A prime example is the war in Iraq. Ever since the late 1990's, the mullahs were using their oil money on the black market to divert the shipping of thousands of microchips and other sophisticated American-made electronics to Iran in violation of a 1995 ban. These were then used to equip roadside bombs with remote-controlled detonators in Iraq, accounting for about 70 percent of American combat deaths
 
Even today, with security vastly improved as a result of the "surge', the Shiite suicide bombers are re-emerging in Iraq, determined to keep the cauldron  of violence boiling. A female bomber blew herself up near an entrance to the U.S.-protected Green Zone, and a bomb tore through a minibus carrying Iraqi government employees, killing at least 20 people; and a third attack on an Iraqi police patrol in Baghdad killed two civilians.

 And should the Americans depart in 2010, that’s just a preview of what’s to come.
 
Today al Jazeera, the official Islamic TV network, would undoubtedly covet the chance to broadcast an Islamic public service message of radicalism…”These suicide bombings have been brought to you by our sponsor...Hezbollah, a division of the Iranian mullahs, whose slogan is..." life --in the eyes of Islam-- is cheap". We have an unlimited expendable amount of lives, and an unlimited amount of time for the removal the Israel from the map; and eventually, for undermining the great Satan of America...it is our final solution!"

Looking back to the late 1970's, there has been no let up in the slow, but sure influences in the growth of radical fundamentalism, which has ominously emerged in the rapidly growing secular Islamic populations in western Europe.

The current policy of appeasement which Europe has adopted toward Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government, is not unlike the appeasement of Chamberlain to Hitler at 1938 Munich. It has similar effects. Whenever the mullahs see that their support for fundamentalism beyond Iran's borders does not meet with an adverse reaction, they are encouraged to agitate more.

If the United States should withdraw from Iraq prematurely, the Iranians would (could) have the upper hand within a short period of time, and it would result in a much worse situation than the pre-war Saddam era.

And it’s not just a question of politics or religion-- the Islamic fundamentalists are at a cultural war with America. We are not known as the great Satan for the purposes of P.R. These radicals  despise all there is about America, and nothing short of political overthrow can ever deter them. Therefore, negotiating is probably not a real option in the long run.

They remain our implacable enemies, who only understand force. And the cultural divide that fundamental Islam poses with the west will never be breached in our lifetimes.

Even now the Iranians are trying to pass a law that would allow men to take on additional wives without having to notify their first wife. This is  a fine upstanding example of radical Muslim values--the more women in this life, the "marrier". And then they promise all who would martyr themselves for the Islamic Cause,to be rewarded with 72 virgins in the afterlife.
 
Funny how they got to arrive at that 72 number, isn’t it? Or even the stipulation that they all be virgins. Guess its all part of that cultural divide that we will never understand

 
So it’s no wonder that no matter how much we shine the shoes of Saudi Arabia, or kiss the feet of Ahmadinejad for Iranian compliance to our no-nuclear wishes, it doesn’t matter, and will never matter-- our basic way of life is an anathema to their basic way of life,

As archaic and medieval as it sounds, these Islamic extremists don’t want anyone rocking their boat… “Do not attempt to challenge our right to subjugate women...our Islam-permitted bigamy is worth fighting for”.  Think about it. In this age of viagra, wouldn’t you want to defend your right to have an unlimited number of wives?
 
When the U.S. military moved into Saudi Arabia in 1991 as a pre-staging area for Desert Storm, they also brought with them American culture, which included female service personnel, who drove jeeps around by themselves. This, plus the fact that the U.S. soldiers would attempt to flirt with attractive Saudi women, served only to enrage Osama bin Laden, the man who declared war on America, and who has at least 5 KNOWN wives himself.

Bin Laden immediately recognized the cultural peril. He wrote: "If we were to embrace the values of these Americans, it would undermine belief in Allah, destroy the Muslim family, and corrupt the holy innocence of Muslim girls and Muslim children."

He warned both the governments of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. that he would wage war against "the defilers of the sacred places".  But at that time, Americans did not understand what the big deal was in defiling the "holy places" of Islam in the  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina. So the stage was set for September 11, and the ongoing war against America  by Osama bin Laden and his organization.

Think how different the world would be today if Kuwait could have been rescued from Saddam without the American buildup in Saudi Arabia. George H. W. Bush may have been reelected, leading to no Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush may never have even been a candidate. But time only moves forward.

And ironically, time may go on to prove that the most hated president in modern history, may have gotten it right the first time. In his 2002 state of the union speech, Bush first spoke of Iran as part of the axis of evil.

But what if the U.S. were to withdraw from Iraq, and go onto to kill bin Laden in Afghanistan? Would this end the war on terror as defined by the Bush doctrine? The Shiite Iranians would quickly re-emerge in Iraq, and could politically destabilize the country, and as mentioned before, we would be in a worse position than before the war when Saddam reigned.

The sheer determination of Islamic fundamentalists can be found in their creed --they have fundamental differences with America in  every way. Americans will always be the infidels, the atheists, the defilers, and the invaders; and either they overtake us or American culture will eventually overtake them

Bush always said the center of the war on terror was in Iraq; and ironically, he may be proved correct should the Iranians eventually succeed in nuking Israel, and then blocking the Strait of Hormuz, and cutting off the huge percentage of oil we import from there. This would cripple our military, leaving it without sufficient fuel to fight a lengthy conflict. So what then?

The U.S. cannot afford to let Iran go nuclear, and have this option hanging over our heads. Like Bin laden, the Iranian mullahs have a trump card-- America doesn’t understand the depth of their hostility, nor the threat to their culture we represent to them.

A primary example of the fervor of militant Iranian Islamic fundamentalism can  be traced back to1981, after Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel. It was the debut of the type of Iranian-exported radical Islam that would actually attack anyone, (even a politically popular hero from an Islamic country such as Egypt) who displayed ANY signs of pro-westernism.

Sadat was assassinated by his own people, who knew being friends with Israel would soon open the door for Israeli culture, such as women soldiers, women treated as equals, women holding jobs and college degrees, etc. The basic tenet of Islamic fundamentalism has less to do with religious differences than it does with the western ideal of women as equals. Fundamentalism basically says: "do not attempt to mess with our freedom to subjugate women to mere objects... they exist strictly for the pleasure of men".
 
We can never come to terms with any nation that is fundamentally Moslem, no matter what we do. To them not only is life cheap (suicide bombers), they hold women in an entirely different light. They see women as having no civil right to be educated, hold jobs, or even drive a car. What if the democrats had nominated Hillary? It would have been determined as a sign of weakness, and American softness; and invited ridicule and hostility.
 
And If the U.S. had elected her as president, America would be mocked widely throughout the Muslim world as a weakened nation.

With Hillary as secretary of state, the Muslim extremist nations will take a tongue in cheek attitude toward negotiations , and undoubtedly, hold no treaty agreements as binding. They have no respect for women in any role except that of a child bearer, and for this very reason, neither side will ever have any common ground with the other, at least for the foreseeable future.

In Afghanistan today, the Taliban goes around throwing acid at girls who are caught going to school. The Saudi police arrest women caught driving cars, even in emergencies . Plainclothes Iranian secret police go around arresting any females wearing jeans. They don’t want these women to get any "ideas" that they actually have a human right to being the equal status of men.
 
Can you ever picture American diplomacy as making inroads with any radical Muslim leader, such as Ahmadinejad? But actually, what HAS made inroads into the previously closed Moslem societies is the satellite dish and the internet.

Rap music has become increasingly popular amongst young urban males in "underground" Teheran. The Islamic republic's hard-line officials have repeatedly complained about a "cultural invasion" by "decadent" western music, which they believe diminishes Islamic values. Officials expressed  frustration that rap artists were finding ways to publish rap music on the Internet. "We should find a solution for this."

So what is the final solution for the befuddled mullahs? Go after the source-- the great Satan America! And time is their side, and the oil money to eventually ruin and subvert us.
 
Why do you think our greatest enemies are now of Islamic origin? The answer once again is the dish. For centuries Islamic societies were closed to the outside world; but when forbidden American TV shows and movies began to percolate through their populations from hidden satellite dishes, word quickly spread..."in America,  women drive cars, have jobs, wear makeup and jeans, and go shopping".

And the word really got out amongst the young : "Psst!..this traditional Koranic Islam is for the mullahs, we Iranian girls just wanna have fun; we wanna watch soap operas...we wanna wear jeans, and get our hair done for the weekend! You mullahs can keep this hijab (islamic head scarf)."

Young Iranian men want to play and dance to American music, and cruise for young ladies on Friday night. American films such as "Saturday Night Fever" and Clint Eastwood cowboy flicks, are immensely popular. Oprah is the favorite TV show for Saudi women, who long for the freedom of expression women have in America.
 
With the genie now out of the bottle in all the middle eastern nations, so began the rumblings..."we want what the Americans have"...posing a grave political threat to the traditional Islamic way of life everywhere.

So is it any wonder that radical Islam toward the US emerged as suddenly, and with such fanatical ferocity, as it did? America is an anathema to them-- an upheaval. The satanic American lifestyle merits one a quick trip to Islamic hell, so they'll never again sell us cheap oil as they did in the early 70's.

And they'll continue their attempt to undermine us before we unintentionally undermine them.

Obviously, our no-drilling insanity plays right into their "holy" hands, as they continue to import huge sums of our money. This is also why we must find some political solution to open up and explore our offshore oil and domestic shale, and mine our own energy resources.
 
But our energy policy has been compromised on the homefront by the radical leftists. We've placed a cumbersome, political-environmental rope around our necks.

It's also necessary to stop this liberal idea that we should be apologists.  We must cease this mindless national self flagellation...stop this foolish atonement for our American lifestyle that's imitated and coveted by the rest of the world, and think of ourselves first. If we don't, will any other nations look out for us?

These "other nations" may say they love America, but which of them aren't deeply envious of all we have?. They'd love to overtake us.  Everyone wants to drive a car, enjoy addictive fast food like us, speak American slang, and live like Americans; plus watch TV and surf the internet.

In an oblique way of speaking, you could now say that worldwide, everyone is now "American" in their heart of hearts.

So lets look at the "WE" versus "THEM" scoreboard for the future. They have the oil and the sheer will of their political-religious determination (and the latitude of time); and we have an insane, self-destructive energy policy, and a desire to appease and play nice. So with the new American tilt to liberalism, who will likely triumph in the long run?

A betting man, over time, would probably place his money on the fundamentalists. And without a FUNDAMENTAL change in our attitude, the mullahs will come to realize that they can look to Martin Luther King for their inspiration, knowing eventually..."they shall overcome", and someday find a way to defeat us in a relentless and uncompromising holy war against the United States and the West as a whole.