In the St. Louis post dispatch Sunday they had an article pretending to be a help wanted ad stating " Wanted: Candidate to lead a fractured, scandal-ridden party in a late-starting campaign against a strong, well-financed opponent. Prefer wealthy applicants willing to spend heavily with no return and little chance of victory. Boring sex life a must." Why would anyone want to do this? What your not being told is that nobody has dropped out because they thought they can't win. It is more a case of not enough money or not enough time to bring up their name recognition and in some cases the base would NEVER go for them. The obvious choice, Jim Oberweis still wants the job. Seeing he received the second most votes and ran on a conservative agenda it is natural that he should be next. General Borling wants the job as well as two others who ran in the primary.

Yes, it will be a tuff run. A run for an open seat is NEVER easy. Both parties will pull out all stops, especially now, in a time of Illinois supposedly leaning Democrat. If you listen to the talking heads you would think that Barak Obama lead the primary from beginning to end overwhelmingly and is a shoe in to win this seat. If it were up to them he would be. You see, the media, especially in the Chicago market, thinks you have to be a mushy moderate for anyone to even think of voting Republican. Even the "Republican" paper the Chicago Tribune is pro choice and anti gun. In their view anyone who claims the mantle of conservatisim cannot hope to win in this state. To them Senator Fitzgerald is an anomaly, he's a pro lifer who won the seat over an incumbent African American women. Right away they explained that away buy saying Senator Braun was a flawed candidate and Fitz only won because he spent a ton of money.

Yes, Senator Fitzgerald spent a lot of money, but that is far from the reason why he won that race. Senator Fitzgerald saw what was happening in Illinois that most elite's didn't; the GOP is now a conservative party. Fitzgerald galvanized the conservative movement and brought them together like nobody before or since. You see the GOP leadership in Illinois is a lot like the Chicago Tribune, middle of the road moderate Republicans, holdovers from another era. The Reagan revolution missed this state because the combine had been put into place in 1977. Jim Thompson and the Republican party leaders of the 80's and 90's never changed because they never had to. These old forces NEVER thought that Fitzgerald would win a statewide election. They were surprised that he beat their candidate in the primary, but thought that he could never win the general election. They never gave him one bit of help, money or people or access, so he had to finance it himself. There are some who say the leadership made a deal with the Democratic end of the combine, they get the Senate seats and we (the GOP) get the Governors mansion. I know that is cynical, but when you look at the back stabbing and close ties between the leaders of both parties it makes you wonder.

Now back to the media darling Barak Obama and his coronation. Until the last few weeks of the primary, Obama was mired in second or third place down by 10 to 15 points. It was not until Blair Hull opened his divorce files and a charge of battery came out that Hull dropped and Obama ended up as the winner. Obama went the whole winter telling people that the economy was the worst since the great depression. He was against the war in Iraq and for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. A week after the primary Obama was a guest on Chicago tonight, he was asked about a column from Tom Roeser stating he was the most liberal candidate ever to get a major party nomination in Illinois. His answer was to laugh, he then said and I quote " I am the only candidate in this race who has voted for a tax cut, the earned income tax credit." The quote proved the point Tom Roeser was trying to make. Anyone who thinks a government program is a tax cut, is the most liberal out of touch candidate the Democrats have ever run. Obama had a very poor showing in the southern part of the state and his name recognition is very low outside of the Chicago land area.

Now to the point I am trying to make. This a winnable race for the GOP as long as the State Central Committee picks a conservative. As I said before, I think Jim Oberweis is the perfect choice. Like Obama, Oberweis will move up from second place after divorce files took out the leading contender. Oberweis has name recognition in metropolitan areas that rivals Obama, and he has the money to be able to run a race the way it has to be run. He has run in two campaigns. He was arguably the best debater in the primary, Democrat or Republican. He is pro life, pro second amendment, anti tax, and is an expert at economic issues, he can solidify the conservatives like Fitzgerald. Yes some people are worried about his stand on illegal immigration, or his supposed attack on the Presidents program to deal with it .Oberweis agrees with the President on 97% of the issues. The funny thing is, it is the people who vote for Obama who agree with Oberweis the most on that issue, African Americans and Trade unions. Obama will never bring it up, he can't.

Jack Ryan was down in the polls and was not going to recover, he made a mistake of not being totally truthful to his base. The reason Obama is in the lead is not that he was or is such a great candidate it is that he has not been challenged on any of his proposals yet. He has had a free ride with nobody defining who he is or what his agenda is. Socialized medicine, higher taxes, stopping the war on terror, gay marriage, repeal of Defence of Marriage act signed into law by Bill Clinton. He's for more regulations on business and home schoolers, he against school choice, don't ask don't tell, tort reform and pro affirmative action. This is his platform. Tom Roeser was correct, you can see why the Democrats want to hide these views.

Lets face it we are given a second chance to redefine this race, we are lucky. There won't be any last minute drops of divorce files on the media to worry about. Whoever gets the nod will have to hit the ground running and for a week at least will be the headliner in all of the papers, they will be able to define Obama. This race is far from over. The only way to guarantee a victory for Obama is to put a RINO in this race and disenfranchise the GOP primary voters. The Republican party can't be that dumb. Can It?

In September 2002, the President defined and sent to Congress the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. In it he offers a bold vision for protecting our Nation that realizes today’s new realities and new opportunities. It calls on America to use our position of unparalleled strength and influence to create a balance of power that favors freedom.

The strategy has three pillars:
*We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.
*We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world’s great powers.
*And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe.
As the world’s most powerful nation, President Bush believes that the United States has a special responsibility to help make the world more secure.

Strengthening America’s Defense

President Bush made a clear commitment to provide the nation with the best trained, best equipped and most effective military force in the world – no matter what it takes. The President’s budget will enable the Department of Defense to continue waging an aggressive and global war on terrorism while supporting the transformation of our nation’s military capabilities. The budget also follows through on the President’s continued commitment to improving the quality of life for our military personnel and their families.

*President Bush’s budget proposed $379.9 billion for the Department of Defense, increasing defense spending by $15.3 billion.
*The budget fully reflects the Bush Administration’s defense strategy, which calls for a focus on countering 21st century threats such as terrorism.
*The United States must strengthen its defenses to protect the nation’s interests and to assure a leading role in global affairs.
The President believes that the men and women who choose to serve this country deserve not only our respect, but also our support in terms of pay, housing and other quality-of-life issues.

Increasing Military Pay
*The President is committed to taking good care of our military personnel and their families. His fiscal year 2004 budget builds on pay increases of 4% or more in the last two budgets.
*The budget funds a range of military pay increases from 2 to 6.25%, targeted by rank and years of service. These pay increases enhance our military’s ability to retain its most experienced, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
Renovating Military Housing

The President is committed to a full range of quality of life programs, including the renovation of military housing.

*In 2002 President Bush made sure that there was an additional $400 million made available to improve military housing.
*The 2004 budget keeps the Department of Defense on track in its plan to eliminate inadequate military housing. 163,000 inadequate housing units will be eliminated by 2007.
*The Bush Administration proposes to reduce average out-of-pocket expenses for military families living in local communities to zero by 2005. During 2003, such expenses will drop to 7.5% from 15.0% in 2001.
Improving Military Training

*The FY 04 budget sustains increased funding levels for training from last year, so that U.S. forces are fully prepared for waging the war on terror and meeting other commitments. The budget robustly funds the Services’ training goals, as measured in aircraft flying hours, ship steaming days, and ground vehicle miles.
Winning the War on Terror

*In 2003, coalition forces acted with skill and bravery to liberate the Iraqi people and remove a grave and gathering danger to America and the world.
*In 2001, with less than a month’s notice, American and British forces joined with local anti-Taliban troops in an assault on the al Qaeda network and the Taliban regime that gave it safe harbor in Afghanistan.
*In both cases, decisive victories were achieved by integrating real time intelligence with sophisticated technologies in cooperation with indigenous forces.
Missile Defense

*During the 2000 campaign, President Bush said, “America’s development of a missile defense is a search for security, not a search for advantage.”
*The President is committed to developing effective missile defenses based on the best available technologies, to be deployed at the earliest possible date. These defenses will be designed to protect our deployed forces abroad, all 50 States, and our friends and allies overseas.
*In December 2001, following months of negotiations and discussions with Russia, the United States provided a formal six-month notice that it was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.
*The President’s FY04 Budget provides over $9 billion to begin the deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missile threats, including new interceptors to be deployed over the next two years.

Strengthen Intelligence
*The President proposed increases of between $2 billion and $3 billion in intelligence spending, to a total of nearly $35 billion.
*Included in that proposal are enhancements to the capabilities of the FBI and other law enforcement/intelligence agencies.

Stealth Ships/Long-Range Missiles
*The FY 03 budget funds four Trident ballistic missile submarines converted to submarines equipped with long-range cruise missiles.
*The Navy awarded a $2.9 billion contract to begin building so-called “stealth ships” that can better evade radar detection.

Strengthening Intelligence to Better Protect America
*In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a new initiative to better protect America by continuing to close the “seam” between analysis of foreign and domestic intelligence on terrorism. Elements of the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, the DCI’s Counterterrorist Center, and the Department of Defense have come together to form a Terrorist Threat Integration Center to fuse and analyze all-source information related to terrorism.
*This new center is working to merge and analyze terrorist-related information collected domestically and abroad in order to form the most comprehensive possible threat picture.
*Since September 11, 2001, our government has been working together and sharing information like never before. The President is committed to ensuring that intelligence information from all sources is shared, integrated, and analyzed seamlessly – and then acted upon quickly.

Transforming the Military/Next Generation Weapons

The President also worked to fund the following next-generation weapons:
*Unmanned aerial vehicles such as those used in the war against terrorism, which provide greater, longer-endurance intelligence and combat capabilities directly to the war-fighter at far less cost and risk to military personnel than manned aircraft;
*Unmanned underwater vehicles that can greatly extend the range and capabilities of submarines and surface ships at less cost and without risk to sailors;
*The Army’s Land Warrior technology, which digitizes the communications and intelligence capabilities of the individual infantry soldier to enhance situational awareness and combat capability;
*Small precision bombs, which increase the quantity of targets that each individual aircraft can strike;
*Bunker-defeating munitions to target the growing threats of deeply hidden weapons of mass destruction; and
*Space-based radar and space control systems, which enhance our surveillance capabilities and our capabilities to collect and utilize information from space.

2.)Kerry Voted Against $87 Billion War Supplemental. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

3.)Kerry Offered A Tortured Explanation Of His Vote Against The $87 Billion To Support Troops In Iraq. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Richard W. Stevenson and Adam Nagourney, "Bush's Campaign Emphasizes Role Of Leader In War," The New York Times, 3/17/04)

4.)Kerry Said He's "Proud" That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers. "Here is the value that John Edwards and I will put in place. I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed." (John Kerry, Remarks at "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04)

5.)Kerry Says His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was "Complicated." Don Imus: "That's probably a longer answer than I would be able to give to, say, Senator Miller or Senator Hatch, but …" Sen. Kerry: "Well, you know, that's a problem. Some of these things are a little complicated. They like to simplify them and pretend to America. The pretending time is over." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04)

Kerry And Biden Differ On Vote:

Kerry Offers Biden Amendment As Defense Of His Vote. Sen. Kerry: "So Joe Biden and I, and I know you like Joe, Joe and I brought an amendment to say: Hey, America, rather than have a $690 billion tax cut for everybody over the next 10 years who's earning, you know, over $200,000 a year, why don't we just share the sacrifice and take $600 billion, and that way we could pay for the entire war right up front and not add to the deficit. Guess what? George Bush said no. The Republicans said no. And what they're doing is trying to, you know, once again mislead America, as they do so effectively, make a joke out of something that's serious. They've added that money to the deficit, they're burdening our children. John Edwards and I want to be fiscally responsible, put America back on track, and that's exactly what we're going do." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04)

After His Admendment Was Defeated, Sen. Joseph Biden Voted For $87 Billion Iraq/Afghanistan War Supplemental. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Biden Voted Yea)

Biden Said Kerry Was "Dead Wrong" To Vote Against $87 Billion For Troops And Reconstruction In Iraq And Afghanistan. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) "He [Kerry] said first I voted for it, then I voted against it. How can he justify voting against that $87 billion?" Sen. Joseph Biden: "Well, I don't, I advised him to vote for it and I think by the way let's make clear what he meant when he voted for and against it. He didn't say it very well. I added an amendment saying it should be paid for out of the tax cut. He voted for that. So in a sense, had that passed he would have voted for the $87 billion. I think it's, look, I think what John Kerry ..." George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) "Even though it didn't you still voted for it." Sen. Joseph Biden: "I absolutely still voted for it and I think John was dead wrong." (ABC's "This Week," 3/21/04)

Senators Kerry And Edwards Are Two Of Only Four US Senators Who Voted For The Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq And Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops.

*Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided "Extra Money For Body Armor For Soldiers …" (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03)

*Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Increased Combat Pay For Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03)

*Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Health Benefits For Reservists And Guardsmen Called To Active Duty, As Well As Support For Their Families. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03)

==>Thomas Jefferson