By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Howdy, folks!

We’re sittin’ here in our rockin’ chairs on the front porch thinkin’ about what new surprises them crazy presidential candidates will have for us come first light tomorrow. Word is the Texas state primary is as close as down on a duck, and the war camps of “Calamity” Clinton , “Tenderfoot” Obama, and “Maverick” McCain are in full whoopin gallop (or Gallup , dependin’ on if you’re ridin’ over the left or right side of the ridge). Bettin’ parlors are split as to who can rustle up more dirt on the others, and who has enough verbal buckshot and can cuss louder, longer and downright nastier. So far, Calamity’s hit the bull’s eye with arrow-splittin’ accuracy.

It shouldn’t take a school marm to see that these here primaries have become so durn wild, wooly and lawless that they make Deadwood and Tombstone seem as tame as “Little House on the Prairie.”

Calamity and her sidekick, Billy “depends on what the meaning of is, is” Clinton , uh, Clanton, with their posse are burnin’ the candle at both ends. Their plan: to cut Tenderfoot and Maverick off at the pass to keep them from squattin’ on their spread down the avenue called Pennsylvania . We’re bettin’ anyone a plugged nickel whether they have the firepower to get what they think they’re entitled to, or if they can put a spoke in Tenderfoot’s wheel.

Maverick is an odd stick and the biggest toad in the puddle, and he’s got every right to be. The man was noosed, tarred & feathered. And he proved he’s got a tough hide -- came back stronger and meaner, and maybe a little more spooked than we like, but still someone to ride the river with. When it comes to fightin’ the enemy of this here land, we’d rather have a grizzled veteran than a wet-behind-ears whippersnapper.

Tenderfoot gets a boodle to listen to his bazoo flap but we’re wonderin’ if he ain’t plain buffaloed when push comes to shove. Why he’s between hay and grass standin’ next to Maverick who’s waitin’ for the boy’s ballyhoo to wind up come Super Tuesday. The debate atween Maverick and Tenderfoot will sure ‘nuff test the kid’s ability to stand the gaff. If his knees buckle under the pressure, then Tenderfoot’s just going to have to skedaddle back to Chicagee. Everyone says Maverick’s too old. Mebbe. But for an old cur he’s still got plenty of horsepower in them britches of his to show the shave tail that all that soft solder will get him only as far as he can toss his purty missus, Michelle .

Speakin’ of the missus, we all got to give credit to Calamity. That little lady has packed a wagonload of piss ‘n vinegar in her six-shooters. She ain’t goin’ down easy, you can bet your eyeteeth on that. Scuttlebutt has it she kin fling a mean dish of grits in Billy ’s direction. And speakin’ of Billy , Grandpa says he’s whipped like puddin’ and only wants to get back to some unfinished business in the Lincoln Bedroom. That’s where flannel-mouth did his best work. Thems is Grandpa’s words. Not ours.

For Tenderfoot the chant “Oh-bah-MAH!” is echoing far and wide, across the plains and valleys. He’s seems a nice enough fella – tall, dark and to a manor born. He talks… and talks and talks. We’re still waitin’ for him to take a breath. But he is doin’ a bang-up job on the trail, though Grandma says he’s got about as much sense as a lemon. After listenin’ to Grandma we got to thinkin’, that we’re havin’ serious doubts about a passel of his ideas. They’re what that nice Boston gent, Mitt, calls naïve. For instance, Tenderfoot says he wants to end the war in “Eye-rack” after he’s elected. That’s fine and dandy. But the plain-as-day truth he’s ignoring is, those varmints that attacked and killed so many of our kin back in ‘01 will be sure as shootin’ ridin’ roughshod to damnation in Eye-rack iffin Tenderfoot orders the cavalry home. Grandpa says that’s like pickin’ up and movin’ the chicken coop instead of killin’ the fox.

Meanwhile, Maverick is tryin’ to mend fences with conservatives hopin’ to roust support. The logjam he’s facin’ with us is, we’re a tad skeptical about whether or not he’s “speakin’ with forked tongue”…again. And you’d better hightail it when he doesn’t get his way, ‘cause he’s as ornery as a rattlesnake with a toothache, t hat’s for darn sure.

When is this range war goin’ to end? Not any time soon, pardner. We reckon the high noon stage will be carryin’ even more bitter feudin’. The end of the trail for all this bad blood ain’t nowhere in sight. And it’ll be eight more months a’fore we’ll know if it’s goin’ to be Maverick, Calamity or the Tenderfoot countin’ sheep in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Yes indeedy, summer’s a comin’ and the primaries are already gettin’ hotter than a whorehouse on nickel night.

And y’all thought politickin’ was dull.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Could it be that Barack Hussein Obama will soon become the patron saint of the Left, or is admiration of this gifted orator being viewed through the broken prism of a disillusioned citizenry?

After his awe-inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the air was charged with hope like thousands of Fourth of July sparklers, and that hope was felt by both Democrats and Republicans alike. Everyone’s thoughts were festooned with unbridled delight, as if we were witnessing a latter day William Jennings Bryan.

“Wish he was a Republican” had become an oft-repeated water cooler comment amongst fellow conservatives. There was suddenly this gift, this glimmer of optimism that had crossed party lines, but just as quickly it went flat like yesterday’s champagne. Four years later, his bubbly personality is still being swallowed by Democrats, and in ever-increasing amounts, much like a Jim Jones cocktail. For Republicans, however, the champagne is still flat, his messages are a mouthful but indigestible, and the chinks in his rhetoric are becoming as evident as the ruts in a muddy road – and with it the sound…of an Obamump, bump, bump, bump, bump.

As each day folds into the next, hysteria continues to balloon for Obama as he sweeps the nation’s primaries, a hysteria the likes of which these writers have not seen in our lifetime – except for the Beatles’ arrival at JFK. Which brings to mind the closest political comparison — John F. Kennedy, lately tossed into the party mix by none other than his daughter, Caroline Kennedy. She stirs the crowd but doesn’t shake the cocktail. Leave it to Uncle Ted to jump in and mix things up. If John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would look like a far right wingnut compared to B. Hussein Obama.

Our foremost fear is that an Obama administration will signal an unwelcome invitation to our enemies, just like those “Kick Me” signs children stick on each other’s backs. While a President Obama wastes his charm trying to placate an implacable enemy, liberals and Democrats will still be uncorking their magnums.  Why? Because dim-witted followers (the way Kansas cattle were driven across the plains to market and the slaughterhouse) were so frantic for change that they had actually put every cent of their faith into the goldmine Obama sold them, sight unseen.

We have to admit, Barack Obama is one heck of a ”Willy Loman.” But there is no snake oil here or shattered emotions, or the unctuousness usually associated with an unwelcome sales pitch. We do, however, see The “Power Within” Obama Seminar in his future.

Conservatives are becoming increasingly concerned with his unabated, and quite frankly, unexplainable victories. This insane rush to endorse Obama reminds us of when the purchase price for houses hit the ceiling but average Americans were persuaded by smooth-talking real estate brokers into believing they could handle zero down and a mortgage. And what has been the outcome of the trust invested in all that “you can afford it” double-speak? Foreclosures and evictions have hit a staggering historical high.

Insofar as the war on terror is concerned (the highest priority on the table), the messages Obama has delivered have been mixed, contradictory and unenlightened. His out-of-the box accusation of “unilateral” damage caused by President Bush was more dumb than outrageous. Had his advisors (which is what advisors are for) first briefed him on the actual successes in the Middle East as plainly written in a piece by Amir Taheri (who is inside the box) for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Islam at the Ballot Box,” Obama would not have made such a disgraceful accusation against our Commander in Chief.

In the political ring, hubris is a word that has been as overused as an old English plow horse – but we’re going to get another forty acres out of it here.

And then there is the matter of Iraq. On the one hand, he said that, if elected President, he intends to end the war and bring the troops home within sixty days of taking the oath. On the other hand, however, he stated he would fill his Cabinet with the best advisors available, and if they counsel him that such a troop withdrawal would be impracticable he would not issue the order. I will, but then I won’t. Suddenly, support from John Kerry makes more sense.

Obama should know – or someone, at least, should jog his memory – that America was drawn into the ugliness of this war on terror, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Bringing the troops home will not end the madness. Terror will continue to rage, and very likely with even more intensity should our military be pulled out. Jihadists would enjoy nothing more than to arrange America’s funeral the moment they hear our warriors are packing up their bombs and going home.

The very nature of Obama’s tone reveals that he genuinely believes he knows everything necessary to lead this nation. But he is dangerously close to becoming the proverbial legend in his own [political] mind. Regardless, he basks in the warmth, or rather, the over-heated yearnings of his followers who hear but are not listening, who see but are blind to the fact that his platform will outspend the current administration and grow dependence on a government that may well become irrelevant if the enemy has its way.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

"Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters.” -Francisco de Goya

The morning news led with the announcement that the New York Times had published an extensive article exposing an alleged dalliance over eight years ago between John McCain and a woman (not his wife) which came as absolutely no surprise to us. We had synchronized our watches in expectation, because it was just a matter of time – the countdown commencing the moment the Times puffed their feathers and handed McCain a grandiose endorsement following the final Republican debate at the Reagan Library. The fact they endorsed the most liberal Republican candidate was also lost on no one save the candidate himself.

With this so-called exposé of Senator McCain and a lobbyist, Sulzberger’s gang – three, two, one – fired away, and right on schedule.

For the unenlightened and non-believers, the New York Times was once the noble powerhouse of responsible journalism – their sheets filled with some of the finest writing ever to grace any newspaper of any country. To wake up every morning and have the New York Times waiting for you on the floor at your door was a thrill. But the thrill is gone as B.B. King says. Like religious zealots, this newspaper is now governed by ceremony and greed: pandering to and supporting the man or the issue, gaining their trust to close the distance between them then stabbing them in the back.

John F. Kennedy was courted by mobsters and it was rumored he kept company with other less-than savory characters, but the New York Times did not turn him into a “made man by association.” In 2008, however, this is neither a ludicrous analogy nor out of the question. The Times has inferred that sensible advice given to the candidate, “ But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity ” enough of a story to pin their assumption of impropriety right after their endorsement.

We very recently wrote an article entitled “ Media Calls Election ” in which we reminded readers how hard line liberal journalists and influential bloggers, from the start of these primaries, have harnessed Americans’ attention towards who they wanted attention paid to. It does not take a university graduate to comprehend which rivers we are being steered down, because, ladies and gentlemen, we are there.

The Times, much like the other major dailies currently on financial life-support, has reduced itself to speculation, hearsay, and innuendo in order to score well-timed points in an effort to control the direction of the 2008 election. While we do not fully support John McCain’s numerous moderate-to-liberal positions on a multitude of issues, the game of politics, most especially Presidential campaigns, was never meant to be usurped, controlled or driven by The Gray Lady. These major dailies have virtually ignored – and this is possibly why they are falling fast like a fiery stone -- the guidelines set down by the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, specifically: Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Their Times’ editorials have become self-serving nonsense delved out without conscience or reason. They have acquired an unsoundness that supports our enemies. We are a nation in turmoil, and the Times is only adding to the confusion and chaos, such as when they and other media disclosed the Administration’s plan to monitor the financial records of terrorist cells within the United States after our administration pleaded with them not to do it. But then they have made it crystal clear how they feel about “your” President.

Ever hopeful, we wish that the Times, and all other MSM, will reconsider their position when disseminating events of the day in light of the public’s emerging cyber-awareness -- whether about politicians, the war on terror, illegal immigration or widgets. Because one day, and that day will come, we will open our front door and there will be nothing to pick up.