[I've got to hurry and fire this one off, so all of you know I made my predictions well in advance of today's election trends, much less the results. Otherwise, I don't get credit for being smart enough to be right, which I do so love when it happens.]

Today, even the liberal lamestream media are watching three elections as possible bellwethers for 2010, the two gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and the District 23 race in upstate New York.

My predictions:

In the purple state of Virginia, which Obama carried in 2008 by a comfortable margin, I think the Republican candidate will not only win but will win by double digits, despite Obama having come here twice to support the Democratic candidate. In fact, I think it will be a Republican sweep across all races -- gubernatorial, attorney general and state delegates. Of course, if the Republican wins, Team Obama will blame the loss on a weak Democratic candidate, which even the president's star power could not help, who didn't run a good campaign. In fact, anticipating that outcome itself, the White House has already started distancing itself from the Democratic candidate. And also, of course, should the Democrat win, then that will be BECAUSE of Obama's star power in helping out. Team Obama likes to have its cake and eat it too, whenever possible.

In the deep blue liberal state of New Jersey, an even more telling race, I think the Republican candidate will narrowly defeat the incumbent Democrat, despite Obama having visited there three times in recent weeks in support of the Democrat. This loss, if it occurs, would be harder for Team Obama to "explain" (read: spin), but I'm sure they will try, and with their normal straight faces, too, looking right into the camera and lying. The fact is the incumbent Democrat Corsine is simply not very well liked around his state and I don't think Obama's coattails are long enough to offset that.

(Gee, I wonder how many millions in taxpayer dollars have been spent flying that big old Air Force One jumbo jet around to New Joysey and good ole Virginny so many times? Oh well, we all know by now that Obama doesn't mind spending other people's money.)

And in the upstate New York District 23 race, I think the Conservative Hoffman is poised to defeat the Democrat, even after the Republican in name only (RINO) candidate got almost a million dollars of Republican contribution money from the GOP, then dropped out of the race, and then swung her support to the Democrat! (Uh-huh, see, told ya, real birds of a feather, can't always tell a book by its cover, and all that. Talk about biting the hand that fed ya! Egg on the faces of the GOP leadership and some Republican former party stars who backed her -- big time! And, by the way, no more money from me to the GOP unless and until they show they know how to spend it better than wasting $900,000 of it on a RINO who then "turns" on the party.)

In other words, I'm predicting Democrat losses across all three races, and that should send several signals to both Republicans and Democrats.

To Republicans:

a. Stop worrying about making "the tent" so big by recruiting and supporting Democrat-lites and just get back to core conservative principles. It's nice to act so that everybody likes you, but in fact, no matter what you do, everybody isn't always going to like you. So, be who you are and you will at least be more able to count on those who do act like they like you, because they probably really do.

b. Stop "playing nice" just because the Democrats and other liberals shriek that you are the "Party of No," that you are obstructionists, or every time one of you says something they don't like or which they think they can make something out of. Be happy warriors, smile and then pin their ears back with logic and facts, two areas in which liberals are traditionally deficit. (I've long said that one main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals feel and conservative think.) In other words, don't take any crap. Each and every time a liberal makes a false charge or claim, jump on it, challenge it and show how it's false. Don't miss any. Instead of letting them dictate that you are the "Party of No," make them into the "Party of Liars." Instead of letting them bully you into "playing nice," less you be criticized for something real or imagined, make them paranoid about being challenged on any and every thing they say and do which is the least bit questionable. Attack, attack, attack.

c. If the TEA Party and 9/12 demonstrations and protests had not already given you a big enough clue (and the NY-23 RINO candidate pick indicates at least some of you certainly missed it, or at least badly misread it), they are nationwide, genuine grassroots, CONSERVATIVE (almost Federalist) movements. They are comprised of Republicans, moderate and disaffected (Obama voter's remorse) Democrats, Independents and Libertarians, as well as many people who have never had any party affiliation before, and almost all of them are folks who've never "organized," demonstrated or protested before, either. However, they are doing so now because they are disaffected with both political parties, they are either scared or angry, or both, about where they see Obama and the Democrat Congress taking the country, they are frustrated they are not being listened to, and they are not going away any time soon. In fact, they are becoming more and more organized and growing. But I think the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers have grassroots organized so far because they had to, because no one was representing or listening to their viewpoints and concerns. And I also think many of them are "looking for a home," an already existing organization which they feel will truly represent them and do something about their issues. We don't need a third major political party in this country. That could lead to more and more "splinter" parties and then we'd be in the same boat as many European and other countries around the world in having to always form often messy and unstable "coalition" governments. But, poll after poll still show that this is a center-right nation, and if Republicans can exhibit a real return to core conservative values and can capture the passion, and allegiance, of these grassroots protesters, "the tent" will not only be big enough but they will have channeled an energy across the country which cannot -- which will not -- be denied, or defeated.

To Democrats:

a. You have already badly overreached -- and, amazingly, you continue to do so. It's almost as if there's something in your drinking water and/or you just can't help yourselves. Okay, you elected the first black president and have control of both houses of Congress, so you have some reason to be euphoric but not enough permanent power to act stupidly elitist and continue to get away with it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but then no power is permanent, either. Unless there really IS some secret and nefarious vast left-wing conspiracy, some pernicious "progressive" plan to permanently takeover the federal government and suspend future elections, you had better stop, or at least slow down, your unconstitutional overreach and arrogant abuse of authority. A day of reckoning is coming.

b. You ignore -- decry, deride and dismiss -- the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers at your own peril. The Democrat Party is the one which most often complains (sometimes accurately and sometimes falsely) about this or that faction of the electorate being "disenfranchised," usually by some wicked conservatives and/or Republicans (not always the same thing nowadays). You incessantly portray your party as the one which cares the most for the most "victim" groups, yet you hypocritically refuse to recognize that the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers are themselves feeling disenfranchised and victimized, in large part by you. They are not going away just because you pretend they are not there, or that they don't matter. In fact, that attitude by both political parties in not addressing their concerns is what got them fired up and grassroots organizing in the first place, most of them for the first time in their lives. And they are growing and becoming more and more organized every day.

c. The outcomes of today's elections, as well as what I've said about the TEA Party and 9/12 movements, should send a strong message of caution, if not to your arrogant and out-of-touch party leadership, at least to you Blue Dog, or moderate, Democrats, because 2010 is coming and you will be judged more closely than you might think by what you do, who and what you support and how you vote between now and then. Tenga cuidado, Senors, Senoras y Senoritas. Tenga cuidado.

As everyone not living in a cave somewhere probably knows by now, presidential pretender Senator Barack (Hussein) Obama is currently on his "Magical Media Middle East and Meet and Greet World Leaders Tour," part of which is cleverly disguised as a senatorial fact-finding trip.

[Aside: I put the freshman senator's middle name in parentheses lest the PC Police accuse me of not too subtly pointing out that all three of his names are Muslim (which they are), or something. However, I'm guessing I would get no such retribution if I insisted on saying Senator John Sidney McCain. Well, unless there are some overly thin-skinned and defensive Scots out there somewhere. Weird, huh?]

But, anyway, let's see, does that mean we taxpayers pay only for the fact-finding part of the trip and the Obama campaign pays for the rock star tour part? I wonder how that works, exactly. It's not that I'm all that cynical, mind you, but if I had to bet, I would bet that we taxpayers are probably paying for most, if not all, of the whole she-bang.

Obama's accompanied, no less, by all three primary "news" anchors of the alphabet TV networks -- Charmin' Charlie Gibson, Barritone-y Brian Williams, and that CBS cutie Katie Couric -- hard-charging field reporters and unbiased journalists, all. Let's see, the last time any one of the alphabet network "news" anchors accompanied Senator John McCain on any of his many senatorial fact-finding missions was..... Um, it was..... Hmmm, I guess that means none of them are competing to be Senator McCain's presumptive Press Secretary. Either that, or they already just think (hope?) he won't win.

Oh, but wait! Forget that part about someone living in a cave perhaps not knowing about Obama's trip. Osama bin Laden probably knows about Obama's trip, too. After all, he's already publicly supported Obama, as has the terrorist organization Hamas, anti-American and racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, convicted federal felon Tony Rezko, unrepentant former Weather Underground leader William Ayers, and..... Who else? I don't know, but do you see an associative trend here? Has Hezbollah, Syria or Iran signed up for the Obama campaign yet?

But I digress.
 
On last Friday's CBS Early Show, a correspondent reported on Obama's then-impending international tour and declared: "Senator Obama is taking to the skies to stride on the world stage. It's a chance for Americans to take a look at how he measures up as a statesman...it's an attempt to demonstrate he has the necessary gravitas to maneuver through diplomatic minefields, especially in the Middle East."

Taking to the skies? He's flying on an airplane, along with a lot of other people, for goodness sakes. It's not like he has a cape and a big "S" on his chest (although the mainstream media often act as if he does) and is flying over there all by himself, worried only about who might have some Kryptonite. And "...to stride on the world stage"? How about hopping from country-to-country on an airplane, then walking around on the ground? You know, the way ordinary mortals get around on international trips. How he measures up as a statesman? He hasn't even proven himself a competent freshman senator yet, much less any kind of statesman. He started running for his "next job" as president with less than 150 workdays as a freshman senator under his belt and has not been responsible for any significant legislation so far in that job.

Oh, but at least it's good that he's finally visiting Afghanistan for the first time on this trip, since he's on a Senate committee which is supposed to oversee our efforts there and for which he has held NO hearings nor conducted any previous fact-finding missions. I'm sure, after visiting for one day -- his first and only day on the ground in Afghanistan -- and shooting some hoops with the troops, that he will know exactly what we should do to "win" in Afghanistan. After all, anybody knows that basketball informs strategic military planning, right? In fact, I guess that's how he "knows" -- it must be something like prescience (a gift of the gods!) -- that we should have put more emphasis on Afghanistan than in Iraq all this time.

And, finally, "...an attempt to demonstrate he has the necessary gravitas to maneuver through diplomatic minefields..." Gravitas? Maneuver through diplomatic minefields? Can we be at least objective enough to tone down the "purple prose" about everything Barack Obama says and does? His actual record reveals someone with the "gravitas" of an empty suit. He has soaring oratory, but actual gravitas? No, I don't think so. There's an implication that gravitas is, at least in part, gained by experience -- and Obama's is limited, to say the least, on both the national and international stage.

And, so far as maneuvering through diplomatic minefields goes, he -- and we -- had better hope that he is really good at that, especially since he wants to meet with the likes of Iran's ideologically and theologically driven Israel and America hater Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But, oh, wait, Obama's lately changed that position -- among many others (causing virtual whiplash in some sectors) -- and now says that some preconditions may be necessary.

Does that give you any real confidence that Obama really knows what he's doing? Or is he just making some of this stuff up as he goes along, pandering to whomever he needs to in order to get elected? And, if that's the case, how do we know he won't just change his mind again, as he's recently done on a whole host of issues, if and when he's elected? And, if he is elected, do we really need him making stuff up as he goes, while being tested by other world leaders or perhaps when and if we're all challenged again by a radical terrorist attack? I don't think so, but you really think about it -- and I mean r-e-a-l-l-y think about it -- and decide.

Besides, be honest now, at least with yourself, does one world-wind media tour really establish anyone's -- even Obama's -- bona fides as an expert on what's needed for Iraq or Afghanistan? Or, for that matter, anywhere else? Does it really give him any real gravitas? Does it make him -- almost overnight -- a statesman, instead of a mere freshmen senator of little real accomplishment or record? Does a media tour alone really qualify him to be our Commander-in-Chief, especially in a time of war? Color me crazy, but I don't think so. I think the Magical Media Tour is just that -- maybe not that magical, but definitely more of a media than an actual fact-finding (or mind changing) tour. Lots of photo ops, though. His campaign can make good use of those, making him look presidential and like he knows what he's doing. (After all, who could not like that beaming smile of his, anyway?)

But that's just it -- appearing to know what you're doing and actually knowing what you're doing are two entirely different things. In the Army, we had a couple of phrases that sum up what I think this Magical Media Tour is really all about: "smoke and mirrors" and "dog and pony show."

I guess we're at least lucky that all the Middle Easterners (even the terrorist ones) and Europeans can't vote in the American election for president. If so, Obama might just be a shoo-in.