I've eliminated the SOB Blog Feed in the right column, because I'm not smart enough to figure out how to format it so it's uniform with the rest of the blog. This doesn't take away from the fact that the links, still at the top right position here at Chuckoblog, are all well informed and extremely well written by good people. Check 'em out. Warcraft: Hit me up if you play and are looking for people to roll with. I run the guild Innuendo on the Horde side of Runetotem, a small mostly local guild that has a lot of fun. We don't raid much but have hit up Karazhan a couple of times and have a good guild network setup to pull people from. Last, and definitely not least, I am looking for a job. My computer support credentials are lengthy, but I am willing to look at other positions outside of information technology. Will forward resume on request.

A good friend of mine, knowing I had been out of the news cycle for a while, forwarded me a link to an article written by one of my favorite bloggers. I'm pretty sure his intent was to help convince me that voting for a liberal Republican is always better than voting for a liberal Democrat. What it has done, in turn, is given me a chance to think about my vote a little more intensely. The United States was at a crossroads in 2006, as it has been for many of the most recent elections. The Democrats clearly offered a retreatist strategy for the War on Terror, endless litigation for the Bush Administration, a very liberal agenda socially, and higher taxes economically. Sean Hannity frequently asserts they did not run on this agenda however anyone paying attention to politics understood what their intent was. America voted for defeat in Iraq, higher taxes, and liberalism in 2006. The choices were very clear, and several excellent lawmakers were voted out in favor of scrubs with obviously inferior qualifications, due to the frenzy and fake scandals built up by the media and the Democrats. Despite the clear warnings to voters by reliable sources regarding the election of 2006, the Congress still swung to the other side. This would have been OK if the opposition party had qualified candidates willing to support our nation in a time of war, to defend us and our principles no matter the cost. The Republican party is heading in the same direction, with George W. Bush turning into an incredible disappointment in his second term. He's seeking a legacy no doubt, not unlike Bill Clinton in his second term, it's a lukewarm stream of policy nuance and a shun of the conservative base that elected him twice. I assure you if we vote for Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican nominee in 2008, he will be no better than a President Clinton regardless of what letter stands behind his name. Why must we choose between two liberals, or "be responsible" for a President Clinton? If anything, Giuliani and Clinton should split the vote, allowing a third party conservative candidate to win. I'm not naive enough to believe this would ever happen, but I'm also smart and principled enough to not vote for Giuliani because he danced in front of the cameras during some of America's darkest days. I cannot vote for Giuliani, and I will not vote for John McCain. Good luck on nominating a qualified candidate this time Republicans. Before party line Republicans start declaring that I'm "throwing my vote away" or some other ridiculous drivel, understand that by voting for Rudy, you are in fact voting for an extreme leftist. Rudy Giuliani would be more qualified to run as a Democratic VP candidate than the Republican nominee.