Senator Mel Martinez (D-FL) announced that he will not seek re-election when his term expires in 2010. Coincidentally, I've been thinking about going into politics myself, the only sticking point is; should I run as a Democrat or a Republican? After careful thought I've decided that will run as a Republican and the vacated seat of Senator Martinez would be just fine.

Why would I, an acknowledged liberal, run as a Republican? Simple - it's easy to qualify as a Republican. The positions of the GOP politicians make it easier on a fledgling politician and this simplifies things tremendously for me. Let's go down the check list to see if I have the 'right stuff'.

All I have to stand for as a Republican candidate is against any gun laws, against any taxes and against Roe vs. Wade.  This will electrify the ominous thing they call 'the base' and they will clamor for me. As a Republican I won't have to worry about any economic policy. When times are bad I'll simply say that business cycles have their ups and downs and that it is best not to do anything and just wait for 'the market' to find its' bottom and sort itself out. There see, that was easy, check off domestic policy.

I won't have to worry about any legislation on social issues as a GOP candidate. When that topic comes up I'll tell it like it is, from the Republican point of view, that if people are suffering it's because they are not rich. If they were rich they wouldn't have these problems and it is their own fault that they are not rich. A piece of cake, check off social issues.

The Republican Party, while it has many competent and intelligent people in it, has a history of taking marginal people and trying to make them into conservative icons. Recent examples include George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Joe the unlicensed plumber, to name a few. So I figure I've got just as good a chance as anybody to pull this off. As long as I don't get caught in the sin of sins, a gay affair, I will remain steadfastly in good standing with the GOP. Check off moral issues.

Another advantage of running as a Republican is that I can attack my opponent with misleading campaign ads, outright lies, innuendo, and half truths that will incite hatred and fear and yet still claim that I and my campaign stand for 'family values'. If anything goes bad during my term in office I can always explain it away as the fault of some Democrat that held the office in the distant past, thus limiting my exposure to any blame levied by the electorate. Check off ethics.

There is only one hitch in my plan. For some strange reason much of the public is down on the GOP right now and unless Obama messes up really bad, I don't know if the voters will be over it by 2010. Most of the constituency blame the GOP for many of the problems that we face right now with the economy and Iraq, instead of condemning the real villains; the pinko, liberal, commie Democrats!

I hear that Jeb Bush has expressed interest in running for Martinez's seat too. Maybe I'll just set this one out and let Jeb take his chances. I can just bide my time and wait for a Democrat to get a speeding ticket. Then I can leap onto the scene and exclaim, "See, I told you, you can't trust the Democrats!"  "The liberal press didn't want to tell you about this Democrat lawbreaker, but I'm here to look out for you." Then I can announce my candidacy and launch myself into GOP immortality. Check off legacy.

Allan D. Pierson

Santa Rosa Beach

During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan raised taxes, did you know that?  So did Bush 41. Today Ronald Reagan is a Conservative icon - a yard stick by which all other conservatives are measured. Therefore, if Barack Obama is elected President, and raises taxes, will he become a Conservative icon as well?

I doubt it, but the point I am making is that taxes have been raised by Republicans themselves plenty of times. Raising anybody's taxes might not even been necessary now except for the fact that we are spending 10 BILLION dollars a month in Iraq in a war of choice that most Republicans gleefully supported. Who do Republicans think should pay for that - their children - their grand-children - their great grand-children?

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he will not raise taxes on individuals who make less that 200,000 or couples that make less than 250,000. In fact, Obama's economic plan calls for 95% of all Americans to receive a tax cut. Any statements by Republicans to the contrary are simply false. Most of the claims by Republicans concerning Obama's tax plan are either out and out lies, half truths or misleading.

John Mc Cain's economic plan, on the other hand, is a carbon copy of those adopted by George W. Bush. In eight years Bush hasn't been able to get these same ideas to work. What makes anyone thing that Mc Cain will? Obama wants to give the working class a tax cut and roll back the tax cuts on the wealthy back to pre-Bush levels. In other words Obama wants to roll back taxes to Clinton-era levels on only those who can most afford it. The Clinton-era, remember those times - eight years of peace and tremendous prosperity?

How can anyone seriously think that former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker and billionaire investor Warren Buffet would agree to be advisors of Obama if they thought his economic ideas were not sound?  To top it off, the Economist magazine has endorsed Obama as well. The folks at the Economist must know a think or two about economics don't you think?  While we are on the topic of endorsements - would former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, endorse Obama if he thought Obama could not handle National Security or foreign affair issues?

It defies human reason that anyone could conceivably believe, as the Republicans would have you, that Obama wants to take money from hard working people and give to people who don't want to work or who don't pay taxes? That is not the case. If it were, even Michelle Obama and Alex Baldwin wouldn't vote for Obama.

You see Barack Obama realizes that tickle down economics, as Mc Cain is advocating, does not work very well, if at all. When John Mc Cain gives billionaire Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, a tax cut how many pairs of pants will Gates go out a buy? How many refrigerators? How many new cars? None, Gates has all of those things he needs already - the money just sits in an account.

Our economy is consumption based. Give that same tax cut to the middle class and we go out and spend it. The middle class spends their tax cut and that creates jobs. When the middle class are working and spending that creates opportunity for businesses, such as Microsoft or a Mom and Pop business, to expand production and introduce new products and make profits. It is a win/win situation for everyone. So the extra tax that Bill Gates pays under Obama's plan is really an investment, by Gates, in America. And in the past that investment has gotten him a pretty good return, don't you think?

Apparently the Republican Party hasn't grown tired of lying and trying to scare people into voting their way.  When you go to vote, don't let the Republican scare tactics fool you into voting for anybody but the best candidate for the job of President of the United States of American - Barack Obama.

Allan D. Pierson

Santa Rosa Beach, Florida