Yes, the monikers for me are Republican and Conservative; no, I absolutely never, say, have a teleprompter before me into which Karl
Rove (via blackberry or whatever) or Dubya (via Etch-A-Sketch or whatever) or any Howard Dean or James "Ragin' Cajun" Carville ( via 1000Gdb speakers or whatever) "present my ideas and perspectives".

But one of myriad aggregated media and government awareness tools your truly employs may currently be found at
http://www.economyincrisis.org/?gclid=COf_pd2OrZgCFRk_awodHUCOnQ ; when reviewing this or more formal documentations and analysis, I use the sum of my experience and fond memories of the works of folks such as Hannah Arendt, F.A. Hayek, and William Frank Buckley, Jr. .

This is why I have serious questions about the nature of  ANY USAPresident mulling "aid to Africa" via USA budgets, and concurrently
verily believe...on such information as within afore-described...that there remains a serious bipartisan if not omnipartisan doubt that Bush
era policies, foreign and domestic, could sail on and work simply by having Obama or any "Not Bush" at the helm.

This is important if enigmatic where Congress does not vote to allow itself full treaty-engendering powers, and willl continue "take it or
leave it" votes on whatever Obama presents; assumedly, Obama like Bush could just do as he pleases (whatever that may be in futuro) as "no" votes in such scenario simply mean "sail on, oh captian ours, and PLEASE try to invent something as you roll along a unitary power by grant of ceding Congressional responsibility to you".

In sum, I respectfully submit that if Congress will rescind Presidential unitary trade powers, and instead propose and enact or defeat trade initiatives as the manifest majority of Congressional jurisdictional intentions, GOP in both Houses (and "grassroots" and other PACs) who currently auto-fear-monger re Obama could then have opportunity to forthrightly plead their voters' and American peoples' interests as said GOP interpret them to be, as would Democrats and others, and all voters would know service of representatives while the democratic principle of majority representative votes would guide enactments, defeats, and veto overrides (if any).

Voting Bush trade unitary power allowed even Congressional "No!!" sentiments to be overrun by Presidential War On Terror powers in that all he, as a vested unitary power in such relation, had to do was claim and not prove anything he did re trade (or anything else)...in his opinion as commander-in-chief in a war against nebulous indefinites of no numeric grand magnitude...would "keep us safe", even if he aligned himself curiously with foreign leaders admitting own uses of Qaeda, Janjaweed, inter alia; one hopes the GOP complainants of today aren't simply hoping for Obama to inherit such unitary powers to fund the globe, neocon pursuits, and Calvinist government-led theologies around the world in Bush fashion, one man (say a President) easier to media-slam et al than a Congress...with GOP then actually blaming Obama for ANY spending and "treadings upon world religion and terror toes", campaigning later for election that THEY will return to 'proper' spendings and 'keep us safe again withuot a military'...and expect this as the new eternal sine curve of USA politics.