Sarah: McCain's Best V-P Choice

You will read things here that the national media will start covering next month. On my Hillary Supporters site and on my PA site, I talk about a national group of Hillary supporters who are targeting for defeat "SuperDelegates" who gave Sen. Clinton the shaft (voting for Obama against the wishes of their constituents. Such individuals include John Kerry of MA and Jay Rockefeller of WV, among many others.

Can't go to bed tonight (Monday) without asking you to check out my Hillary Supporters for McCain site. It contains information about the most amazing political movement I've sene in my lifetime: Hillary Supporters who "mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore." Fascinating . . . I will be on Sirius Radio from NY at 5:30 p.m. (ET) on Tuesday.

On my Pennsylvania blog I've received an important request from Tom Manion, Republican congressional candidate in PA's 8th district. It deals with an important online poll. Manion, a 30-year Marine Corps veteran, lost his son Travis in the Iraq War. Please visit the site for information. http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com



Sarah Palin on steps of state capital in Juneau, shortly after she signed Alaska's Omnibus Crime Bill. Legislators are admiring Sarah's baby son, Trig, who's swaddled in blanket. Trig is her fifth child. The family's press release after the birth began, "God has blessed us . . . " God has a tendency to do just that.

"Sarah Palin is Mt. Rushmore material."

I proclaimed to the world yesterday that prominent national security writer Jack Kelly (who writes for major newspapers in Pennsylvania and Ohio) has strongly endorsed Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska for the GOP ticket. Kelly is an unusual combination - a former Marine, a former Special Forces soldier and a former candidate for Congress (he lost, alas).

In his column, Jack Kelly says "most [presidential candidates] will settle for a veep who isn't a drag on the ticket, as Dan Quayle was for the first President Bush." He might have added, "Or, as Dick Cheney apparently was on the second President Bush."

Kelly adds, "The potential [McCain] running mates most often discussed have downsides nearly as great as their upsides."

He adds, "Gov. Tim Pawlenty helps only in Minnesota, and not enough, according to current polls, to make a difference there. Mr. McCain's friend, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, would bring in some moderate Democrats but could further antagonize conservatives already suspicious of Mr. McCain.

"Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts would have little appeal to working-class whites unhappy with Sen. Barack Obama, and evangelicals fret about that Mormon thing. A Mike Huckabee nomination would irritate economic . . . conservatives as much as it would please evangelicals. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is a rising star. But he's only 36, and he's been governor for less than a year."

The men - key word - Kelly mentions are all people of talent. One of them (Jindal?) may end up as President someday. But the columnist is right about their downsides.

According to pundit lore, Pawlenty could help McCain win the "battleground" (sorta) state of Minnesota. However, he won re-election there by only 21,000 votes out of 2.3 million cast. He was lucky to carry Minnesota himself. Bulletin to John McCain: you aren't going to carry Minnesota with or without Pawlenty.

Mitt's Romney's problem is that he strikes many people as inauthentic. They don't believe his latter-day conversion to pro-life and anti-illegals views. They see him as ambitious to a fault. Also, in the primaries, he seemed to win only states either dominated by Mormons (Utah) or characterized by the fact Mitt Romney grew up there (Michigan).

Bobby Jindal is a mixture of ability and oddness. A few months ago he was interviewed on CNN, and the questioner couldn't get him to say whether he endorsed John McCain . . . or Barack Obama. With Jindal around, McCain might need a food taster.

As Kelly implies, Joe Lieberman - a fine man and a patriot - would be an awful choice. He came close to losing his seat in Connecticut. Most Democrats despise him, and most Republicans would rather see almost anyone else on the ticket.

Mike Huckabee is a candidate whose campaign was almost as tenacious as Hillary Clinton's He's chronically underestimated by the national media. However, it's hard to see what he could bring to the ticket that Sarah Palin can't. He attracted evangelicals -- and basically no on else.

She's just as "Christian" as Mike, but has less of a tendency to wear it on her sleeve. Also, she has pro-life credentials (having opted to give birth to a Down Syndrome child) that no other politician can match.

What works against Sarah is tradition - specifically, the Republican tradition of making very bad choices for Vice President. Barry Goldwater chose William Miller, an obscure (and deservedly so) Congressman from Lockport, New York. Nixon chose Spiro Agnew specifically to help him carry Maryland - which didn't happen - but lack of popularity turned out to be the least of Agnew's faults.

George H. W. Bush famously chose Quayle, who struck most people as a simpleton. Bob Dole chose Jack Kempt, but the wretched Republican campaign could have been won if Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were on the ticket.

George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney, supposedly a "solid" pick. In fact, Cheney - holed up mainly in his "undisclosed location" (the Bat Cave?), turned out to be the Darth Vader of contemporary politics.

The only "problem" with Sarah Palin is that she's such an obvious choice. As my friend in Boston puts it, she's a no-brainer. Some people invent shortcomings, such as the fact that she's beautiful and was - and is - a great athlete, the kind of person who runs - and finishes - marathons.
In my previous column I listed the groups for whom Sarah has great appeal: young people, military families, working mothers, women professionals, pro-lifers, hunters, working-class voters (her husband being one), fitness and health advocates, and ethics-in-government people. I didn't add Alaskans, where Sarah's approval ratings hover around 90%.

She's also a ferocious campaigner. In her race for Governor, she first unseated the incumbent Republican, Frank Murkowski. Then, she in the general, she beat a popular former Governor (and Democrat) Tony Knowles. That was in 2006, which was generally a very bad year for Republicans.

If John McCain doesn't choose Sarah Palin, he might have to plead temporary insanity. As I've said, "Sarah Palin is no ordinary mortal." I've also said that she's "Mt. Rushmore material." I certainly hope John McCain takes the first step in proving me right.

Link to Jack Kelly's column: http://post-gazette.com/forum

AMERICAN POLITICS: WHOLE WORLD WATCHING

Note: On my new -- and, amazingly, popular -- blog: (http://hillarysuportersformccain.blogspot.com, I have a piece today by a superb political analyst, Jean Avery. It's called "The Agonies of Hillary Clinton." Yesterday's piece on the same blog is titled "Hatchets Hacking Away at Hillary." I hope you'll read both and comment if you wish. On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate. Thanks.

In recent months, The (London) Economist has written about the fascination many people in Great Britain have with this year's American politics. In Britain, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Englishmen and Englishwomen find them awake at 5 a.m. (their time) hanging on the latest results from Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Some of these people may not know exactly where Indiana or Pennsylvania are, but they're fixated on the Obama-Clinton battles in those states.

The Economist mentions that a lot of people in Britain have a form of "primary envy." They wonder why their own country, one with a parliamentary system, can't have primaries of their own! Obviously, the primaries are great theater. Also, there are clear winners and losers, a situation that's always certain to draw public interest.

The obsession with American politics isn't just something you'll find in Britain. For example, I received the following e-mail from an overseas man, Jim Fryar, an Aussie who's a regular reader of my blogs.

He tells me, " I have been over to HSFM [Hillary Supporters for McCain] a few times, and I regard it as a potential winner for our cause [i.e., the conservative and libertarian one].

"My main concern at present is that Hilary will make it. I realize it's unlikely or highly improbable, but I never underestimate the Clintons, [because] they are as cunning as outhouse rats. . . . It's not over until Obama has the nomination, and even then I think its likely that Hilary would have 2012 in mind and have similar sentiments [regarding] the people we are reaching out to.

"[Alaska Govenor] Sarah Palin would be a great asset to this effort if she were the VP nominee. The "girl" thing is a side issue to this. She is honest, competent, has executive experience, and appears to have the toughs where she needs them. I would not recommend her otherwise. The last thing we need in the future would be a useless VP who we 'owe' for getting us over the line.

"Sarah's main competition would be Mitt Romney, who is also a good choice. Mitt would bring back some of those who backed him but still won't come across to McCain. He would cost us some ultra-conservative support, but I am not sure that this would be a real bad thing if he can bring in greater numbers of other groups. I think that a great many ultra-conservatives would still support the ticket [McCain-Romney] rather than accept the alternative. If Mike Huckabee and/or Fred Thompson were to support such a ticket, it would go a long way to help.


"That group [ultra-conservatives] worry me as they seem to be pulling us away from the more moderate electorate to the point where I feel some of them actually despise moderates and possibly want them out. I still believe we need the [ultra's] support so we have to be nice to them, but to some extent I think they are costing us, especially among the young [voters that] Romney could appeal to.


"I notice in the NYT an article which suggests that the Latino vote could be crucial and Eric [Dondero of BlogTalkRadio/Libertarian] has been pushing this line for the last year, or at least that we do not do enough to get that vote. He also seems to feel that quite a few Latinos don't really like the Democrats as they tend to stand over them. He presented a good case for Bonnie Garcia as a possible VP a couple of months ago. If she were at least to get a prominent place in the campaign, she could be a great asset.

Is Condi [Rice] really 'tainted' [by assocation with the Bush Administration] as some seem to claim? I feel she has handled a bloody difficult role with total credit, and I have great respect and admiration for her. From over here, I don't get the street feel you would have, but on her record I would love to see her on the ticket.

In another e-mail Jim said talked about the need in his country and ours for highly skilled immigrants -- in the face of growing anti-immigrant feelings.

"All of us are bound to disagree on some things. I kind of half heard a tv show in the background the other night on our ABC which was interviewing someone with similar views to Marina Kats's. I have been looking for the transcript on their website but it has not come up yet. The interviewee was saying that both of our countries [U.S. and Australia] could lose out badly and the tendency for industry to move offshore could increase if we do not get in more skilled people [immigrants] in a hurry."


He adds, "It is almost impossible [in Australia] to get an electrician [in most non-minerals] industries now because of the mining boom."


Jim's knowledge of American politics is quite amazing when you consider that he's in Queensland, Australia. I love the way he talks about "us," referring to American conservatives. Jim sees himself -- and frankly, is -- one of "us." He's very familiar with what's going on in the New York Times and on ABC.

You can find Jim's remarkable blog at: http://jimunro.blogspot.com/. He describes its nature as:
"Real World Libertarian: The Politics of Liberty and the Defense Thereof." Occupationally, he is a "former farmer, [and] surface and underground driller now moving into [mining] training and consultancy."

I told Jim that "Americans and Aussies" are brothers and sisters under the skin. And as he demonstrates, we are. May it be ever thus.

ARE HILLARY, BARACK REALLY CHIHUAHUAS?

"A political gaffe occurs when a candidate inadvertently tells the truth." (John Fund)

"Hearing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debate about who has the most national security experience is like hearing two chihuahuas argue about who's the biggest dog." (Mitt Romney on March 12). Romney left no doubt that the "big dog" on the crucial issue of national security is John McCain.

Tomorrow's important column: "Obama's 'Spirtual Advisor' Hates America."

I like Mitt Romney as a person and a candidate. As most of my reader know, I hope John McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his vice-presidential running. In the campaign, Sarah -- relatively little-known in what Alaskans call "the lower-48" -- would take off like a cruise missile.

However, if John McCain chooses Mitt Romney, an expert on economic growth, as his vice-president, I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't at all believe McCain is somehow obligated to pick a hard-shell right-winger as a running mate. Romney is an articulate conservative who would eviscerate -- rhetorically speaking -- anyone the Democrats choose for the vice-presidency. John McCain needs to take a very careful look at Gov. Romney.

Romney's joke about the chihuahas is a good one. In the general election, humor can be a powerful weapon. Note the fact that "Saturday Night Live," a comedy show, is playing a significant role in the Democratic primary, in large part by influencing media coverage of Barack Obama. It's a sad situation when a satirical TV show has to remind the media what its job is.

In the general election, McCain-Romney (or McCain-Palin) will be able to use Hillary Clinton's questions about Barack Obama's ability to be commander-in-chief. As you'll recall, Mrs. Clinton said that both she and John McCain had "a lifetime of experience." In contrast, she said Barack Obama "has a speech he gave in 2002" (against the Iraq War).

If Obama is the nominee, as he probably will be, I can't imagine Republicans not using Hillary's remarks in a commercial -- one that shows over and over again. Senator Clinton has seriously questioned Obama's capacity to serve as President, and she's absolutely correct. Increasingly, the Illinois Senator appears to be someone who's all speech and no action.

Paul Begala, a media cheerleader for the Clintons, recently talked about his "concern" some recent poll numbers. They showed that 25% of Senator Clinton's voters said that, if their candidate doesn't get the nomination, they will be inclined to vote for John McCain. There's additional evidence that McCain will get a majority of the votes by the huge bloc of Independents.

Mitt Romney's witty comments about Hillary and Barack being "chihuahuas" make us smile. But the fact that it rings true with so many voters is not something that put a frown on the faces of many Democrats.

OBAMA'S CUBAN FLAG, EMPTY RHETORIC

Picture from NewsBusters (via Race42008) of an Obama campaign office in Houston. Note the Cuban flag with the picture of Communist fanatic Che Guevara superimposed.

I'VE BEEN GETTING QUESTIONS ON THE FLAG ABOVE. THE LINKS BELOW WILL ALLOW YOU TO SEE THE DETAILS UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL. I'LL BE WRITING MORE ON THIS SUBJECT WEDNESDAY.


http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5700252&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

It [[the flag story] was on the news in Houston. Above is the video from Fox Houston showing the flag in the background of Obama's office that was linked from Newsbusters at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/d-s-hube/2008/02/11/another-flag-issue-obama

THIS IS THE SAME OBAMA THAT REFUSES TO WEAR AN AMERICAN FLAG PIN ON HIS LAPEL. HE ALSO HAS A PROBLEM PUTTING HIS HAND OVER HIS HEART DURING THE PLAYING OF THE NATIONAL ANTHEM.


I'll build on this column throughout Tuesday, February 12, 2008 and will be writing the entire week on the two Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I've been writing for nearly a year about how Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. However, I'm much (much, much) less certain of that. Frankly, if Mrs. Clinton doesn't win in Ohio and Texas next month, she probably won't get the nomination.

The numbers are working against her. When she loses all three races today (MD, VA, and DC) in the "Potomac Primaries," that will be TEN losses in a row. When you're on that kind of losing streak, it's hard to see the trend coming to an end. The Democratic Establishment recognizes Obama's limitations, and they don't really want him to be the standard-bearer, but in the end they might not have a choice.

As a speaker, Mrs. Clinton reminds us of the proverbial fingernail scratching on a blackboard (now apparently known as "whiteboards"). In contrast, Barack Obama comes across as the silver-tongued orator. Where he fails is in what Martin Luther King called "the content of his character." His main commitment seems to be bamboozling the American people with pretty words. He relies on feel-good rhetoric to sell himself politically. He talks the talk but he doesn't truly walk the walk.

For example, Obama's stump speech begins with these words: "We are at a defining moment in our history." Some Democrats seem to find that statement to be profound. Actually, it's a clanking cliche that foreshadows presentations light on content and heavy on sanctimony.

Obama drenches his Democratic audiences in rhetorical syrup ("Yes we can!"), and they lap it up. But what do the pretty words actually mean? Do his stirring speeches stand up to any kind of examination?



Yesterday on TV, he said, "Change does not happen from the top down. Change happens from the bottom up."



A cynic (like me) might say, "I guess his belief in generating from the bottom-up is why he's running for a low-level office like President of the United States." His statement certainly doesn't apply to the candidate himself.




He likes to tell us that "Washington is broken," implying that he (and his Party) have little if anything to do with Washington, DC. He forgets to add that he -- and his main political allies -- are charter members of the Beltway Gang. He doesn't delve into how people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are part of the fractured government.




Obama always begins his stump speech with the following words: "We are at a defining moment in our history." Oh, really? A few unsophisticated people might regard that hoary cliche as somehow uplifting. In fact, every generation has heard the same thing from politicians. It's like Macbeth's "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."





Senator Obama has made himself a very wealthy man by giving speeches and selling books, particularly his The Audacity of Hope, for which he received an advance payment of $1.9 million. However audacious his own hopes, Obama's main characteristic is the emptiness of his rhetoric.



Granted, he never quite reaches the total inauthenticity of Hillary Clinton, but he comes close. The more one examines what Obama says, the less content there is. Without specifics, his stock-in-trade concepts like "hope" and "change" have no meaning. He's floating to the top on a stream of vast emptiness.








OBAMA WEARING THE FLIP-FLOPS ON TIME-TABLES:

Team McCain is chuckling over a comment from Barack Obama last night on "60 Minutes": http://cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/60minutes/main3804268_page2.shtml


"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009," [Steve] Kroft remarked.

[Obama said] "Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning."

"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.

"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.


First he's for timetables, then he isn't. As one McCainiac just put it to me, "Shades of John Kerry. We already beat this guy. The last thing we need right now is indecisiveness."


Obama can ask Mitt Romney about how merciless McCain is when it comes to reading into his opponents' words on timetables.


Tomorrow's column on Barack Obama's supposed commitment to "universal health care." Question: if he's for it, why did he vote against mandating physician assistance in the case of "botched" abortions when a child is born alive? I hope it's not "audacious" to ask that obvious question.

The Impications of Romney's Withdrawal

"He [Romney] didn't connect with the voters." (Bill Bennett)

"[By continuing the campaign] I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win." (Mitt Romney)

"I feel I must stand aside for the good of our Party and our country." (Mitt Romney)

Today, Governor Romney explained why it is so important to defeat the Democratic nominee, be it Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. He said that if either of them becomes President the result would be a "retreat in the face of evil extremism." Mitt Romeny's comments are right on target. The Democratic candidates' view of the "War on Terror" is that it is some sort of chimera. Obama and Clinton feel that kind of pretense is the best way to solicit votes from the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. In other words, they put their own electoral possibilities ahead of protecting the country and its soldiers.

Senator McCain can learn much from Romney's outstanding speech at CPAC. Romney pointed to the Democrat candidates as having two major defects: (1) their commitment not to a free society, but rather to a culture of dependency, where fewer and fewer people pay taxes and more and more of them look to government for subsistence; (2) their almost total lack of comprehension of the nature of the religious fanatics and mass murderers who want to destroy our society.

Romney pointed out that he and Senator McCainhave differences on several issues -- actually, the differences are relatively minor -- but that they agree on the central issue of our time. Romney said, "I agree with him [McCain] on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq . . . and on [the necessity of] finding and executing Osama bin Laden." [Note: I believe bin Laden will be captured or killed during the presidency of George W. Bush.]

Sometime ago, I wrote about Barack Obama's response (in an early debate) to a question about what he would do as President if two American cities were attacked simultaneously by al Qaeda. His response was that he would form a "commission" to study why there had ben a 'failure of intelligence" in anticipating the attack. In other words, Obama would launch a witch-hunt designed to shift blame away from him as President. A cowardly response!

Barack Obama is of course an "eloquent" speaker -- as long as people don't examine the minimal substance of what his remarks. He's a purveyor of the emptiest form of rhetoric. He, like Clinton, promises his constituents everything, while asking nothing of them in return. He no more grasps the terrorist threat than he understands quantum physics.

His foreign policy is to avoid making any hard choices that demand sacrifice. His domestic policy is to redistribute income from his political opponents to his political supporters. That's the essence of his "campaign of hope" -- the hope of the unproductive to get more from the productive.

"Change" turns out to mean, "Vote for me, and I'll put more change in your pocket."

With someone like John McCain -- love him or dislike him -- you always know where he stands on the important issues. He's not in the habit of telling people only what they want to hear. With Clinton and Obama, all we truly know is what "stand" they believe turns into votes.

By suspending his campaign, Romney is giving John McCain a better opportunity to focus on the Democrats. McCain can point out that, if we want stirring speeches, we can look to Obama and Clinton. If we want a tough, dedicated President, we can vote for -- and volunteer for -- John McCain, a true American hero.

As for me, I stand with McCain. Go get them, John!

____________________________________________________

Thursday, February 07, 2008
Coburn Defends McCain At CPAC Meeting


U.S. Senator Tom Coburn’s speech at CPAC today:

I’m honored by the invitation to be here today. I want to thank each of you for your devotion to our country, and for the sacrifices you have made to participate in this event.

I have the privilege today to say a few words about John McCain, a man of rare courage and character, who I believe is uniquely equipped to lead our nation through the difficult challenges ahead.

As conservatives, I know that most of us are sick and tired of politicians who tell us what we want to hear then govern in the opposite way. We won’t have that problem with John McCain. He may not always tell us what we want to hear, but he will say what he means and do what he says.

John McCain has the unique blend of character, guts, and experience to tackle the two greatest challenges facing our country – radical Islamic extremism and the looming financial catastrophe that will hit our economy when the Baby Boomers retire.

The fact is, we haven’t had a president over the last eight years who had the guts to take on the excesses of a Republican and Democrat Congress. Our government wastes $200 billion every year. Every year. John McCain will lead a top down review of everything government does and actually cut wasteful and duplicative spending. If we don’t elect a president who will challenge the excesses of Congress we will wreck our economy. John McCain will heed Will Durant’s warning that, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.”

I trust John McCain because he possesses the rarest virtue in politics upon which all else depends – courage. He has risked his political life during this presidential campaign. In defense of the unpopular surge in Iraq, John McCain said, “I’d rather lose the presidency than lose the war.” John McCain may win the presidency precisely because he was willing to let it go in service to his country.

Courage matters most in Washington, especially when dealing with Congress. Just as no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, no presidential agenda – however conservative – survives contact with Congress. John McCain has the courage, grit and conviction to tell Congress no and fight for the reforms we need to secure our future.
Maybe it’s John McCain’s disregard for his own personal political safety and the opinions of other politicians that led an appropriator to say the thought of McCain presidency sends chills down their spine. Anything that sends a chill down the spines of big spenders in Congress should warm the heart of every American taxpayer.

Other critics have said that John McCain stood in the way of the conservative GOP agenda. But, as conservatives, we have to look at the whole picture. In fact, due to a failure of leadership in Congress, I’m not sure we’ve had a comprehensive GOP conservative agenda since 1995.

Was the Bridge to Nowhere and an explosion of earmarks part of the GOP conservative agenda? John McCain was one of only 11 Republicans who supported me in my fight to kill the Bridge to Nowhere. Most Republicans were marching off the bridge we were trying to de-fund. What John McCain’s record tells me is that we won’t have to wait until the last year of his presidency to see him pick a fight with Congress over wasteful Washington spending. John McCain will declare war on pork – the gateway drug to spending addiction in Congress – on day one. There will be no earmarks for teapot museums, First Lady Libraries and taxpayer-funded hippie flashbacks in a McCain administration.

The new prescription drug entitlement our party leadership pushed on us was part of the GOP agenda but it wasn’t part of the conservative agenda. John McCain had the foresight to vote against Medicare Part D, the largest entitlement expansion since Lyndon Johnson, when many Republicans were AWOL. John McCain believes Congress should keep the promises it has already made before making new promises it can’t keep. He also has the most comprehensive and conservative health care reform plan of any candidate. John McCain will fight the government-run, universally-controlled health plans supported by Clinton and Obama with common sense, free-market principles that work.

Even if John McCain has taken some positions we don’t like as conservative, I don’t believe you can ignore the fact that he took many bold stands against the Big Government Republican agenda that destroyed our majority. When most Republicans were trying to build a governing majority through pork – and were growing the government faster than the Democrats who came before us – John McCain was pushing the party in the opposite direction on key issues.

Let me touch on some other issues.

On judges, I wouldn’t have endorsed John McCain if I wasn’t confident he will nominate judges like the ones he has voted to confirm in the Senate: Bork, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. I also know that he shares my desire to see the Senate approve conservative judges now.

On immigration, John McCain was trying to solve a problem which, incidentally, hasn’t improved much. He listened and learned and decided the facts were on our side. He doesn’t have a secret plan to enact blanket amnesty as president. And, if he did, he knows I’d kill it.

McCain-Feingold misdiagnosed the real problem as too much money to politicians rather than politicians whose votes are for sale. Even though I disagreed with McCain-Feingold, John McCain’s desire to tackle corruption in the congressional neighborhood was correct. The source of Washington’s corruption isn’t K Street; it’s Congress’ lack of restraint, and John McCain has taken bold steps to tackle that problem at its source.

Still, I have to say that the concerns I hear about John McCain pale in comparison to the two greatest challenges facing our country – terrorism and a Congress that refuses to correct our unsustainable fiscal course. If we get all of those other issues right but those two issues wrong we won’t survive as a nation.

John McCain’s record on the issues that are paramount to our future is a record conservatives can support. John McCain also has a conservative record on what is arguably the transcendent social issue of our time: the sanctity of life. He has been pro-life for 24 years and his record that matches his principles.

And, on national security, John McCain is by far the most qualified candidate on either side. He will meet not only the security challenges we know about but, more importantly, those we don’t know about. Tyrants and terrorists will think twice about challenging the United States with John McCain in the White House.

Is John McCain perfect? No. Will we disagree with him sometimes? Yes. But, elections are about choices. I’d be happy to debate anyone who thinks staying home or supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is a better choice for our future than John McCain.

TENNESSEE CONSERVATIVE UNION ENDORSES MCCAIN

Tennessee Conservative Union Endorses John McCain
Here is the release:

I don’t always agree with John McCain, but I have always admired him. He suffered and fought for his country and prevailed. Perhaps that’s why I’ve been sickened by the attacks on him by some Washington-based conservatives this week. One went so far as to say that McCain is more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

It makes you wonder if some of the more cynical have decided a new Clinton or Obama administration would mean better fundraising, higher rating points and more books sold.

Perhaps I’m just too old-fashioned for the modern media based conservative movement. I always knew one thing about Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, which is that the country came before person, principal came before party and philosophy came before personal profit.

The selection of candidates this year provides no clear choice for conservatives. If you believe the primary job of the president is to be the spiritual leader for the Country, then Mike Huckabee deserves your consideration. If you feel America needs a successful businessman to manage the economy, then Mitt Romney would seem to have the resume.

I cannot question any conservative's vote in this very unique and volatile election. I do question the credibility of the talking heads that have chosen to attempt to destroy McCain rather than simply oppose him.

In this time of war and generation of terrorism I still believe that Job One for a President is Commander and Chief. Can there be a clearer choice for Commander and Chief than John McCain? I’ll be casting my conservative vote against the terrorists, in favor of a strong national defense and for the future Commander and Chief John McCain.

-Lloyd C. Daugherty
Chairman ,
Tennessee Conservative Union

New McCain Forum For You!

New McCain Forum For You!
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html
Please copy the above link and visit the new McCain Forum. It allows you to leave comments, which I hope you will, and contains links to all relevant sites for McCain volunteers (contributions, Bloggers for McCain, and the like). You can find the direct link at the top of my blogroll to the right. Thanks so much for your help.

I have written several columns -- and added several guest columns -- about McCain, which you can find at http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.

A tremendous amount is going to happen in the nominating process over the next four days. I believe on Wednesday of next week in Boston, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney will end his campaign -- and probably will endorse John McCain. As for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I predict that they will retreat from public life and perhaps join, respectively, a monastery and a nunnery.

Like all national elections, this one will be close -- and ferociously contested. The winning element could be the bloggers, who will play an unprecedented role in this campaign. God bless you all.


THE FOLLOWING IS FROM GREG ALTERTON AT RUDY SUPPORTERS FOR MCCAIN:

From Greg at Rudy Supporters for McCain:

Hugh Hewitt has posted a blog thought here -- http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog -- in which he argues:

The Romney campaign's February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives.

Won't happen. Huck's supporters support him (largely) for one reason: he's an evangelical Christian. These folks are not going to jump to a Mormon candidate...Sorry, his religion is an issue with many.

The other thing that was a revelation was the news from Lousiana where the block of pro-life so-cons going to the state convention to select delegates are committed to McCain. Every one of them. This tells me that Romney stands no chance of simply getting "all" of Huck's supporters.

And wasn't it not too long ago that Hewitt and company were saying that Huck wasn't a conservative at all? So, how can his supporters coming over to Romney make up a "conservative majority."

This kind of blindness based on an emotional investment in Romney is what passes for political analysis from Hugh Hewitt these days. He should never have gotten in bed with Romney to the extent that he has. He's painted himself into a corner, and now that Romney is proving NOT to be the great conservative savior (give GOP voters credit for seeing through Romney), Hewitt sees no way out.

A friend in Oregon responded to the above:

I stopped reading or listening to Hewitt sometime last summer, having watched him self-destruct by utterly (and eagerly) destroying his credibility and integrity. Some of his regular readers are genuinely certifiable. I just could not see the point in wasting further time or energy on them.

Instead, I sent a large donation to McCain. At the time, his campaign was universally derided as moribund, at best. I thought it likely that my donation would accomplish nothing of worth--with the notable exception of satisfying my conscience that I had at least tried to do something for my country.

As things changed for the positive, I would return to Hewitt's site only when I needed a good laugh. His post after Romney's religion speech was a particular screamer.

Hewitt claims he will support the GOP nominee, but how can he?

Steve is right: Hewitt has painted himself into the deepest, darkest corner imaginable from which there is no escape.

Check his site on Wednesday morning. His post should be the most hilarious one yet.

Bruce

Austin Statesman Endorses John McCain

In face of challenge, McCain bends but doesn’t break

By The Editorial Board, Austin Statesman | Friday, February 1, 2008, 07:30 PM

The best candidate for president the Republican Party could offer to American voters in November is Sen. John McCain of Arizona. A conservative, McCain also is pragmatic - he tries to solve problems, not just make the world, or the nation, work the way ideologues say it should.

At this point, just a few days before so-called “Super Tuesday,” when more than 20 states hold Republican primaries, McCain is the front-runner. Unless party sentiment swings heavily to him or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that day, the two men then might well look to the Texas GOP primary on March 4 as the decisive battleground.

Just a few months ago, McCain was considered politically dead. Some of his closest advisers quit; others were forced out. But McCain didn’t quit - he fought back, on his own terms, and now leads his party’s race. It’s the kind of performance that inspires confidence.

One of McCain’s strengths is that he’s a lot more blunt than most politicians. In fact, it gets him into trouble sometimes. In Michigan, as Romney rolled out promises to bring back all those auto factory jobs, McCain told the truth - most of those jobs are gone forever.

The recent economic news has seized America’s attention, and McCain has acknowledged the economy is not his expertise. But any president’s first job is ensuring the defense of our republic, and McCain is an expert on that.

By now, most voters are generally aware of his military background. He is the son and grandson of Navy admirals. A graduate of the Naval Academy, McCain became a pilot. He was shot down over North Vietnam and spent five years as a prisoner of war and was tortured.

After he was released, McCain eventually moved to Arizona and started a political career, serving first in the U.S. House and, since 1987, in the U.S. Senate.

Given that background, it is not surprising that McCain today is most passionate about the United States not walking away from its disastrous war in Iraq without first ensuring that a stable, friendly government is in place. But he has been no mindless defender of President Bush’s handling of that war - he was among the early critics, even as he later stoutly supported the “surge” of additional troops to stabilize Iraq in the face of public opposition.

We don’t know that we would agree with every move a President McCain would make regarding Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. But we’re confident that he would not insist that a mission had been accomplished when it had not and that he would not hesitate to replace commanders or diplomats who needed replacing.

And McCain has shown that he knows that to dissent from a president’s defense policy is not tantamount to treachery. If he’s the nominee, we can expect a high level of debate over U.S. military commitments.

We’re also confident that, in fighting terrorism, McCain would not besmirch the honor of the American people. When McCain demanded that Americans be barred from torturing this nation’s enemies, he wielded a moral authority that no other U.S. leader could match.

McCain has said he would, as president, appoint Supreme Court justices like the deeply conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees. He opposes abortion and defends the right of individuals to bear arms.

But he knows that politics is supposed to be about working together to solve problems, not just crushing political enemies. And so he worked with Democrats in Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation and on a major immigration reform bill that ultimately did not pass.

McCain’s record in Congress is that of a solid Republican. He has a lifetime rating of 82.3 percent from the American Conservative Union. Some conservatives say that rating isn’t nearly high enough. For us, though, it’s an indication that McCain cannot be zipped into anyone’s straitjacket.

His true conservatism can be seen in his willingness to recognize the threat of global warming and the need to conserve Earth’s atmosphere and environment. He refuses to pretend there is no problem.

McCain also looks commanding compared with his remaining GOP rivals.

Romney is trying to evolve rapidly from his record as a moderately progressive governor of Massachusetts to the heir of Ronald Reagan. Politicians are entitled to change their minds about issues from time to time, and every politician has to adjust to changing circumstances. But Romney abuses the privilege.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is an intelligent, charming man who appeals especially to conservative evangelical Christians. But his rather goofy idea for a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax relegates him to the ranks of second-tier candidates.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, from Texas, is a niche candidate, a devoted libertarian with a resolute following, but he’s hardly a contender for the world’s most important job.

We’ve had enough of the bitter partisanship of recent years. We hope that McCain can find a new path if he is elected. Texas Republicans would do well to support him in their March 4 primary.

http://statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2008/02/01/in_face_of_challenge_mccain_be.html


WHAT JOHN MCCAIN MUST DO (By Steve Maloney)

John McCain needs to be able to state his position on issues in about 40 seconds (each) of compelling statements. He's not there yet. On an issue like health care, we need to do a heckuva lot more than generalize about socialized medicine. There does have to be a safety net -- it just shouldn't be one iwth 300 million people in it.

The public generally has a fear about "losing their health care," and we need to deal with that effectively. We can't afford a candidacy like Dole in 1996, where he responded to Clinton's specifics with rambling comments about "Everybody knows where ole Bob Dole stands." If they did know, they didn't like it.

The Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts of the world desperatedly want John to lose. They want him to appeal to a conservative "base" that isn't big enough to carry Alabama. Let's make sure we don't give them the satisfaction.

We do need a 50-state campaign (although I'd be satisfied with 45 states). There is enough time to conduct such an effort. Sorry, John, no vacations.

MY ROMNEY PROBLEM & YOURS

NOTE: IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN, YOU CAN DO SO AT: HTTP://MCCAIN.COM. IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN THE FAST-GROWING GROUP THAT SUPPORTS GOV. SARAH PALIN FOR V-P, DO SO AT: HTTP://PALINFORVP.BLOGSPOT.COM. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!

A friend in Hawaii is a frequent listener to talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, and she finds it an increasingly painful experience. A few years ago, Hewitt wrote a totally uncritical book about Mitt Romney, and since then he has been shilling for the book and the candidate. My friend said the following:

"Thank you...for your continued efforts to gain a victory for the Right. Steve, I am REALLY offended by Hewitt's McCain bashing. I don't think I've been this angry, even when they went after Bush. McCain has spent half a century serving this nation...in the military and then in Congress, he does NOT deserve this. Every week at Mass I say a special prayer for Bush...I am adding McCain to my list and a prayer that McCain does so well in Florida there is NO chance for Romney. Tell me Steve, what is Hewitt going to do if McCain wins the nomination?" (Sanity 102)


Here's my reply: "Hewitt has NEVER made a compelling reason for his backing of Romney. Mitt is much too robotic (and, frankly, much too rich) to appeal to anything like a majority of the American people. His stance on McCain shows he knows nothing about the role of the military or the nature of heroism. Hugh should be ashamed of himself, but he obviously is incapable of shame."

Should we hold it against Romney that he is extremely rich (with an estimated fortune of $300 million)? No. What we should hold against him is his use of tens of millions in an effort to buy the presidential nomination. He spent his career at Bain Capital working in mergers and acquisitions that made him and his clients huge fortunes -- and cost many dedicated workers their jobs. He sells himself to voters as a "manager," but his skills seem to consist mainly of managing his own vast fortune and his political ambitions.

When Romney ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 he was strongly pro-gay-rights and pro-choice. Now, with a mainly conservative primary electorate, he has reversed his positions.

I have a problem with Romney's wife, Ann, who seems to have no positions that vary even in small ways from her husband's. I also have a problem with the Romney sons, whom I call the "Osmond Quintuplets." They are the quintessence of blandness, human parodies right out of "Father Knows Best." And this is the Romney that supposedly opposes human cloning!

As soon as Romney spots an opponent that the voters like, be it Huckabee or McCain, he immediately "goes negative." Unable to sell his own robotic personality, he goes on the attack against other candidates. He now campaigns without his $3,000 suits and even without a tie -- an experience that appears to be excruciating for him.

Totally clueless about the changes in American politics and society, Romney is pursuing the old Republican ideal of the politician as businessman. However, as Mike Huckabee put it, voters are much more interested in voting for the guy like the one that works next to them -- rather than the person who laid them off. Romney is the latter.

Pundits sometime talk about Hillary Clinton's "high negatives" in polls. However, Romney's negatives are nearly as high as Mrs. Clinton's. Frankly, that demonstrates the good sense of American voters.

Right now, I'm literally praying that John McCain will prevail in the Florida Primary. The evidence shows that this country neither wants nor needs Mitt Romney.

As for what Hugh Hewitt will do if McCain wins the nomination, somehow I don't expect him to fall on his sword. Perhaps he'll get a real job?To prevail, John McCain needs your help. Please consider making at least a small contribution to his campaign.

REPULICAN PRIMARIES: MYSTERIES & ENIGMAS

Winston Churchill famously said about the old Soviet Union that it was "a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma." Winston should have seen the Republican primaries.

I'LL BE WRITING A LOT IN THE COMING DAYS ABOUT THE TRENDS IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.

If McCain can win both Michigan and South Carolina, he presumably would end up winning the nomination. However, if Romney wins, it will make a confusing situation even more perplexing. If the race continues to be uncertain, then Florida should be critical. Stay tuned. I'll add more as the day (Tuesday) goes on and will have a new column tonight, after the MI results are clear.

If you have no clear idea who the Republican nominee will be, you're not alone.

WHY THE POLLSTERS BLEW IT

As you may have noticed, the political polls change with about the same regularity as the weather. However, let's admit it: you believe they tell you something of value, and so do I. For the most part, we should discard that belief.

Right now (Monday night), I'm hearing "from Michigan" that the polls (which ones?) are telling us that John McCain and Mitt Romney are running "neck-and-neck" (is there any other way for politicians to run?). Does that mean we'll have to stay up late tomorrow (Tuesday) to see if Mitt Romney elects to take "early retirement" from the race? Maybe.

I think McCain will finish first, perhaps well ahead of Romney. Mike Huckabee will finish third.

But the Michigan primary, like the previous one in New Hampshire, is impossible to predict. For one thing, Independents can vote in the primary -- Democratic or Republican. No one knows how the "Independents" (a much smaller percentage in MI than NH) will vote -- or even if they'll vote. Also, Michigan is a fully open primary, and Democrats apparently can vote in the Republican primary. The Daily Kos, an extreme leftist blog, is telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney -- the better to screw up the Republican results.

What about the Democratic candidates? Well, for arcane reasons the national Democrat Party has told the candidates not to campaign in Michigan. So, there are only three candidates on the ballot. One is Hillary Clinton, and the other two are the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What about Barack and John? They're not on the ballot.

What is on the Democratic ballot is an heretofore unknown candidate known as "Uncommitted." In other words, if you don't feel like voting for Hillary, Dennis, and Mike, you don't have to vote for anyone. If Mr. (or Ms.?) Uncommitted gets a lot of support, I'm sure the pundits will tell us what that means.

Given all these factors, don't ask me exactly what's going to happen in Michigan. Anyone who claims to know -- even if their name is Gallup, Zogby, or Rassmussen -- qualifies as an idiot.

In yesterday's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there was an article about failures of the pollsters in New Hampshire. Writer Daniel Malloy says, "Pollsters argued that the polls weren't wrong [perish the thought!] -- there was just a change in the thinking of voters, especially women, who suddenly became eager to support an underdog, emotional Mrs. Clinton."

Of course, that's all bulldoodoo. When someone presents us with a poll that has a certain "margin of error" and the results far exceed the margin, then we need a new pollster. After all, polls aren't supposed to be a crap shoot, are they?

I'll let you in on a secret. I know precisely -- right down to the percentage points -- what's going to happen in Michigan. But since you don't believe me, I'm not going to tell you now. I will tell you tomorrow night.


Tomorrow, I'll write some more about the polls -- including Gallup's classic blunders in 2004, when they had Bush winning PA (he lost) and losing Ohio (he won).

FRED THOMPSON: GOP'S "GREAT PUMPKIN"

By popular demand (well, my wife and stepdaughter), I'm reprinting my notorious column about former Senator (and apparent (?) presidential candidate) Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics.

I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.

I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base."

Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him. Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).

However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage." Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.

When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.

Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin.

I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.

Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices. Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.

However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll. Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.

Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire.

On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.

Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality.

McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney." Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.

TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.

The Presidential Nominees Will Be . . .

This weekend I'll have a column on Saturday and one on Sunday. I'd love to hear from readers on their "guesses" -- and that's all they can be at this point -- on which candidates they (i.e., you) think the eventual nominees will be. There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.

What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.

Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.

On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney.

I started out many months ago by. endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain.

In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions. What are your own thoughts?

If I had to bet the farm today, my guess would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.

The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:

I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.

It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.

HUGH HEWITT'S MITT ROMNEY PROBLEM

"Hugh Hewitt, a reputation is a terrible thing to waste."

Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.

When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.

However, as a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS. It means outlining where a candidate is weak -- and where he's strong.

In fact, Mitt Romney is not a effective candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney squandered big early leads in the polls and ended up finishing a distant second. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens.

There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.

Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and cease the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.

On this blog, I note the candidate(s) I favor and don't fail point out their warts. Romney is spending a lot more money than his opponents, and his performance is not good. It would strengthen Hugh's credibility if he showed some basic signs of balance, which he doesn't when it comes to Mitt Romney.

So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).

steve maloney


FAIR-TAX A NON-STARTER?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowdQuestions
by Jerry Bowyer

Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?


When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment.

Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process?

Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?

Does it apply to non-profits? [And if not, why not?]

If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?

Are used goods, non-taxable?

If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?

What about the transition period?Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought?

If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.

[Other big questions follow]Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?

If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.

If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates?

That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.

Mr. Bowyer [of Allegheny County, PA] is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a [frequent] CNBC contributor.

Key Presidential & Congressional Races

Starting tomorrow morning (Monday) at 8 a.m. there will be a new column every day between now and February 6, 2008, the day after "Super Tuesday." I've predicted that Senator Barack Obama will win the New Hampshire primary in a close race with Senator Hillary Clinton. I've also predicted that Senator John McCain will win the New Hampshire -- and that he will finish far ahead of the second place finisher, former Gov. Mitt Romney.

I believe the eventual presidential nominees will be Barack Obama and John McCain. However, I wouldn't bet the house on my own projections. Mike Huckabee will retain his strong support among evangelicals and home-schoolers, who propelled him to victory in Iowa. Mitt Romney has spent tens of millions of his own money and, as the saying goes, "you ain't seen nothing yet."

I believe the best candidate the Democrats have is Hillary Rodham Clinton, which isn't saying much, because the top-tier Democrats all advocate policies that will be harmful to the nation.

Mrs. Clinton may still win the nomination, but if she finishes second in New Hampshire and then goes on to lose in South Carolina, her campaign is in deep trouble. Obama would have all the momentum, and he would be almost unstoppable. I think that's likely to happen, but at this point, there are few absolute certainties.

Last night, I attended a remarkable meeting that featured former congresswoman Melissa Hart, who is seeking to regain her seat in Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District. Her race against Jason Altmire is reflective of many congressional battles taking place around the country. I'll be writing more in the weeks ahead about the Hart-Altmire struggle.

If you'd like to learn more about Melissa Hart, you can check her archived appearance on Doug Gibbs's Blog Talk Radio on January 3, 2008.

Giuliani, McCain Leading, Thompson, Romney Fading, Huckabee Advances

Rudy 33% McCain 19% Thompson 16% Romney 11% Huckabee 9% in Latest Washington Post - ABC News National GOP Poll (Note: See my question at the bottom).

Republican Presidential hopeful, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, center (above), leaves a news conference in Washington, Friday, Nov. 2, 2007,with Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., rear, and Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., left, after the announcement of Sen. Bond’s endorsement of Giuliani for President. Sen. Coleman endorsed Giuliani on Thursday.

Senator John McCain has returned to second place with Rudy Giuliani continuing to lead the GOP Field in the latest Washington Post - ABC News National GOP Poll.

The poll gives Rudy a double digit lead over John McCain who has limited his campaign to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Fred Thompson’s campaign continues to collapse while Mike Huckabee is now threatening Mitt Romney’s fourth place.

In the general election portion of the poll, Rudy Giuliani does the best of any GOP candidate, trailing Hillary Clinton by only 4 percentage points - well within competitive striking distance.

Steve Maloney says: I have endorsed a ticket of Rudy Giuliani - Sarah Palin. I also have tremendous regard for John McCain, and I've written several favorable pieces about Mike Huckabee. I am asking both Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain to step up to the plate and endorse the candidacy of William Russell against John Murtha.

COULD THIS MEAN THE REPUBLICAN RACE COULD COME DOWN TO A BATTLE BETWEEN TWO FRIENDS, JOHN MCCAIN AND RUDY GIULIANI? I'D REGARD THAT AS A TERRIFIC SCENARIO, BECAUSE EITHER MAN WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT PRESIDENT OF THE US.

WILLIAM RUSSELL CAN DEFEAT MURTHA: REQUEST TO GOV. SARAH PALIN

I APPRECIATE THE MANY (MANY, MANY) VISITORS WHO HAVE COME IN THE PAST TWO DAYS. I THINK WHEN SOMEONE UTTERS THE MAGIC WORDS THAT "JOHN MURTHA MUST GO," IT GETS PEOPLE'S ATTENTION. TOMORROW I'LL TALK SOME ABOUT HOW MURTHA CAN BE DEFEATED BY WILLIAM TROWER RUSSELL.

Thanks to the LARGE NUMBER of visitors from http://thepinkflamingo,blogharbor.com/blog and from http://freerepublic.com/, as well as many other sites. You're always welcome here -- as are your comments. One important thing you can do for William Russell is send an email to Josh Schultz at the National Republican Congressional Committee and ask the national party to provide some "seed money" for William's campaign. Like most national committees, the NRCC has a tendency to funnel money to Representatives who have been in Congress long enough that they should be able to raise their own money. Please send your request to: jshultz@NRCC.org. Tell him (nicely) that you'll be a lot more likely to contribute to the NRCC if they give EARLY support to people like Lt. Col. William Russell. Since Russell is going to get a great deal of national publicity (it's already starting) because of the nature of his opponent (Moneybags Murtha), he will help Republican candidates across the nation. You can find William's campaign site by clicking on the link on your right (at the top).

Note: See Chris Voccio's fine piece today on Murtha and his "earmarks." I have a long comment on Chris's site: www.pennrepublican.com. Anyone interested in the Russell-Murtha campaign will want to subscribe to Chris's new, Johnstown-based monthly publication.

In the last 12 hours -- from midnight to noon on Tuesday, Oct. 30 -- I've had more than 100 visitors to this blog, putting me on pace for a record day. William T. Russell, who is running against the odious John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district, is getting tremendous traffic on his web site.

Frankly, Murtha has been willing to sell American soldiers down the river for his personal political gain, and he has no business being in Congress. He raises millions of dollars from DC lobbyists, but as a Congressman, he isn't worth a plug nickel.

By soliciting support from the extreme left-wing of his Party, symbolized by his political ally Nancy Pelosi, Murtha has put personal gain ahead of his country's security.

Many people are making modest contributions to Lt. Col. Russell's campaign and volunteering to support him in other ways. Everyone who is supportive of Russell, a Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom veteran, has my heartfelt thanks -- and his.

Please take a glance at the several columns below (scroll down) that I've written regarding William and some other terrific candidates. Some individuals have promised to ask leading Republican presidential candidates to publicly back William's campaign. Senator McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Senator Thompson, Governor Romney, and Governor Huckabee should do precisely that.

If you want to support William in any way, please go to his web site at: http://williamrussellforcongress.com or e-mail his campaign manager, former Marine Larry Stiles at lstiless@yahoo.com. William, Larry, and all who are supporting him are frankly helping write a new chapter in American history.

If you know anyone in the 12th District of PA (including towns like Johnstown, Monongahela, Washington, and Canonsburg and Greene County) please ask them to support William's candidacy. If you can make a small cash contribution, please do so. This campaign is just beginning, but it's building momentum very quickly.


As you'll note in the column below, I'm asking Governor Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska, the country's most popular elected official, to look into her heart and offer public support for William. Governor Palin's 18-year-old son, Track, is training now in GA for the U.S. Army infantry. There's no better way to "support our troops" than to offer your backing for William T. (Trower) Russell.

If you want to know more about William -- who, with his wife, was in the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 -- please read my columns and visit his web site at: On our right, you'll see a link for William's site. Please go there and bookmark it.
Thanks to all of you. (More to come)

NOTE: I am an independent blogger and receive no financial aid or direction from any candidate supported on this blog. The candidates this blog is supporting include: Sarah Palin (for vice-president of the US), William Russell, Melissa Hart (4th Congressional District, PA), and Heather Wilson (U.S. Senate, NM). Bobby Jindal (D, LA) has already won his race for Governor. After doing some more research, I'm going to support as many as four other candidates.

__________________

Critically Important News from U.S. Rep. Heather A. Wilson, 1st District (Albuquerque)

Dear Friends, I bet you didn't hear this on the evening news last week: "In Al Anbar province, last week we had no casualties, killed or wounded in action."

That's what Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, Director of Operational Planning on Joint Chiefs of Staff said in the regular Defense Department briefing on October 24.

Al Anbar is the predominently Sunni part of Iraq where al Qaeda in Iraq was wreaking havoc about a year ago. I went there last December. It is a province of about 1.2 million people, most of whom live along the fertile river valleys. It is vital to America that Iraq not become a safe haven for al Qaeda Al Anbar is ground zero for that fight.

Late last year, the Marines in Anbar changed their strategy and they got more American forces to help implement it this spring.

The Marines partnered with the Sunni tribes who were willing to reject al Qaeda. The Chiefs told their young men to join the police -- and they did. With U.S. help, they started rooting out the foreign fighters in their midst and cutting the rat lines bringing suicide bombers in from Syria.

We should have no illusions about the opportunism and self-intrest of the al Anbar tribes. But their willingness to oppose al Qaeda and its brand of Islamic extremism is sufficient for our purposes.

We don't need to build a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. We need to prevent it from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda. The counter-insurgency strategy in al Anbar appears to be working.That's why you didn't hear about it last week.

Heather A. Wilson, Candidate for U.S. Senate from New Mexico. Heather is the first female veteran (Air Force) ever elected to Congress. She's a candidate who deserves and needs your support! I'm hoping she will come to PA and speak on behalf of her fellow veteran -- and candidate for the U.S. House -- William Trower Russell.

BULLETIN: GIULIANI IN NHI

The latest national and state polls show Rudy Giuliani surging to the lead nationally and -- of great significance -- drawing even in the key state of New Hampshire. He's doing so with significant support from the evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic communities. "America's Mayor" is advancing in spite of the scorched earth policy of a tiny fragment of evangelicals, such as Laurence White and Larry Perrault, whose effort seem designed mainly to hand the general election to Hillary Rodham Clinton. On White and Perrault, see the two columns I'll write on Thursday and Friday.

Gov. Romney has reportedly spent $2 million in NH, and he served as Governor of the neighboring state of Massachusetts. The spending and proximity may not be enough. If Romney loses New Hampshire, his campaign will be a case of "dead man walking." Senator McCain, who won the primary in the Granite State in 2000 is locked in third place. Mike Huckabee, the approved candidate of the two Larrys (White and Perrault) has only a tiny fragment of the vote and shows no sign of forward momentum.

The following are the figures, released today, from the WMUR (Manchester, NH) poll conducted this week: Romeny, 25%, Giuliani 24%, McCain 16%, Thompson 13%. The results reflect a surge in Giuliani''s support, while Romney has dropped 9% since early this year..

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

TWO VIEWS OF MIKE HUCKABEE: MATT & STEVE

Note: As the week goes on, I'll talk about a few of the many columns I've written on Gov. Sarah Heath Palin and why I think she would be a dynamic -- and successful -- candidate for the nation's highest offices. On my blogroll you'll find dozens of bloggers who support Sarah for the nation's highest offices. If you'd like to "sign-up" as a Sarah supporter, please contact Adam Brickley at his site (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/)

Before that, however, I'll talk about correspondence I've received from Matt in Washington state (http://senseinpolitics.blogspot.com/) and John Hawkins in Florida (http://theforgottenstreet.com/)

In response to my recent column indicating that I believe the Mike Huckabee's effort to get the Republican nomination cannot not succeed, Matt in Washington state sent me the following e-mail:

Stephen, I saw your posting in which you say you withdraw Mike Huckabee from consideration. I understand your reasons why, and let me add some [about] why I support Huckabee. It is because he has articulated so eloquently things I have been thinking of for quite some time. Things I would expound on if I were running for political office. Positions I would collectively call " Practical Conservatism." He seems to be trying to lead the conservative movement away from vitriol and rhetoric to more practical solutions to problems. That is where you and I are.

As for his winning, well, he could just be another Goldwater. He'll blaze the trail for another person who will come along and say the same things to a more receptive audience. I think that some of his ideas are light years ahead of what is currently being preached as policy, particularly in the realm of health care. Because he thinks outside the box, and because he holds to his principles while still being likable, he is the one I am truly fired up about. Some had the same feeling for Bobby Kennedy.

But I am realistic, I will be satisfied if Giuliani or McCain get in (hopefully with Gov. Palin). Giuliani being president won't mean that we'll have more abortions in this country, and I doubt that the current status would change even if Huckabee got in. Giuliani comes across as urbane and sophisticated; heck, he's from New York! Sure he's had issues in his personal life that make me have a few questions. But we've had a divorced man as Commander in Chief -- Reagan, who also was Republican -- so that should be put to rest. Giuliani has crossover appeal, and could actually put my state (Washington) in play.

I want to run for office someday, and I think that a variation of Huckabee's platform would appeal to the large number of Independents we have here. I'd have to be looked at as a moderate if I wanted any chance of winning statewide office as a Republican.

This e-mail has run longer than I originally wanted, but I wanted to say check out my newest posting today on "Gun Control for Criminals" and let me know what you think.

Thanks for listening . . .

Matt (E-mail at: corpsole2@olypen.com)


Steve's Response: Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of the man. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (Admittedly, in the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.)

What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states). Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.

Can Mike Huckabee possibly have a dramatic surge among primary voters? In that regard, one candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9% in late November, 2003 and was at 52% in February, 2004. (Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.)

In the race for 2008, the only real movement in the polls over the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.

By the way, one national poll showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who say they aren't going to vote for Rudy in the primary still have a favorable view of him.

I've read that nearly six-out-of-ten Americans haven't seen so much as ONE debate. The current campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.

Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be gravitating toward Rudy. Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of passing.

Also, he's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.

Overall, Mike Huckabee should have a bright political future. With Fred Thompson, I believe his political career is behind him.

If I had to go way out on a limb, I'd guess the Democratic ticket will be: Clinton-Richardson. The Republican ticket may well be Giuliani-Palin.

Steve (e-mail at: TalkTop65@aol.com)