IRAQ: CRITICAL TO AMERICA'S FUTURE

Please help this site become one of the most influential on the Web. You can do that by sending a link to friends (and political sympathizers) and urging them to visit. It's: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. The number of visitors on my "HillarySupporters" site quintupled today. If we could keep that up for 30 days or so, the number of visitors would equal the population of China. :-) They do have computers there, don't they?

When it comes down to guessing who would prevail -- Hillary or the speeding train -- I'd be inclined to be bet on her.

As many of you know, I'm deeply involved in a growing national movement to reach out to people who support Sen. Clinton in the presidential primaries -- and get them to vote for John McCain in the general election. As many as 10 million Clinton supporters nationally say they will -- or might -- vote for McCain. If he gets most of those votes, he will win the election. My view of Sen. Clinton is this: yes, I disagree with her on many (even most) issues. No, I don't regard her as "the Witch of Endor." In Pennsylvania, she impressed many of us -- however reluctant we might have been -- with her personal grit and the ferocity of her campaign. In short, in a street-fight I want her on my side. As for Obama, in said street-fight I want him to hold my coat (and Hillary's). I have an important column up today on my new -- and, to my amazement, popular! -- site: http://HillarySupportersforMcCain.blogspot.com ("Hatchets Hacking Away at Hillary"). Please visit and, if you'd like, let me know your thoughts. You can leave comments on the blog or write me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. There's also a lot of discussion of Hillary voters on the important new McCain site: http://mccainnow.com. Please check out "McCainNow."

Many people who visit here are solidly behind John McCain's choosing Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska as his vice-presidential running mate. Don't hesitate to copy this "unoficial" button and use it on your own site. Thanks to all who love Sarah and the remarkable Palin family. And thanks to Ethan of "MyMcCainBlog" for creating it.

A site you might truly enjoy -- and part of an important national movement -- is: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/. Please visit (and return)

"I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard." -- William Lloyd Garrison

Dr. Paul Kengor, distinguished political scientist at Grove City College and expert on Ronald Reagan and many other subjects, asked me about my appearance last night on Eric Dondero BlogTalkRadio show LIBERTARIAN POLITICS LIVElibertarian, Republican, Libertarian Party, libertari

Paul, you can find an archived version by by going to Eric Dondero's site (click above). It's available for at least a week on "Podcast." It was one of the most amazing experiences I've had in many years.

Dr. Murray Sabrin, candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat in NJ, is a nice man with great views on the economy, but he disagrees with McCain on Iraq. He cited poll numbers that showed 70% of NJ voters "want out" of Iraq. I told him that "70% of NJ voters are dead wrong on that."

Eric Dondero, talk show host and a Navy vet, and I attacked Sabrin's views rather ferociously. I told him (essentially) that if we flee Iraq and al Qaeda takes over in the MidEast the price of oil will be $250 a barrel and our economy and civil society will be destroyed.

I also said that the primary goal of Mideast extremists is "to kill Jews . . . and to destroy Israel." Dr. Sabrin is Jewish and his father was an officer in the Polish Army in WW II. I read a statement by Marina Kats (also a Jew and born in Russia), who's a Republican candidate for Allyson Schwartz's seat, where Marina says she'd like to get out of Iraq as soon as possible but only when it's "safe" to do so -- and serves our "national security" needs.

Eric and I both "accused" (not in a mean way) Dr. Sabrin, Obama, and others of wanting a "Fortress America," an approach that would only encourage terrorists and eventually result in more 9/11 disasters.

I asked Dr. Sabrin, "Don't you think John McCain knows -- more than any other American -- about the horrors and tragedies of war?' Dr. Sabrin pointed out that we hadn't yet captured Osama bin Laden. I said that was true -- and a black mark on U.S. intelligence, but that we had captured Khalid Sheik Muhammed (KSM), "the architect of 9/11."

I said there was some concern about the treatment of KSM, but I didn't give a hoot about what happened with him. I said, "If they boil him in oil, it's better than he deserves." I added that the ACLU was probably in Guantanamo seeing if KSM needed an additional pillow and extra copies of the Koran.

I mentioned with great respect the campaign of retired Marine Colonel Tom Manion (against Patrick Murphy). Col. Manion's son, Travis, a Naval Academy graduate, was killed in Iraq.

Eric emphasized that there's a disconnect between war opponents and the soldiers who are serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Eric noted that the soldiers' job is, if necessary, "to die for their country." They don't want to die, but they are willing to pay that price. I cited some wonderful young Marines I know (Adam and Matt) who have served several tours in garden spots that include Fallujah and that absolutely fall into the category described by Eric.

I called attention to Barack Obama's statement that if things went to Hades in a handbasket if we withdrew precipitously from Iraq, then President Obama might "reinvade." I pointed out that his irresponsible statement showed Obama was totally detached from the realities in the MidEast and was pandering to the extreme Left.

Near the end of the program I talked about the candidacies of John McCain and (congressional candidates) Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Michael Livingston, Tom Manion, and Marina Kats. I said that some of them might lose -- and in fact all of them might lose. But if they did, they would not be going "gentle into that good night," but rather go down with guns blazing. My support for them it total because they are absolutely outstanding human beings.

(I've added some phrases above for clarification. I haven't done justice to Eric's wonderful assertion of his own love for America and its servicemen and servicewomen. He said the VA, operating under very difficult circumstances, is doing a "wonderful" job treating American soldiers.)

On a past show, Eric Dondero, who has some unusual guests, had me on as a guest with a transvestite "libertarian" from Kansas. At one point on that show I promised that I would move to Kansas to vote for him (her?). Actually, I plan to stay in Ambridge.

I was very proud to be on the show last night and to have a partner like Eric. I think we are both sick of the "fantasy debate" that usually goes on about the war in Iraq. People who oppose the war have a right to their opinions, but they must make every effort not to frame the debate in a way that endangers the lives of men and women defending this country.

Ferocious Debate on Iraq War

I was on BlogTalkRadio Thursday evening with Eric Dondero (host) and Murray Sabrin (Republican primary candidate for NJ U.S. Senate). The broadcast is avaiable (on podcast) at www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian.

I urge you to listen (only partly because I'm on it and you get to hear my Rochester, NY accent) but mainly because Eric and I launched something you haven't heard recently: a ferocious defense of the Iraq War (and John McCain's position on it). Would love to hear your thoughts at TalkTop65@aol.com.or on the blog comments.

I'll write some on Friday after what Eric and I said. I remember saying that the primary goal of Islamic extremists, Sunni and Shia, in the MidEast "was to kill Jews -- all of them if possible" (and the secondary goal was "to kill Americans").

Eric noted -- and I agreed -- that one great reason to be fighting in the MidEast was "revenge for 9/11." He added that most soldiers are willing, if necessary, "to die for their country."We didn't exactly hold back. Dr. Sabin said 75% of New Jerseyites wanted U.S. withdrawal. I said that "Then 75% of New Jerseyites are just plain dead wrong." I added that if we fled the MidEast, al Qaeda would take over, oil would go $250 a barrel, and our economy would collapse.

On the show I called attention to the web sites of some superb Pennsylvania candidates: Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Michael Livingston, Marina Kats, and Tom Manion. Tom is a former Marine colonel. Sadly, his son Travis was killed in action in Iraq. Say a prayer for Tom and his son.

On the show, I read a statement by Republican congressional candidate Marina Kats. She said, "I am supporting the withdrawal of American troops as soon as possible, but only when it is safe to do it for us and our national security interests."I

In a story in The Philadelphia Bulletin, Marina suggested what America means to her, an emigre from Russia: "Ms. Kats differs with Mrs. Schwartz [her left-wing Democrat opponent] strongly on whether Washington should act presently to phase out the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Speaking to The Bulletin from her law office in Feasterville, she described looking upon an American flag that was flown for a year and a half over the base of her colleague Christopher Hudock when he was called to active duty in Iraq. Upon returning, he gave Ms. Kats the flag to hang in her office. She describes it as a reminder of the imperative that America prevail."

Here are links to Marina's site, Tom's site, and those of other outstanding candidates.

Hart: http://www.peoplewithhart.com/
Gilhooley: http://www.gilhooleyforcongress.com/
Livingston: http://www.livingstonforcongress.com/
Kats: http://www.katsforcongress.com/
Manion: http://www.votemanion.com/

Media, candidates, activists, and others: Please feel free to post, reprint, forward, or discuss this piece. Candidates: I hope you'll establish a link on your own web site and tell your visitors that I'll be writing regularly about your campaign. The url for this blog is: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.

Eventually, our combined efforts should result in tens of thousands of "hits" on your web sites, which will generate various form of support, including contributions. "We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately." (B. Franklin) I receive no financial support or direction from any candidate. If you need to correspond via e-mail, you can reach me at: TalkTop65@aol.com.

Calling Hillary Clinton's Big Win

Note: Wednesday evening on my "Hillary Supporters for McCain" site, I posted a piece with information you haven't seen before. It explains "Why Hillary Should be the (Democrats) Nominee." Yes, I strongly support John McCain for President, but I also support basic fairness, which is absent in the Democrats' process. Go to: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.

Eric Dondero, a popular host on BlogTalkRadio and blogger at: http://mainstreamlibertarian.blogspot.com/ sent the following message today:

You all, please take a moment to visit the Blog this morning. I've got an article up praising our own Stephen Maloney of PA for getting the PA predication 100% correct.

Can you all believe this? Stephen bucked the conventional wisdom. Told us last week that Hillary would win by 55% to 45% contrary to all the Pro-Obama propoganda the MSM was pushing at the time, about a "late Obama Surge."

Stephen gave us the view from the ground. Stephen: You are now officially nicknamed "Nostradamus."

Good job my man! Good job!!

Steve adds: I hope you'll visit Eric's site today. Later today (Wednesday), I'll discuss some of the reasons for Mrs. Clinton's big victory. On my site with the most unusual title (http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/), I'll give some powerful reasons why Senator Clinton should get the Democratic nomination. In November of this year, I'll be voting for John McCain for the presidency, but I believe his opponent should be Hillary Rodham Clinton. Thanks to everyone who honors me by visiting this site.

Why the Polls Were Wrong in Pennsylvania . . .

Why the Polls Were Wrong in PA . . .A week ago, I told Terry Madonna, who heads the Franklin & Marshall College poll (a good one) that I was right and his poll and (most) others were wrong. I said so because people (especially African-Americans) who are voting for Hillary sometimes say they're voting for Obama. It has happened before (Ohio) but the pollsters keep getting it wrong. Michael Barone on FOX said the same thing early last night, even before there were any real numbers out. The exit polls of voters said that Hillary would win by 52-48.

The point is that it's not fashionable in some areas for people to say they're support Hillary. However, when they go in the voting booth, they do just that. Thanks to everyone who honors me by visiting this site.

Libertarians Should Support John McCain

Eric Dondero, an important writer and radio talk show host, asked me to write a piece on why libertarians -- believers in economic, social, and political liberty -- should back John McCain. He printed the piece yesterday on his blog: http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/.

Why Libertarians Should Support John McCain

It appears likely the next President of the U.S. will be either John Sidney McCain or Barack Hussein Obama. As good a man as Bob Barr is, he will not become President in 2009 – or any other year.

When it comes down to actually voting, the vast majority of Libertarians will reject the more liberal candidate (Obama) – and vote for the more conservative one (McCain). That’s because Libertarians reject the liberal narrative and generally accept the conservative one.

George Will recently described the liberal narrative as portraying “most Americans [as] victims of this or that sinister elite or impersonal force – and are not content to cope with life’s complexities without government supervision.” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/04/13/fooling_ourselves_into_entitlements

That nanny-state-narrative is completely at variance with the libertarian view of life.

What is the conservative narrative? Here’s how “Lexington,” a super writer for The Economist (and a libertarian) describes it: “American conservatives tend to believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed. This makes them more optimistic than liberals, more likely to feel in control of their lives and, therefore, happier.”

Conservative is not exactly the same thing as libertarian, but the two are compatible, as William F. Buckley, Jr. found 50-plus years ago when he staffed the National Review with a combination of economic libertarians and social conservatives. In contrast, liberalism, the friend of Big Government, generally is the polar opposite of libertarianism.

If you listen to Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) on the campaign trail, you hear some scary things. They portray “too many Americans’ as one step away from economic and social disaster. They see as people badly in need of major assistance – their assistance.

John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It’s the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can’t disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man’s being.

Even Bill Clinton has said of McCain: “He’s given everything he has to his country – except his life.” President Clinton has never spoken truer words.

In contrast to McCain, Obama essentially portrays America as something resembling Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach,” where “ignorant armies clash by night.” As “Lexington describes Obama’s world-view, America is “a coalition of groups that define themselves as victims of social and economic forces, and . . . [where] its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved . . .”

If Obama becomes President, we would become a society of “victims,” all of us clamoring for the government to bail us out of our misery. That would be a disaster not only for libertarians, but for all Americans.

I hope all libertarians do the right thing: voting for John McCain. Also, ask your friends and family members to do the same thing. The future of liberty in this society depends on free people standing up and supporting a man who has devoted his entire life to defending American values and liberties. John McCain is the right man for our cause.


Steve Maloney is a writer and political activist living in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA. He’d like to inform Senator Obama that he is not now – and never has been – “bitter.” He blogs at: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com or http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR SUPPORT FOR JOHN MCCAIN, YOU CAN DO SO AT HIS WEB SITE: HTTP://JOHNMCCAIN.COM.

The Case for John McCain

The following is today's column The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.

On Eric's show, the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point seemingly was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative.

The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club for Growth gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.

Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.

Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.

Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal.

That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the data show.

John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX recently: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.

Admittedly, McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).

So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.

I told my host Eric that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.

I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.

You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.

John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.

Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source

THE CASE FOR JOHN MCCAIN

The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain.

His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union ratings and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative. The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain.

I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.

Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism. Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.

Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.

The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion.

Rather, it is what the facts show. John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.

McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).

So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them.

Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality. I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong.

When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.

You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.

John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.

Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com)

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.

Saturday: I'm attending an event tonight featuring Paul Kengor, a Reagan expert and political science professor at Grove City College, and Melissa Hart, a candidate to regain her congressional seat in the 4th District of PA (the one where I live). They'll be discussing politics in general -- and sanctity of life issues in particular. In the next two days, Sunday and Monday, I'll be writing about the Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire primary, and Melissa Hart's race, which will be one with important national implications.

Last night (Friday), I was on Eric Dondero's radio show, along with Adam Brickley, who's led a brilliant campaign to get Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin the second spot on the GOP ticket. If you'd like, you can hear the show by going to: http://blogtalkradio.com/libertarian. Near the end of the show "Gamecock," a legendary blogger and columnist for the Charlotte Observer made some great observations about the upcoming South Carolina Primary.

On January 3, Douglas Gibbs had Melissa Hart on as a guest on his show. You can find the archived version of that show at: http://blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio.

See you again tomorrow!

CALLING ALL BLOGGERS: RUSSELL CAMPAIGN

Can we beat the liberals at their own game?

The blogging community will play an important part in helping Lt. Col. Bill Russell defeat John Murtha. If you look on my other site (one that has the same postings as this one), you'll discover approximately 40 blogs listed as "4 Russell." All these blogs have printed material supportive of Russell; several of the bloggers have contributed to the campaign; a few are actively involved in their own fundraising efforts for the campaign; an important group of the bloggers (Douglas Gibbs, Eric Dondero, Jenn of the Jungle, and Snooper) have interviewed Bill and other people supporting him on BlogTalkRadio.

Traditionally, liberal, the "netroots" (or "nutroots," as some call them) have been better than we conservatives at online politics. That's changing -- as it must if we're to say competitive.

In 2004, Joe Trippi ran the successful Internet campaign for Howard Dean, and it was a tremendous success. In Trippi's book The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, he says that Dean's "Meetup" site had 600,000 participants. The Dean Campaign raised more than $50 million, much of it coming from people online.

No Republican Campaign has come anywhere close to those numbers, although Ron Paul is setting some records of his own. In one day, Paul raised a total of $10 mllion from people contributing online.

To defeat John Murtha (who will spend $4 million-plus in this election cycle), Bill Russell needs to raise at least $500,000 -- preferably more. As usual, the Murtha campaign will throw money at his supporters in ways that are of questionable legality. In contrast, the Russell effort will be scrupulously legal and very efficient, with every dollar aimed at finding and getting votes.

In terms of contributions, Russell is doing well online, but needs to keep doing better. Correction, those of us campaigning online have to do better. We have to keep spreading the message that Murtha can be beaten -- and will be with the supportive of the conservative online community.

Yes, John Murtha will receive many millions of dollars from lobbyists and companies that he's essentially bought and paid for with federal dollars, a percentage of which are returned to him in the form of campaign contributions. You can check out the malicious mess that is the Murtha Campaign by going to http://opensecrets.org and keying in the name "Murtha." You'll see that for the 2008 election, he'd already spent by last September 30, a total of almost $700,000. By the December 31 Federal Election Commission reporting date, Murtha will have spent more than a million dollars.

I assure you the contributions didn't come from lobbyists and shady companies committed to Good Government.

How can those of us committed to Russell overcome that avalanche of payoffs to "The Prince of Pork?" We can do it by outsmarting him in the campaign, which luckily won't be that hard. We can also do it by making the maximum use of an inexpensive medium -- the Internet. For example, this particular communication is not costing me anything, aside from the blood, sweat, and tears always involved with writing.

What do we need? At least 30,000 people online backing the Russell Campaign by advocating his candidacy (relax, we apparently have more than 1,000 already). Of the 30,000 as many as 2,000 should be bloggers. We also need 3,000-plus people to go the Russell web site and contribute money. A lot of contributions of $20, $50, and $100 will go a long way toward defeating Murtha.

Politics isn't brain surgery. It consists of the three M's: message, mobilization (of supporters), and money, which is necessary to get the message out and to mobilize thousands of people to win this race.

What can you do? Be one of those people that spreads the message; also, be a person who asks others to join you in volunteering to help Russell.The third part is the most important.

We conservatives need to start out-contributing the liberals. Go the Russell web site and so what you can to make sure this outstanding candidate has the support he needs. Trust me: you'll feel good about it.

Your Christmas Gift to Russell

(Above) Portrait of an Angry Loudmouth

. . . and a lump of coal for John Murtha, who loves his office but not his country

I sent the letter below to Libertarian-Republican activist Eric Dondero and several hundred of my closest friends and political allies. I've appeared this year twice on Eric's BlogTalkRadio site, as well as on Douglas Gibbs's Political Pistachio, Jenn of the Jungle's "Screw Liberals," and Snooper's program. I recommend all of them, and they're listed on my blogroll. They're helping to transform politics in this country. Of great interest to me, they're all generating donations to the Russell Campaign.

In 2006, Diana Lynn Irey, a dear friend of mine and an heroic figure, ran against Murtha and received 7,000 contributions from all 50 states. In contrast, Murtha got 6,500, although his average contribution was much larger than Diana's. If William Russell can get an unprecedented 10,000 contributions -- many of them $50 or less -- he will send Murtha into an unplanned "early retirement."

You can donate to William by going to his site here. Please do so right now.

Eric and Friends: I much enjoyed my appearance on your radio show last night. Jason, who spoke for the Romney campaign, and Norma Jean, who spoke for herself and libertarian views, were excellent. There aren't many radio shows that can produce that sort of dynamism and candor. Norma Jean raised issues in such a compelling way that she did something unusual: she made me re-think my stand on some key issues, especially the need to defer to people who exercise their freedom in unconventional ways.

I truly hope that everyone who follows you, your blog, and your radio show will unite behind the candidacy of Lt. Col. William Russell as he does everything in his power to defeat John Murtha in PA's 12th congressional district.

This may end up as the most important congressional race in the nation. If Murtha goes down, the shock waves would reverberate around the world. This will be a very hard race to win, but it is certainly not impossible. Even at this early stage, Lt. Col. Russell's campaign is shaping up as one of the most imaginative and effective ever waged.

This race can't be won if it restricts itself merely to the 12th District. It must be a national effort, one supported by conservatives and libertarians in all 50 stages. Russell will not be able to outspend Murtha, but he is outsmarting him -- and having a real influence on Murtha's previous position of total opposition to American efforts in Iraq and the Middle East.

When Murtha said, "The surge is working," what he really meant is that he is very concerned about Russell's candidacy.

I urge everyone who believes "Murtha MUST go" to visit Russell's web site. He needs thousands of volunteers around the nation, including those who will join "Bloggers 4 Russell," a rapidly growing group that will eventually include more than 500 bloggers.

Most of all, at this early stage, he needs financial support. People who've never contributed to a campaign before are giving $20, $50, and even $100 or more. Personally, I've given more than $400 and will contribute more, even though I'm not exactly in the category of "affluent."

Murtha collects huge bag-fulls of cash from lobbyists and various companies that benefit from his shameful "earmarks."To counteract that situation, Russell needs many small contributions ($200 or less) from perhaps 10,000 people who love this country and are deeply disturbed by the antics of Murtha.

I appeal to everyone to put this appeal on their blogs or to send it to their e-mail lists. Unity and enthusiasm are keys to winning against Murtha. Lt. Col. Russell, who was born on a military base, has devoted an entire lifetime to supporting and protecting the U.S.

Now, it's our turn to support him. Many people have volunteered to solicit financial support for the Russell Campaign. I hope you'll join them.

John Murtha has said that being a congressman is all about "making deals." On the other hand, William Russell believe that being a congressman is all about making this a better -- freer, more secure, more prosperous -- country.

To win, Russell needs to add just ONE PERCENT to the votes George Bush received in the district in 2004. That's certainly not an impossible task.

Please visit http://williamrussellforcongress.com/ -- and do so today.

Steve Maloney

Ambridge, PA

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY SUPPORTS TROOPS AND MISSION

Posted 12/19/2007Year In Review: Time selects Vladimir Putin as its "Person of the Year" because of the stability he has brought to Russia.

Our choice is Gen. David Petraeus — the man who helped bring democracy to the Middle East.

A STRATEGY FOR WILLIAM RUSSELL AGAINST MURTHA: "CONTEST EVERY VOTE"

BULLETIN: I received the following today from Adam Brickley about a radio appearance on behalf of Sarah Palin: I will be appearing TONIGHT at 7:00 PM Eastern/4:00 PM Pacific (3:00 PM Alaskan) on Libertarian Politics Live with Eric Dondero. You can listen live at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com.

This is another big-time internet talk show, with past guests including a congressman and numerous representatives of major conservative and libertatian think tanks and publications. Eric Dondero is a national Republican political consultant and founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He formerly served as a Libertarian Party National Committeeman and senior aide to Rep. Ron Paul (though supporting Rudy Giuliani in the current election).


"In the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed."

"When it was over, she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they'd like to hear the specials."

"Mrs. Thatcher said, 'I will have beef.'

Yes, said the waiter. "And the vegetables?"

"'They will have beef too.'"

"Too good to check, as they say. It is certainly apocryphal, but I don't want it to be. It captured her singular leadership style, which might be characterized as 'unafraid.'"

"She was a leader."

From Peggy Noonan's column in Thursday's The Wall Steet Journal, Read the entire article at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010838

NOTE: The following strategy applies to dozens of Republican candidates -- and perhaps more than that -- who are engaged in tough races with Democratic incumbents. A three-month or even a six-month campaign won't work in those circumstances. Republican efforts for 2008 need to be underway NOW.

Margaret Thatcher is known as "The Iron Lady." In order to beat John Murtha, Lt. Col. William Russell must be the Iron Man.

Granted, many political observers are skeptical about William's chances. They believe 12th District voters have an unshakable habit of being like Pavlov's dogs, compulsively salivating every time "The Prince of Pork" appears on the ballot.

I'm under no illusions about how difficult it will be to win against Murtha. But if William can establish himself as a true leader, someone who can advance real prosperity and security in the 12th congressional district, then he can prevail on Election Day, one year from now.

William must define clearly, compelling, and briefly why Murtha's form of deal-making is bad for people in the district. In other words, William has to stay away from political rhetoric and instead GET HIS STORY STAIGHT. His message must resonate with voters, including those who have voted several times for Murtha.

Also, he needs to build on the 80,000 vote foundation -- the ballots Diana Irey won in 2006. (In fact, she got 80,000 votes more than in the previous election, when Murtha ran uncontested).

To win, William has to win the "extra voters," most of them Democrats and many of them Independents, who voted for George Bush in 2004. In that election, Bush and Kerry split the votes of the 12th District, where the Democrats have a heavy edge in registration. It's doable, but it won't be easy.

Another step William and his supporters must take is to make inroads with minority voters. They're not a huge segment of the voters in the 12th, but they will be significant in forging a winning coalition. In fact, Black people who vote regularly -- admittedly, many don't -- are a lot like the Caucasians who will support William.

One thing he must do is enlist Black soldiers and veterans to accompany him as he solicits votes. He won't need an "army" of such individuals -- perhaps about a dozen or more. They'll be people who will vouch for his courage, decency, and commitment to key values.

Over the next several months, William needs to talk to EVERY African-American individual who has political influence in his or her community. These people will include barbers, hairdressers, ministers, teachers, and other professionals. These people should be receptive to William's message of prosperity and national security.

I'll write more about this subject, but William has take roughly 15,000 "Murtha voters" and turn them into Russell supporters. He has to convince most nominal Democrats that he's a better choice for Congress than John Murtha.

In short, he needs to make the words "It's time for a change" into a household saying. Murha has been around too long and is too self-centered to serve the 12th District effectively.

Every day between now and the election, William and his supporters need to make "converts." If he doesn't concede a single vote, he can win.

Note to visitors: Take a look at my new personal finance and lifestyle columns at: http://livebetteronless.blogspot.com/