OBAMA SUPPORTS INFANTICIDE, PRO-DEATH

"Continue My Work, Barack." Let's see, wasn't Jimmy Carter's "energy plan" for all of us to wear thick sweaters and two pairs of socks. With Barack's plan, make that three pairs of socks.

The following guest column by Hispanic and Roman Catholic Tracy Karol is a "production" of NoBamaMission, in which both Tracy and I are leaders. We disagree somewhat on the issue of abortion, but we agree that denying injured infants medical care (basically, pretending they don't exist) is morally reprehensible. In NoBamaMission, people have diverse views on issues, but we have a common goal: ensuring that Barack Obama does NOT become the next President.

[NOTE: ON MY HILLARY SUPPPORTERS SITE TODAY, I WRITE ABOUT TWO KEY ISSUES FOR SUCH PEOPLE: HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN DEBT AND THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATES. ON MY PENNSYLVANIA SITE I WRITE AOBUT HIGH GAS PRICES AND A POSSIBLE ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.]

Please join and participate in NoBamaMission, which you can do by going to that web site and finding out the action steps it recommends. Also, if you're planning to vote for John McCain (against Barack Obama) in the general election, join people of similar views on Clintons for McCain.

Finally, if you'd like to join the NoBamaMission bloggers (see blogroll to your right), contact me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Most of those sites are up and running now -- and all will be soon. We can tell you how to increase dramatically the number of visitors your blog will get. NoBama Mission can teach you -- simply and quickly -- how to become a more effective advocate for the causes in which you believe. If you want to know exactly what NoBamaMission is up to, please visit this site every day. Thanks.

By: Tracy Karol

Obama and Catholics: A game of hide and seek


Barack Obama may quite well be the luckiest man in America.

Somehow, he’s managed to play a balancing act with the far left – making promises about so many different things to different audiences I don’t know how he keeps them straight. (I’ll hit on those later).

But his latest flip flop as he courts Independents, moderates and even goes after President Bush’s faith-based initiatives have to take the cake. Somehow he’s managed to get the support of a group called Roman Catholics for Obama.

It’s no secret that Catholics, including myself, have often voted for Democrats in the past. Even pro-life Catholics vote for Democrats. I’m Catholic, I’m Hispanic, and, being pro choice, while Independent that often was the deciding factor for me in choosing a candidate.

However, I do know the Church’s teachings on abortion, and while I may not agree with them, I never felt it was my right to take away another woman’s right – to a point. I felt, and do feel, that in the very early weeks a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body (although I believe education is a better option, but that’s another topic). And naturally if the mother’s life is at stake, that raises an entirely different issue.

When I discovered, however, how far Barack Obama was willing to go with his stance on abortion (it’s no wonder he’s been labeled the most liberal senator, a title he took away from Ted Kennedy), I was appalled. This was early on in the primary, and it opened my eyes to some [disturbing] things about the Obama.

In 2002, Congress passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which gave caregivers the right to provide medical care to infants who were born alive as the result of an “oops” abortion. A nurse, Sharon Dunsmore, wrote about one such instance in which she quoted the pediatrician as saying the infant had “the audacity to survive.” Familiar words? Audacity is a theme with Barack Obama, it seems.

In any case, babies like this were, at that time, not given any care under the law, and healthcare providers were forced to allow them to die alone, often in closets or corners, when these babies clearly could survive with minimal care.

Who would oppose such a bill? Well, no one really. It easily passed, with even Ted Kennedy supporting it, as well as NARAL and other pro-choice groups.

But then, Barack Obama was not yet a United States senator at that time, so he couldn’t vote on that bill. He did, however, vote on similar legislation in the Illinois State Senate. And his votes shocked and appalled the Catholic community.

In 2002 and 2003, Obama, as a state senator in Illinois, voted against similar legislation, and he went even further as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee when he blocked another attempt to bring legislation to the Illinois Senate. Would he have voted any different at the federal level, and if so, why?

Now Barack Obama is pandering to the middle and has gotten [some] Catholics on his side, and not just those who traditionally vote Democratic. All the senators who voted for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act are backing him, along with some surprising endorsers: Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Democratic Governor Tim Kaine (Va.), Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (N.M.), Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-Mass.), Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), as well as Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team. Other pro-life Democrats are also backing Obama.

A quote from The Catholic World Report makes clear its confusion on some Catholics' obvious, well, confusion about Barack Obama:

But no group of Catholics seems quite as odd as the one titled “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08,” which dubs Barack Obama “the best and right candidate for Catholic voters.” The group asserts: “[W]e, as Catholics, believe Catholics can and should vote for Barack Obama because his platform aligns well with Catholic Social Teaching.”

There’s much more, such as the group’s belief that Obama is against the death penalty (he’s not) and other ramblings. He certainly seems to have it fooled. But then again, fooling people is something he’s raised to an art form.

I was confused on this issue, because as I said I am pro-choice, but early on I was completely appalled by what I had heard about Obama’s stance on abortion and I thought it couldn’t possibly be true – until I did the research. So I called another Catholic, someone who is also pro choice, but who is a more “observant” Catholic than I am – my mother.

“It’s murder,” she said. “You’re right, I’m pro-choice, but what that man condones is just murder, nothing less.” She’s also a lifelong Democrat, who won’t be voting for Barack Obama.

For more information on Catholics and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act: http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/kengor_june08.htm

How else is Obama balancing the left with the middle? His stance on the war in Iraq, which he doesn’t seem to know (or simply says something else to another audience); pandering to anti-gun groups unless speaking to gun owners (whom he later calls bitter people who cling to their religion); promising [improved] healthcare and to improve the economy (but failing to mention the astronomical rise in taxes to middle class and the slum of his own senatorial district).

He even tells the public and press what they can and cannot ask him about – his wife, his past, his associates.

With Obama, it’s all a game of hide and seek. If you can’t catch him, maybe he can hide the truth (whatever that may be) long enough to win this election. Then God help us all.

Steve adds: Like Tracy and her mother, I am Roman Catholic. I do not see how anyone who claims to be Roman Catholic can vote for Barack Obama. Alas, if infants born alive in botched abortions could vote, I'm sure Obama would be much more concerned about them. When NoBama Mission says Barack Obama is "dangerous," this is what we mean. A presidential candidate who has no real respect for life? As Tracy says, "God help us."

Conservatives: Avoiding a Political Deathwish

Some hard truths for conservatives and other McCain Supporters . . .

A McCain supporter sent out an angry e-mail today that seemed designed to offend most of the groups John McCain needs to win the election. Let me give you one example: I had made the obvious point that Barack Obama has a tremendous online presence, one much greater at present than McCain's. (If you want to check that out for yourself, just Google Obama and then McCain and count the numbers, especially with emphasis on the past year.)

The McCain supporter said the following about Obama's online supporters: "When your core base is a bunch of stoned college kids spending mom and dads money with little else to do than make it to the next beer funnel . . .well you get the picture."

In other words, he's saying Obama's supporters consist mainly (exclusively?) of a bunch of drug-crazed college students "spending mom['s] and dad[']s money." Not exactly a "politic" statement.

Do I believe John McCain shares in any way his supporter's comments? I don't. McCain is a good enough politician to know that he needs support from all groups in America. He especially needs support from moderate-and-conservative young people (usually categorized as those between age the ages of 18 and 29).

McCain does well with people over the age of 45 (a demographic that includes me). But to win, he also has to do well with people under the age of 45.

In fact, McCain's status as a POW/war hero and the father a daughter (Meghan) who graduated recently from college, should give him significant appeal to younger voters. There's no reason he should cede most of the nation's young voters to Obama, whose pretty words eventually will grow thin with all age segments.

In the months past, I've argued with my fellow conservatives about their political shortsightedness. We can't afford to hand over huge segments of the electorate -- including younger voters -- over to the Democrats.

In the mid-1960s, we basically gave the Democrats a big political gift: the nation's Black vote. In more recent times, some conservatives have appeared ready to give up on the Hispanic vote, which comes from the nation's largest -- and fastest-growing -- minority group. (Blacks are the second largest.)

Young people (under 30) aren't a minority group, but if they were they'd be almost as big as the Black and Hispanic minority.

Many conservatives have also given up on the gay and lesbian vote, about 20%-25% of which went to George Bush (according to CNN exists) in 2000 and 2004. In fact, if George Bush hadn't won tens of thousands of G/L votes in Florida eight years ago, well, President Al Gore would be nearing the end of his second term. Thus, in one sense, GWB won Florida because of the gay vote!

Currently, we conservatives also aren't doing well with working women who, in the primaries, are voting by huge majorities in the primaries for the Democratic candidate. For decades, women professionals (lawyers, doctors, teachers, journalists) have been deserting the GOP in droves. We must turn that around.

Again, much as I love older white males, being one myself, they aren't enough by themselves anymore to win elections.We Republicans can't prevail with strong support only from angry white males, such as the McCain supporter cited above.

We don't need to agree with every group on all issues, but we do have to listen to their concerns, treat them with respect -- and ask for their support. We must not stereotype diverse populations and dismiss them as somehow contemptible.

John McCain desperately needs support from every group I've mentioned. If we imply otherwise, we're playing a role in sinking John McCain's heroic effort.

Note: John McCain needs your love and support, but he also needs your money to remain competitive. Obama has raised a whole lot more money than McCain. So, please click on this link and make a contribution


There are a few (blessedly few) people who are supposedly McCain supporters who are doing everything possible to damage John's chance of winning. I sent out the following ABOUT them, although not too them.In regard to some e-mails I sent out today, I always got a kick out of the line in Apocalypse Now that goes, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." I also like the following line, "It smells like victory."The McCain Campaign should take the following as its motto: "We are well behind now, but we are committed to doing everything it takes to prevail." As Churchill once said, "Victory at all costs."I remember in 1967, during Israel's war with ALL the Arab states, my wife nervously asked me, "How is little Israel doing?" I said, "It appears they are fighting on five fronts and winning on all of them." Anyone who wants a good summer read should take a look at (Major and Professor) Michael Oren's book The Six-Day War, especially the part about how the Israelis destroyed the entire (and huge) Egyptian air force in a period of about two hours. (Hosni Mubarak was one of the Egyptian pilots.)Israel likes to wage wars by committee, with a whole bunch of politicans exerting "administrative control" supposedly, conducting endless debates, and taking votes (and usually not taking votes). The way miltary people like Ariel Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin, and Moshe Dayan got around that was by basically ignoring the committee. Since they won, all was forgiven (and they also let the politicians take credit).

The Clintons' Racist Campaign, Payoffs

Thanks to my frequent visitors from Alaska, including Wasilla (home of Gov. Sarah Palin), and Seward, Eagle River, Kodiak, Juneau, Ft. Wainwright, and Elmendorf AFB, where my brother served in the 1960s, as well as Jefferson, MD, Hobbs, NM, Harrisburg, PA, Everett, WA, Olympia, WA, Pittsburgh, PA, Mckeesport, PA, Wilmington, DE, Charlotte, NC, Gainesville, FL, Detroit, MI, Lawrence, KS, San Bernadino, CA, Palo Alto, CA, Colorado Springs, CO, Canonsburg, PA, Queensland, Australia, Houston, TX, Rome, GA (I used to live in Athens) Hamilton, Ontario, and various other places around the world. Keep coming back. Please stick with me until the election of 2008. Thanks also to Malia from Hawaii from chalking up a record number of "Frequent Visitor Miles." Early this week (perhaps Tuesday) I'll write about "Obama's 'R" Word -- Rhetoric." I believe Barack Obama is in one sense a great candidate but in a deeper sense is a political windbag.

Bulletin on SC Democratic Primary: Right after the New Hampshire Primary, I sent my friend Adam a note about Hillary Clinton's "strategy" to win the nomination. I said she would build on her identification of herself as the "female candidate.' I predicted there also be an emphasis -- subtle though it might be -- as the "White" candidate. In short, she would try to marginalize Obama as the candidate of Black people. That is exactly what her campaign, mainly through the efforts of her husband, attempted to do in South Carolina. They didn't succeed.

Am I claiming the Clintons ran a racialist campaign? Yes. As John King of CNN noted tonight, the Clintons "paid top dollar" for the support of a leading Black minister in SC. His support (and the money he handed out) was designed to win SC for Mrs. Clinton. They should have saved their money. Bill Clinton was a famous user of "walking around money," payoffs given to individuals who claim to be able to control the Black vote.

Tomorrow (Sunday), I'll tell a true story about Lester Maddox, a notorious racist and former Governor of Georgia. "Walking around money" was not exactly a foreign concept to him (or to most politicians of the day, including Jimmy Carter) in Georgia, where I lived for seven years.


I responded today (Sunday) to a e-mail from one of the "conservative" groups. It was making the point that Senator McCain was "wrong" on immigration and was therefore not a "conservative." Here's my response:

I recently wrote a couple of columns about immigration, relying mainly on articles in The Economist, a very prestigious publication, which disagrees strongly with you on every point you make about immigration. To say that immigrants, legal or illegal, depress the economy is ridiculous, although it's a widely held view among members of the far-right.

The Economist points out that foreign-born immigrants in America have won most of the Nobel Prizes in this decade. It also notes that 40% of the engineering and science PhDs in America are immigrants. It notes that 30% of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley were started by immigrants. Somehow you "forgot" to mention these points, perhaps because you haven't taken the time to inform yourself on the issue.

As for low-skill immigrants, they pick the lettuce and the oranges, serve as nannies, clean the johns and make the beds at hotels and motels, and put up roofing when the temperature is 110 degrees.

Perhaps Senator McCain might raise these points -- most of which will come as news to people who detest Mexicans -- in the answer to one of your very loaded questions. The notion that immigrants, legal and illegal, don't play a positive role in the American economy is laughable. It now appears that Republicans and conservatives will play little or no role in resolving the issues related to immigration.

Last night, in one of the reddest of Red states, South Carolina, more Democrats voted for Obama than Republicans who voted for both McCain and Huckabee. Eighty thousand more people voted in the Democratic primary than did so in the Republican primary. The implications of that are extremely ominous for the GOP. I

f the Democratic candidate could be competitive in a state like SC, there's no way we can win the general election.

Somehow people who spend a great deal of time expressing their distaste for Hispanics are living in a parallel universe, one far-removed from the realities of American politics.

As frequent visitors to this site know, my emphasis is on practical politics -- on winning elections. Why? Because if we position ourself in such a way that we're likely to lose, we will have little or no say on important issues.

People who emphasize "ideological purity" on single issues don't understand the way the system works. An idelogical stand that turns off large groups of voters makes no sense.

The arguments made in our time against immigrants, legal or illegal, are the same ones made in the past about OUR ancestors, almost all of whom came here from other countries. There are 40 million legal Hispanic immigrants in our country. If we somehow indicate to them that we don't care about Hispanics, they will never vote for our candidates.

That would mean Republicans probably would lose several crucial states, including Florida, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Also, it would continue the situation where we are not competitive in huge states like California and New York. In short, it's a recipe for perpetual defeat.

What's Mike Huckabee Up To? Escaping from the Evangelical Death-Grip

"MIKE IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO WIN THE NOMINATION AND THE GENERAL ELECTION, AND CERTAIN PEOPLE WILL NEVER FORGIVE HIM FOR THAT." (from a political analyst I borrow from regularly)

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory." (Apocalypse Now)

Note: Treva of http://thinkaware.blogspot.com is a very insightful mother of three and a ferocious blogger for Mike Huckabee. See her comments (and my responses). She asks me if I think "evangelicals are stupid?" My short answer is that I'm an evangelical Christian, and I don't regard myself as stupid, nor do I regard her as such. Are some evangelicals stupid? Yep, and I provide her a couple of examples in the comments. Mike Huckabee is very bright, and his strategy (discussed below) is brilliant. She also suggests I "distressed" Mrs. R. Frankly, anyone who distresses said person might just cause her to confront reality -- if only for an instant. (Read the Flannery O'Connor story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find.") People who live perpetually in a cocoon of smugness never stay distressed for long.


Sarah Palin's one known comment about Mike Huckabee was that she didn't know very much about him. I hope Mike will rectify that situation very soon.

One of Mike's strongest supporters recently said, "It's time for him to take some risks." He said a mouthful, because it's unlikely Gov. Huckabee will get the nomination without engaging in some unconventional steps, such as naming individuals (perhaps three, including Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and an Hispanic) that he'd consider choosing for a vice-presidential slot.

Ever since I got deeply interested in the Huckabee campaign -- about five weeks ago, largely because of the influence of Larry Perrault, I said that Mikes greatest asset -- his evangelical Christian supporters, particularly those in the blogocracy -- was also his greatest liability.

What supposed offenses has he committed that have led to major defections?

Mike suggested that he might look favorably on full voting rights for DC, which could eventually result in two Black U.S. Senators and a Black House member. He also suggested he'd sign a congressional ban on smoking in public places. He has talked favorably about union members in the U.S. He has supported a humane resolution to the Immigration issue. He has fired a mild shot at some narcissistic pro-lifers, with his statement that, "Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth." He is an advocate of the traditional family and tradfitional marriage, but he refuses to engage in unChristian gay-bashing.

Also, he has played "country music!" Moreover, he has used humor, which to some people means he lacks the grim seriousness they associate with evangelicals.

All these things -- or at least some of them -- have led to defections among his erstwhile supporters, such as the Romans. The various defectors insist that Mike must be selling out to the Establishment. Perhaps he's really a RINO in disguise. Also, of course, he supported tax increases to improve the infrastructure of the (relatively) impoverished state he governed, so he might be a liberal-in-disguise!

Also, why did Mike, alone among the Republican candidates, address the National Urban League, a (moderate) Black group? Perhaps because he has won a significant number of Black votes in the past and realizes that when Republicans lose 92% of the Black nationally, it leads to certain losses in big states (including Pennsylvania and Illinois). Yes, he is a smart enough politician to know that you don't get something -- Black votes -- for nothing --a wave and a smile.

But why would he -- again, alone among Republican candidates -- address the left-leaning Machinists Union? Perhaps because, as the head of the union revealed, 35% of the Machinists are registered Republican.

And why isn't he foaming at the mouth -- a la Tancredo -- about "illegal immigrants?" Perhaps because (almost certainly because) he recognizes that there are 45 million LEGAL Hispanics in the U.S., and they are the fastest growing minority in the country. Two generations from now -- in your grandchildren's lifetime -- Hispanics will be a majority in the USA. Goodness knows, I hope they don't deport my relatives back to Ireland!

(Let me breathe a dirty little secret that I believe and that Mike -- Heaven forbid -- may also: The defeat of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIR-- the final proposal with the $4.3 billion additional for border security -- had NOTHING TO DO WITH BORDER SECRUITY.) It now appears very likely the final word on immigration will be given by the Democrats and President Clinton in 2009.

The "great victory" achieved in the right-wing's defeat of CIR came with a big price tag. One Huckabee supporter who's an expert on "immigration politics," says the defeat of CIR may very well cost Republicans New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado (where Tancredo is polling at 4% among Republicans), California (of course), and Florida. Aside from California, which is a goner from the get-go, the loss of even one of those states -- and Mike knows this -- probably would cost Republicans the election.

Mike also knows he doesn't have the evangelical vote "sewn up." Right now, Giuliani (take a look at South Carolina) is getting as many votes from evangelicals -- if not more -- than Mike Huckabee.

I'm one of those dreaded pragmatists (meaning I must lack some Gadarene-like "principle") who believes Mike wants to win not the Mr. Congeniality title among evanglicals, but the presidency of the United States. He realizes that he can't even come close to doing so merely with the votes of Republican-leaning evangelicals.

He doesn't want to be the most ideologically pure of the candidates. He wants to become President because he believes he can lead the country, the entire country, not just those who say "y'all." To achieve that goal, you have to win the votes of those who say "youse" (Brooklyn), or "Yinz" (Pittsburgh).

Let me repeat myself: what you get in politics by giving nothing to huge segments of the population is electoral defeat. As Mike surely knows, it's too hard -- there are too many personal and familial costs -- running for President as some sort of symbolic effort.

In politics per se, moral victories, as one Pittsburgh Steeler coach put it, are for losers.

The key -- and Sarah Palin apparently has that key -- is to be a moral person without offending the majority of the electorate. I hope Mike's supporters won't forbid him from taking the steps necessary to have a decent shot at the presidency.

Oh, and Mike, please give HER a call in Alaska!

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

As promised, I will write about Giuliani and the slime hurled at him, but this is enough for today.

Sarah Palin Called "Giant Killer" by RealClearPolitics

NOTE: WELCOME TO VISITORS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY (AND THE WORLD) WHO ARE EXCITED BY THE PROSPECTS OF GOV. SARAH PALIN ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET. I'M ESPECIALLY PLEASED TO SEE THE VISITORS FROM ALASKA, INCLUDING ANCHORAGE, AS WELL AS THE CAPITAL CITY OF JUNEAU AND THE ALMOST LEGENDARY CITY OF NOME. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT IMPORTANT COLUMNS (AND NEWS) ABOUT GOV. PALIN, PLEASE LEAVE ME YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS. MINE IS TALKTOP65@AOL.COM. ALL THE BLOGGERS LISTED TO THE RIGHT AS "4 PALIN" OR "PRO-PALIN" OR "PALIN FAN" -- AND THERE ARE MANY NOW -- ALSO WRITE ABOUT HER, SOME OF THEM FREQUENTLY. TWO SITES THAT OFTEN PROVIDE NEW INFORMATION ABOUT THE GOV.'S ACTIVITIES ARE: HTTP://PALINFORVP.BLOGSPOT.COM & HTTP://PALINTOLOGY.COM/ "NOW, SHE BELONGS TO AMERICA."


As Labor Day approaches, people around the country are going to get a lot more interested in politics. I hope that each blogger who supports Sarah Palin for V-P will recruit ONE friend or acquaintance (blogger or non-blogger) to join the Movement to get Sarah on the ticket.

Your own strong support for her will attract others. Ask people to read the Fred Barnes article ("The Most Popular Governor") in The Weekly Standard. The Wikipedia entry on Sarah is accurate and also a good tool for getting individuals interested in the Governor. (You can find links on my blogrollto all the articles mentioned in this piece.)

This effort can be successful. Consider the Les Kinsolving article. He read about Sarah and immediately thought, "This woman would make a great V-P choice." The same thing happened with the very popular (and moderately outrageous) "Mayor Sam" blog.

Several months ago when Adam (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/) started the "Draft Palin" effort, the Movement consisted of . . . Adam. Now, there are dozens of people actively supporting her on-line, and we're getting significant press attention -- in Anchorage, in Pittsburgh, in DC, in Washington state, and elsewhere.

The Republican Governors Association has featured her on their website. Tony Snow got asked about her at the White House Briefing. There's serious discussion about her being on "Good Morning America," "The Today Show," and "Oprah."

Some of the people with the most-visited blogs in America -- are you listening Cindy? -- are looking hard into promoting Sarah's efforts. We're also reaching out to blogs that reach large numbers of conservatives from various minority groups, including African-Americans and Hispanics.

The goal is to make the eventual Republican nominee "an offer he can't refuse": to have the best possible candidate on his ticket. That person is Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, the most popular state official in America.

It is possible for YOU to have a real say in the future of your country. A key way to do that is to let your voice be heard -- EARLY IN THE PROCESS -- of choosing the leaders of our nation. Sarah's record of accomplishment suggests she's just what America needs. But first, she needs your support.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Exactly how powerful a force is Sarah Palin becoming on the national scene? This week RealClearPolitics, an important political publication, called her a "giant killer." Here's an excerpt from Reid Wilson's piece:

"In 2006, former mayor Sarah Palin (R) beat a sitting governor [Frank Murkowski] in the Republican primary in Alaska, then beat a widely popular former governor [Tony Knowles] in the general, and not by a small margin. Someone is having some fun now, matching Palin up with embattled Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. The results? Palin beats Stevens 59%-36%.It's not bad when, after just half a year on the job, you boast 84% approval ratings and just 5% disapproval ratings, as Palin does."
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/08/giant_killer.html

Could Mike Huckabee Win? Probably Not

Welcome to a new blogger for Palin. His name is Josh, and you can find his blog at: http://earnestexpostulations.blogspot.com/ This movement continues to grow,
and anybody who recognizes what a dynamic candidate Sarah will be is welcome to join.

I urge everyone to read D. Roman's fine piece endorsing Sarah. It's called "The Case for V-P," and you can read it by scrolling down a few columns on: http://TheMaritimeSentry.blogspot.com/ The Sentry is D. Roman, a dedicated Packer fan. The people who back Sarah are a diverse group -- in terms of age, gender, geographic location, religious background, and political philosophy. They all recognize that Sarah can be a force for positive change in our country, just as she has been in her beloved Alaska. "Run, Sarah, run."

I've been having some intense discussions with Mike Huckabee supporters -- many of whom are also Sarah Palin backers -- about various aspects of his candidacy. The overriding question is this: Can Mike Huckabee win in a general election against Hillary Clinton? The answer RIGHT NOW appears to be that Mike, like any other GOP possibility, cannot now win such a race.

(If you think it pains me to say that, you're right.)

My general principle in politics is to avoid any race that's not winnable. My only exception is to participate in races that establish a foundation for winning the next time around, as I did in Diana Lynn Irey's campaign against John Murtha. The fact is that a losing campaign can be more draining of time, energy, and money than a winning one. Take my word for it: winning is a lot more enjoyable than losing.

The Economist magazine, a British publication that reports very insightfully on American politics, has a cover story this week that outlines the problem. It's titled, "Is America Turning Left?" You can read what's essentially a summary of the article by using the following link: http://economist.com/

The specific link to the summary piece is: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9621579
To read the entire story, you either have to pay $8.00 for the online version, or go to your local library, or borrow my copy.

Admittedly, a lot of conservatives find me exasperating. I've been associated with the conservative movement for approximately 40 years! But I reject conservative attitudes that I believe lead eventually into the political abyss. For example, I supported the Immigration Reform legislation because I believed that its failure could cost us the Hispanic vote for a generation (as The Economist says it will). I'm against political strategies that win battles at the cost of losing wars.

My history is one of working with conservatives and moderates -- Democrats, female professionals, Blacks, Hispanics, young people, and gays -- who are willing to support conservative (or moderate) Republicans. Mike Huckabee told CNN yesterday that he would welcome "anybody" who would support his campaign, and I have the same philosophy. Any other approach strikes me as mindless.

Here's how The Economist describes the current situation: "Having recaptured Congress last year, the Democrats are on course to retake the presidency in 2008. Only one Republican, Rudy Giuliani, looks competitive in the polls, and his campaign is less slick than those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

The piece continues: "Voters now favour generic Democratic candidates over Republican ones by wide margins. Democrats are more trusted even on traditional conservative issues, such as national security, and they have opened up a wide gap among the young, among independents and among Latinos."

I didn't write the story, but it does sound a lot like my recent observations. For conservatives, it's not a pretty picture.

The situation may be even gloomier than the one The Economist presents. The Clinton and Obama campaigns are much more dynamic and technologically sophisticated -- as well as a lot better at fundraising -- than any we see from Republicans. That also appears to be true of emerging campaigns at the House and Senate levels.

The Economist believes Giuliani looks like the only candidate who can be competitive on a national level. Later this week, I'll write more about Giuliani strategy -- a national one as opposed to the traditional "Red State approach" -- and why I'm impressed by it. In fact, if he wins the nomination, he expects that MOST evangelicals will vote for him, even if reluctantly. However, he seemingly regards the hard-core evangelicals as unreliable and not worth courting.

It's possible -- and you're reading it here first -- that the Republican race could come down to a struggle between Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee. For that to happen, Mike would have to raise a great deal more money than he has in recent quarters -- perhaps $5 million in the current third quarter and $10 million in the fourth quarter. For him to raise that kind of money, not huge sums by modern standards, he would have to continue looking like a possible winner.

Mike may become THE conservative candidate embraced by the Republican "base." The Fred Thompson effort is looking more and more like an embarrassment, and there's there's no evidence he can win either the Republican nomination or the general election. The McCain effort has well publicized problems that might be insoluble. As for Mitt Romney, he has spent tens of millions of dollars on his effort and has achieved only 8% in national polls of Republicans.

The great strength of the Huckabee campaign is in the blogs, where you will find his most ardent supporters. The Huckabee site lists most of the blogs supporting him. However, the writers/activists on those blogs also show what might be the campaign's greatest weakness: what I've called a "my-way-or-the-highway" approach.

Some of the bloggers for Mike -- perhaps most of them -- want a statement of ideological purity from him. For example, they're asking him to say that he would reject any offer to be on a ticket headed by Giuliani. I've outlined what I think would be the consequences of Mike's taking such a position: it would destroy his campaign, basically bringing it to an abrupt end.

Mike Huckabee is NOT running to be President of the Bible-Belt, anymore than Rudy Giuliani is running to be President of Urban America. They're both running to be President of the United States, a country containing a multitude of different groups with diverse viewpoints.

If an individual runs as a Republican, he or she accepts the responsibility to support the ticket -- period. If a person can't make that commitment, then he or she could still run for the President. However, it would have to be as an independent.

If Mike were the Republican nominee and the other candidates backed away from him because he was TOO "pro-life" or too associated with the evangelical movement, they would deserve condemnation. They would have undermined his capacity to win.

Ronald Reagan understood this point, with his Eleventh Commandment that "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." I'm sure he would have applied that to both Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

Mike's most ardent supporters are demanding ideological purity from him. Yet that would keep his appeal basically limited to what he has now: the evangelical core. A generous estimate is that Christian evangelicals make up about 20% of the electorate (with 20% -- one-out-of-five -- of that group voting for Democrats, as they did for Kerry in 2004). In a general election, with support coming mainly from evangelicals, Mike probably could not carry Arkansas.

I've kept urging him to reach out to other groups -- including Hispanics, Blacks, women professionals, younger people, and gays. Admittedly, I mention gays in part to goad some of my conservativer brethren. However, there are many conservative gays.

In 2000, George Bush got more than one-in-five gay votes (according to the CNN exit poll). Without thousands of votes from gays in Florida, GWB would have lost that state, and Al Gore presumably would be in the second term of his presidency. A blog like http://gaypatriot.blogspot.com/ is as conservative on almost all issues as any Huckabee-supportive blog.

Roughly 5% of the votes in American elections get cast by people identifying themselves as gays. What if Mike reached out to them (and their many supporters), perhaps by modifying slightly his stand on marriage? For example, he could suggest a solution to the explosive "gay marriage" issue would be for states to follow the lead of Vermont and New Jersey and allow civil unions.

If he did that, there'd probably be a backlash from his evangelical supporters. Some of them might even say Mike had endorsed the (mythical) "gay agenda." A few might even apply to him the dreaded term "RINO." In extreme conservative circles, a RINO is someone who doesn't agree with them on every single issue.

What if Mike reached out to Hispanics, perhaps by promising his running mate would be someone like Linda Chavez? (She was extremely critical of the anti-"amnesty" movement.) If he did something like that, he would run into the reality that many of his evangelical supporters were intense opponents of Immigration Reform.

The irony in all this is that some of the Mike's strongest supporters are unintentionally undermining his efforts. In demanding that he essentially "prove his love" for all their favorite stands, they're painting him into a corner. They're making it extremely difficult for him to build on the level of support he now has.

You can't get votes from a graveyard (unless you live in Chicago) or out of thin air. You have to get them from real people of extremely diverse views -- especially from the political moderates who make up the biggest segment of the American electorate.

Thus, some conservatives believe Rudy can't (or at least, shouldn't) win the Republican nomination because he's too liberal. On the other hand, it may be that Mike can't win it because he's trapped in an ideological cocoon built by evangelicals. As the country turns slightly to the left, noted by The Economist, demands are rising that Mike stay far to the right. That's not fair to him or to the country.

Stephen R. Maloney -- Ambridge, PA

Add-on: Let me be clear: if Mike Huckabee wins the Republican nomination, I would expect Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney to give him full support, including organizational and -- critically -- financial backing. If he believes asking one of them to run with him as vice-president is essential to victory, I expect the offer to be accepted. Without this kind of unified effort, we can't have any expectation of winning. In 2006, Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum ran for re-election as one of the most conservative -- and most pro-life -- members of the Senate. Giuliani gave many speeches in support of Rick and taped ads for him. Senator John McCain also made many appearances for Rick, even though they disagreed on a number of political issues (including immigration reform). Again, without this kind of united stance, it's impossible to beat anybody, especially a relentless campaigner like Mrs. Clinton. "In unity, there is strength." In disunity, there is President Hillary Clinton, not to mention a solidly Democratic Congress. The stakes are high, and we are well behind.

For those interested in the Huckabee campaign who would a somewhat different spin, I strongly recommend "BigCheney's" blog, which provides in the August 14 column some of the most insightful commentary about the effects of the Ames victory. BigCheney is a young teacher in Connecticut, and he blogs at: http://presidentialpolitics.blogspot.com/ He "likes Mike" and believes he has a good chance to "keep movin' on up."