This weekend I'll be writing about Sharon Caliendo, a political activist in Oklahoma. She was an important figure in Tom Coburn's winning a U.S. Senate race. Coburn was the man who introduced John McCain at last Thursday's CPAC meeting in DC.
For candidates to win in statewide or national races, they need people like Sharon. She (along with Greg Alterton) founded the Rudy Giuliani site on Yahoo, and when Mayor Giuliani left the race, Sharon and Greg changed the group to: Rudy Supporters for John McCain. It remains one of the largest groups on Yahoo.
Here's what Sharon wrote about her experience in the Coburn campaign.
"It was the largest grassroots effort ever in the State of Oklahoma, and we did it from the ground up in every county. Then a State GOP Chair was elected that didn't believe in the grassroots and they lost that large coalition of Republicans that worked to elect Dr. Tom. Office holders were behind another candidate in the primary including enlisting help from the WH but Dr. Tom prevailed. The other candidate had a mailer with Pres Bush they sent out in the primary. Never had seen that before."
"Know this is looking ahead but we need people passing out McCain stickers at every major conference football game this fall. We have 85,000 in the stands and another 10,000 milling around at every home game here in Norman for the University of Oklahoma. Lot of Texans come up for our games. We need to get those college CR's around the Country involved so we can get them passing out stickers. We have a Senate race and my hope is to tap into that to get some Inhofe/McCain/? shirts for both OU in crimson and OSU in Orange. OSU only has about 40,000 at their games but we can still tap into them as well. Our largest donors to the GOP in OK are also donors to OU and OSU"
"We could do it around the Country!"
Sharon
Here's how I responded to her:
Sharon, I'm going to reprint your piece (on my blog) about your working for the election of Dr. Tom. I hope everyone who has a blog will do the same thing. There are ways people can magnify their efforts on behalf of a candidate, and you demonstrate exactly how it's done. It's critical for McCain to go out and "engage" with other voters. John McCain has never lost an election, and with the help of people like you, he'll keep that perfrect record in 2008.
Stephen R. Maloney
Friday, February 8, 2008
Grassroots Politics & McCain Victory
Here are some of the locations of visitors within the past several hours: Carrizozo, NM; Kenya, Africa; Savannah, GA; Seattle, WA; Midvale, UT; Houston, TX; Lubbock, TX; Bellingham, WA; Seattle, WA; Downingtown, PA; Glenside, PA; as well as many other places. Thanks to all of you for visiting.
If you'd like to see my daily columns, this is the best place to be. Please bookmark this site and return often. Your comments are always welcome.
Later today (Friday, February 8, 2008), I'll be writing about the tactics advocated by an Oklahoma activists, Sharon Caliendo, who lives in Norman. Sharon discusses how you can turn your favorite candidate from "someone who came close" to "someone who celebrates a victory on Election Eve."
Sharon, along with Greg Alterton, began the Yahoo Group of Rudy Giuliani supporters. When Rudy dropped out, the Group became "Rudy Supporters for McCain." It was and is one of the largest groups on Yahoo, with approximately 1500 members. It was a factor in John McCain's winning the Oklahoma Primary.
Her emphasis is on grassroots politics -- basically on political activists (like you) recruiting other activists. Of course, we each have ONE vote, but if we act wisely we can leverage our vote into many votes. It's something like a snowball rolling down a hill. By the time it reaches the bottom it has turned into a huge mass.
To win on November 4, 2008, John McCain will need approximately 70-75 million votes. Sharon's analysis explains how McCain can accumulate enough support to win. I hope you return to see what she says.
SHARON CALIENDO'S COMMENTS ON THE SUCCESSFUL GRASSROOTS EFFORT IN OKLAHOMA TO ELECT TOM COBURN TO THE SENATE. SENATOR COBURN INTRODUCED JOHN MCCAIN AT YESTERDAY'S CPAC MEETING.
It was the largest grassroots effort ever [the one for Tom Coburan] in the State of Oklahoma, and we did it from the ground up in every county. Then a State GOP Chair was elected that didn't believe in the grassroots and they lost that large coalition of Republicans that worked to elect Dr. Tom. Office holders were behind another candidate in the primary including enlisting help from the WH but Dr. Tom prevailed. The other candidate had a mailer with Pres Bush they sent out in the primary. Never had seen that before.
Know this is looking ahead but we need people passing out McCain stickers at every major conference football game this fall. We have 85,000 in the stands and another 10,000 milling around at every home game here in Norman for the University of Oklahoma. Lot of Texans come up for our games. We need to get those college CR's around the Country involved so we can get them passing out stickers. We have a Senate race and my hope is to tap into that to get some Inhofe/McCain/? shirts for both OU in crimson and OSU in Orange. OSU only has about 40,000 at their games but we can still tap into them as well. Our largest donors to the GOP in OK are also donors to OU and OSU.
We could do it around the Country!
Sharon
If you'd like to see my daily columns, this is the best place to be. Please bookmark this site and return often. Your comments are always welcome.
Later today (Friday, February 8, 2008), I'll be writing about the tactics advocated by an Oklahoma activists, Sharon Caliendo, who lives in Norman. Sharon discusses how you can turn your favorite candidate from "someone who came close" to "someone who celebrates a victory on Election Eve."
Sharon, along with Greg Alterton, began the Yahoo Group of Rudy Giuliani supporters. When Rudy dropped out, the Group became "Rudy Supporters for McCain." It was and is one of the largest groups on Yahoo, with approximately 1500 members. It was a factor in John McCain's winning the Oklahoma Primary.
Her emphasis is on grassroots politics -- basically on political activists (like you) recruiting other activists. Of course, we each have ONE vote, but if we act wisely we can leverage our vote into many votes. It's something like a snowball rolling down a hill. By the time it reaches the bottom it has turned into a huge mass.
To win on November 4, 2008, John McCain will need approximately 70-75 million votes. Sharon's analysis explains how McCain can accumulate enough support to win. I hope you return to see what she says.
SHARON CALIENDO'S COMMENTS ON THE SUCCESSFUL GRASSROOTS EFFORT IN OKLAHOMA TO ELECT TOM COBURN TO THE SENATE. SENATOR COBURN INTRODUCED JOHN MCCAIN AT YESTERDAY'S CPAC MEETING.
It was the largest grassroots effort ever [the one for Tom Coburan] in the State of Oklahoma, and we did it from the ground up in every county. Then a State GOP Chair was elected that didn't believe in the grassroots and they lost that large coalition of Republicans that worked to elect Dr. Tom. Office holders were behind another candidate in the primary including enlisting help from the WH but Dr. Tom prevailed. The other candidate had a mailer with Pres Bush they sent out in the primary. Never had seen that before.
Know this is looking ahead but we need people passing out McCain stickers at every major conference football game this fall. We have 85,000 in the stands and another 10,000 milling around at every home game here in Norman for the University of Oklahoma. Lot of Texans come up for our games. We need to get those college CR's around the Country involved so we can get them passing out stickers. We have a Senate race and my hope is to tap into that to get some Inhofe/McCain/? shirts for both OU in crimson and OSU in Orange. OSU only has about 40,000 at their games but we can still tap into them as well. Our largest donors to the GOP in OK are also donors to OU and OSU.
We could do it around the Country!
Sharon
Thursday, February 7, 2008
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.
"[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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A WINNING STRATEGY FOR MCCAIN
Here are two important Forums for people supporting John McCain or thinking of supporting him. Please visit them and leave your comments.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html#6
http://www.mccaintalk.com/
Please click on the links to your right!
The McCain Campaign depends greatly on as many active, involved volunteers as possible. There's no way this campaign can be won by "politics as usual." It requires a great deal of creativity, imagination, and just plain hard work.
For example, today on Brit Hume's show on FOX, the host suggested that McCain needs to create an army of volunteers among veterans. The panelist from NPR suggested there weren't all that many veterans. She's wrong. The Almanac of American Politics says there are 25 million veterans, a huge number, in the U.S.
Do the math. Those 25 million vets all have family members -- spouses, children, and in the case of younger vets, mothers and fathers. The McCain Campaign needs to do much more than have a Coordinator of Veterans Affairs. In fact, it needs to contact every veteran in the U.S. and ask for their support. It also has to ask them to reach out to family and friends to generate backing for Senator McCain.
It will take in excess of 75 million votes to win the 2008 presidential election. Obviously, if McCain does the full-court-press on veterans and those they can influence, he probably will the presidency. If he doesn't, it's probable that he won't. It's just that simple.
In the Age of the Internet, we've gone beyond the days when a good candidate -- and McCain is one -- could just say: "I'm here. Everybody please vote for me." People have to asked directly for their votes, in many case, by e-mails.
With his TV ads, McCain has to emphasize himself -- as a man with an heroic past and a total commitment to serving his country. That's the John McCain who has won his races in Arizona by huge margins. That's the John McCain who won big in Florida and on Super Tuesday.
One thing McCain must not do is to go hat-in-hand to conservatives such as those represented by the creepy radio talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Ingraham, and Hewitt). If McCain tries to mollify those troglodytes, he will lose his strong appeal to moderates -- Republican, Independent, or Democratic. He should welcome anyone who wants to support him and wish the best for those who don't.
Above all perhaps, McCain has to listen to good advice from people who support him. He does many things well and a few things poorly. He need to intensify the former and eliminate the latter. This extremely disciplined man must become even more so.
THE FOLLOWING IS A POST I PUT ON THE MCCAIN FOR POTUS FORUM in response to Sanity102, who blogs at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com:
I've had mixed feelings about the talk show hosts and their "dittoheads" (rockheads?). John McCain has always won elections by being himself. Is that enough to win this election against a highly energized Democratic base? I guess we'll find out. I wrote today about energizing military veterans and their families. Sanity, the process of purging and revitalizing may take a decade. In the WOT, we probably don't have a decade, but the shifts going on will take some time. I will be writing one column after another (like today's) on how McCain can win. I'm asking him to select as his VP nominee the one female veteran ever elected to Congress, former Rhodes Scholar Heather Wilson. As you know, I think there are two Americas: the Warrior Society (you, I, McCain, Gen. Petraeus, and many more) and the Wimp Society, the one Hillary and Barack appeal to. The talk show hosts have too much power and too few brains. They need to be part of the Purge.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html#6
http://www.mccaintalk.com/
Please click on the links to your right!
The McCain Campaign depends greatly on as many active, involved volunteers as possible. There's no way this campaign can be won by "politics as usual." It requires a great deal of creativity, imagination, and just plain hard work.
For example, today on Brit Hume's show on FOX, the host suggested that McCain needs to create an army of volunteers among veterans. The panelist from NPR suggested there weren't all that many veterans. She's wrong. The Almanac of American Politics says there are 25 million veterans, a huge number, in the U.S.
Do the math. Those 25 million vets all have family members -- spouses, children, and in the case of younger vets, mothers and fathers. The McCain Campaign needs to do much more than have a Coordinator of Veterans Affairs. In fact, it needs to contact every veteran in the U.S. and ask for their support. It also has to ask them to reach out to family and friends to generate backing for Senator McCain.
It will take in excess of 75 million votes to win the 2008 presidential election. Obviously, if McCain does the full-court-press on veterans and those they can influence, he probably will the presidency. If he doesn't, it's probable that he won't. It's just that simple.
In the Age of the Internet, we've gone beyond the days when a good candidate -- and McCain is one -- could just say: "I'm here. Everybody please vote for me." People have to asked directly for their votes, in many case, by e-mails.
With his TV ads, McCain has to emphasize himself -- as a man with an heroic past and a total commitment to serving his country. That's the John McCain who has won his races in Arizona by huge margins. That's the John McCain who won big in Florida and on Super Tuesday.
One thing McCain must not do is to go hat-in-hand to conservatives such as those represented by the creepy radio talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Ingraham, and Hewitt). If McCain tries to mollify those troglodytes, he will lose his strong appeal to moderates -- Republican, Independent, or Democratic. He should welcome anyone who wants to support him and wish the best for those who don't.
Above all perhaps, McCain has to listen to good advice from people who support him. He does many things well and a few things poorly. He need to intensify the former and eliminate the latter. This extremely disciplined man must become even more so.
THE FOLLOWING IS A POST I PUT ON THE MCCAIN FOR POTUS FORUM in response to Sanity102, who blogs at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com:
I've had mixed feelings about the talk show hosts and their "dittoheads" (rockheads?). John McCain has always won elections by being himself. Is that enough to win this election against a highly energized Democratic base? I guess we'll find out. I wrote today about energizing military veterans and their families. Sanity, the process of purging and revitalizing may take a decade. In the WOT, we probably don't have a decade, but the shifts going on will take some time. I will be writing one column after another (like today's) on how McCain can win. I'm asking him to select as his VP nominee the one female veteran ever elected to Congress, former Rhodes Scholar Heather Wilson. As you know, I think there are two Americas: the Warrior Society (you, I, McCain, Gen. Petraeus, and many more) and the Wimp Society, the one Hillary and Barack appeal to. The talk show hosts have too much power and too few brains. They need to be part of the Purge.
Monday, February 4, 2008
HEATHER WILSON TERRIFIC, SANTORUM SCUMBAG
NOTE: TODAY (WEDNESDAY) I'LL WRITE MORE THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT HEATHER WILSON, WHO WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT CHOICE FOR V-P ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET, AND WILL DISCUSS YESTERDAY'S "BIG LOSERS," WHICH TURNED OUT TO THE MOTLEY CREW OF RIGHT-WING TALK RADIO "HOSTS." IF PEOPLE LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH AND ANN COULTER DO END UP SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON, THAT WOULD BE GREAT NEWS FOR THE "NEW" REPUBLICAN PARTY, ONE THAT WON'T HAVE A SPACE FOR THE HATERS OF THE WORLD.
Wednesday comments on what happened yesterday (Super Tuesday): "The big losers last night were the talk-radio hosts." (One McCain advisor)
I think the California poll showing Romney ahead in California must have been a premature April Fool's joke. It is time for "Team Romney," as Hugh Hewitt likes to call them, to fold its tent. There are significant realignmnets going on in the country generally and the Republican Party specifically. The traditional Republicans, the ones I grew up with in upstate New York, have reappeared, much to the amazement of many conservatives and libertarians. Most Americans -- the vast majority -- are moderates, although they usually don't play a leading role in primaries, which tend to attract the far-right or far-left. In Florida and California, roughly half the Republicans voting identified themselves as pro-choice -- the same was roughly true in NY, NJ, and CT. However, most of those people voted for McCain, who is solidly pro-life. Go figure. I believe McCain will attempt to unify the Party, but he won't -- and shouldn't -- go around with a beggar's bowl. He should keep his distance from Hewitt, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hewitt. He doesn't really need them.
NOTE: TODAY (SUPER TUESDAY) I HAVE A NEW COLUMN ABOUT FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, WHO'S RECENTLY EMERGED FROM PA'S POLITICAL TRASH DUMP TO MAKE ANTI-MCCAIN ROBOCALLS FOR ROMNEY. SANTORUM IS JUST BARELY AN EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING, SOMEONE WHO ALMOST SINGHANDEDLY WRECKED THE GOP IN PA. WEAR YOUR HELMET, RICK. The Santorum column will appear BELOW this one on the merits of choosing Heathr Wilson for the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket. I HOPE YOU'LL CONTINUE TO VISIT THIS BLOG OFTEN THROUGHOUT THE ELECTION. THERE'S A BATTLE GOING ON FOR THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND MY BLOG IS GOING TO PLAY A CENTRAL ROLE IN THAT STRUGGLE.
After I suggested possible V-P choices (for McCain) as Michael Steele of MD and Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, I got the following response from a Capitol Hill type:
"I'm certainly not opposed to a black or woman as VP but they do need to be ready to be VP and thus President. I'm not trying to be disrespectfu because I like Michael Steele but his highest elected office is Lt. Gov. I'm not comfortable with a one term Lt. Gov being VP and the media would rip him as not being ready for such high office. As far as Heather Wilson, I had never heard of her until I arrived on Capitol Hill and while she seems to be a good Congresswoman she doesn't jump out to me as VP material. A weakness of the GOP is we are weak with women and minorities and a direct result of this weakness is the GOP doesn't have as many women and minority elected officials. This is a weakness I do believe that McCain can and will help us with."
The following is my response:
In an age when Barack Obama, lately an Illinois State Senator, is seen as a credible candidate for President, Michael Steele looks pretty good. As for Heather Wilson, I believe the only female veteran ever elected to Congress, she's a graduate of the Air Force Academy. a Rhodes Scholar, and a widely acknowledge expert on foreign affairs, particularly in the MidEast. She was perhaps the most-targeted candidate by the Democrats, but she won twice against Hispanic opponents in a district (NM, 1st) that's 43% Hispanic. Her career in the military, in foreign affairs, and in Congress is a lot more impressive than that of, say, Hillary Clinton. She is a ferocious campaigner. She goes for the jugular but is NOT a dirty player.
Right now, if I could give one name to John McCain it probably would be Heather Wilson. Frankly, we will always be weak with women and minorities if we don't look for people in both categories who can meet a challenge. Right now, many Americans look at Republicans as the Party of, by, and for older white people (i.e., people like me). We have to end that half-true stereotype SOON.
We Republicans, to our detriment, demand a lot more "experience" (i.e., age) than the Democrats do. This has been true since 1960 when the "too young" Kennedy defeated Nixon. Like Claude Rains, we "round up the usual suspects." We need to take a different approach.
RICK SANTORUM, A LOSER AS A PERSON AND A POLITICIAN
In the summer of 2006, Republican Rick Santorum was running behind Democrat Bob Casey by a margin of 60% to 40%. But Santorum apparently had a hole card: the fact that he was raising more money -- mostly from PACs -- than any other candidate for the Senate. Eventually, he would end up with a huge sum, $27 million. (You can read about this on OpenSecrets.org. Just go there and type in the name "Santorum.")
So, what eventually happened with Santorum? On Election Day, 2006, he ended up losing to Casey by 59% to 41%. He spent $27 million, and apparently all that money bought him an increase of one percentage point.
This is the Rick Santorum who is sending out a million robocalls denouncing John McCain for having a bad "termperament." That's priceless, because Santorum was one of the most arrogant, ill-tempered, cynical people ever to serve in the Senate. It's the same Santorum who "begged" (McCain's word) Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani to come to Pennsylvania to campaign for him in 2006. They both showed up and worked hard, but Santorum had alienated so many voters that Ronald Reagan and Abrahma Lincoln couldn't have saved him.
Santorum was at the top of the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania and his abysmal performance helped drag down at least two Republican congressional candidates. One of them was Melissa Hart, my congresswoman, whose opponent (Jason Altmire) ran constant messages trying to link Melissa with Santorum. Another Republican congressman who lost mainly because Santorum was so weak and disliked was Fitzpatrick in the eastern part of the state. He lost by fewer than 1,000 votes. Melissa went down by 52% to 48%.
Santorum lost so badly because he was strongly rejected by Democrats, Independents, Blacks, women professionals, younger voters, and even traditionally Republican suburbanites. This self-styled super-conservative ended up running ads talking about how closely he had worked with . . . Hillary Clinton. His ads mainly tried to bring across the point that he actually was a "good guy." However, the voters who knew him best didn't believe a word he said.
Santorum had orginally won a seat in Congress 20 years ago mainly by accusing his Democratic opponent (Doug Walgren) of not living in Pennsylvania. However, relatively soon after Santorum went to Washington, DC, he brought his family with him. In the following years, he claimed to have a residence in suburban Pittsburgh, but he never lived there. He did, however, bill the district (Penn Hills) for $100,000 for a year's worth of "cyber school" for his six children. For obvious reasons, the district balked at paying such a huge sum.
Santorum also wrote a book suggesting that working mothers should stay home with their children -- as his own wife has done. Of course, that meant the huge number of working women in PA had no interest in voting for him.
McCain and Giuliani tried to save him, but Santorum was beyond salvation. He tried to purchase their affection with his vast campaign war chest, but the voters weren't buying.
This is the same Rick Santorum that's now attempting to tell the nation how to vote. I doubt that anyone is listening to him anymore. He exemplifies everything that's wrong with American politics.
Wednesday comments on what happened yesterday (Super Tuesday): "The big losers last night were the talk-radio hosts." (One McCain advisor)
I think the California poll showing Romney ahead in California must have been a premature April Fool's joke. It is time for "Team Romney," as Hugh Hewitt likes to call them, to fold its tent. There are significant realignmnets going on in the country generally and the Republican Party specifically. The traditional Republicans, the ones I grew up with in upstate New York, have reappeared, much to the amazement of many conservatives and libertarians. Most Americans -- the vast majority -- are moderates, although they usually don't play a leading role in primaries, which tend to attract the far-right or far-left. In Florida and California, roughly half the Republicans voting identified themselves as pro-choice -- the same was roughly true in NY, NJ, and CT. However, most of those people voted for McCain, who is solidly pro-life. Go figure. I believe McCain will attempt to unify the Party, but he won't -- and shouldn't -- go around with a beggar's bowl. He should keep his distance from Hewitt, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hewitt. He doesn't really need them.
NOTE: TODAY (SUPER TUESDAY) I HAVE A NEW COLUMN ABOUT FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, WHO'S RECENTLY EMERGED FROM PA'S POLITICAL TRASH DUMP TO MAKE ANTI-MCCAIN ROBOCALLS FOR ROMNEY. SANTORUM IS JUST BARELY AN EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING, SOMEONE WHO ALMOST SINGHANDEDLY WRECKED THE GOP IN PA. WEAR YOUR HELMET, RICK. The Santorum column will appear BELOW this one on the merits of choosing Heathr Wilson for the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket. I HOPE YOU'LL CONTINUE TO VISIT THIS BLOG OFTEN THROUGHOUT THE ELECTION. THERE'S A BATTLE GOING ON FOR THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND MY BLOG IS GOING TO PLAY A CENTRAL ROLE IN THAT STRUGGLE.
After I suggested possible V-P choices (for McCain) as Michael Steele of MD and Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, I got the following response from a Capitol Hill type:
"I'm certainly not opposed to a black or woman as VP but they do need to be ready to be VP and thus President. I'm not trying to be disrespectfu because I like Michael Steele but his highest elected office is Lt. Gov. I'm not comfortable with a one term Lt. Gov being VP and the media would rip him as not being ready for such high office. As far as Heather Wilson, I had never heard of her until I arrived on Capitol Hill and while she seems to be a good Congresswoman she doesn't jump out to me as VP material. A weakness of the GOP is we are weak with women and minorities and a direct result of this weakness is the GOP doesn't have as many women and minority elected officials. This is a weakness I do believe that McCain can and will help us with."
The following is my response:
In an age when Barack Obama, lately an Illinois State Senator, is seen as a credible candidate for President, Michael Steele looks pretty good. As for Heather Wilson, I believe the only female veteran ever elected to Congress, she's a graduate of the Air Force Academy. a Rhodes Scholar, and a widely acknowledge expert on foreign affairs, particularly in the MidEast. She was perhaps the most-targeted candidate by the Democrats, but she won twice against Hispanic opponents in a district (NM, 1st) that's 43% Hispanic. Her career in the military, in foreign affairs, and in Congress is a lot more impressive than that of, say, Hillary Clinton. She is a ferocious campaigner. She goes for the jugular but is NOT a dirty player.
Right now, if I could give one name to John McCain it probably would be Heather Wilson. Frankly, we will always be weak with women and minorities if we don't look for people in both categories who can meet a challenge. Right now, many Americans look at Republicans as the Party of, by, and for older white people (i.e., people like me). We have to end that half-true stereotype SOON.
We Republicans, to our detriment, demand a lot more "experience" (i.e., age) than the Democrats do. This has been true since 1960 when the "too young" Kennedy defeated Nixon. Like Claude Rains, we "round up the usual suspects." We need to take a different approach.
RICK SANTORUM, A LOSER AS A PERSON AND A POLITICIAN
In the summer of 2006, Republican Rick Santorum was running behind Democrat Bob Casey by a margin of 60% to 40%. But Santorum apparently had a hole card: the fact that he was raising more money -- mostly from PACs -- than any other candidate for the Senate. Eventually, he would end up with a huge sum, $27 million. (You can read about this on OpenSecrets.org. Just go there and type in the name "Santorum.")
So, what eventually happened with Santorum? On Election Day, 2006, he ended up losing to Casey by 59% to 41%. He spent $27 million, and apparently all that money bought him an increase of one percentage point.
This is the Rick Santorum who is sending out a million robocalls denouncing John McCain for having a bad "termperament." That's priceless, because Santorum was one of the most arrogant, ill-tempered, cynical people ever to serve in the Senate. It's the same Santorum who "begged" (McCain's word) Senator McCain and Mayor Giuliani to come to Pennsylvania to campaign for him in 2006. They both showed up and worked hard, but Santorum had alienated so many voters that Ronald Reagan and Abrahma Lincoln couldn't have saved him.
Santorum was at the top of the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania and his abysmal performance helped drag down at least two Republican congressional candidates. One of them was Melissa Hart, my congresswoman, whose opponent (Jason Altmire) ran constant messages trying to link Melissa with Santorum. Another Republican congressman who lost mainly because Santorum was so weak and disliked was Fitzpatrick in the eastern part of the state. He lost by fewer than 1,000 votes. Melissa went down by 52% to 48%.
Santorum lost so badly because he was strongly rejected by Democrats, Independents, Blacks, women professionals, younger voters, and even traditionally Republican suburbanites. This self-styled super-conservative ended up running ads talking about how closely he had worked with . . . Hillary Clinton. His ads mainly tried to bring across the point that he actually was a "good guy." However, the voters who knew him best didn't believe a word he said.
Santorum had orginally won a seat in Congress 20 years ago mainly by accusing his Democratic opponent (Doug Walgren) of not living in Pennsylvania. However, relatively soon after Santorum went to Washington, DC, he brought his family with him. In the following years, he claimed to have a residence in suburban Pittsburgh, but he never lived there. He did, however, bill the district (Penn Hills) for $100,000 for a year's worth of "cyber school" for his six children. For obvious reasons, the district balked at paying such a huge sum.
Santorum also wrote a book suggesting that working mothers should stay home with their children -- as his own wife has done. Of course, that meant the huge number of working women in PA had no interest in voting for him.
McCain and Giuliani tried to save him, but Santorum was beyond salvation. He tried to purchase their affection with his vast campaign war chest, but the voters weren't buying.
This is the same Rick Santorum that's now attempting to tell the nation how to vote. I doubt that anyone is listening to him anymore. He exemplifies everything that's wrong with American politics.
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
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
PALIN SUPPORTER WITHDRAWS V-P SUPPORT
I am no longer backing Sarah Heath Palin for nomination as McCain's vice-president.
Make no mistake about it: I believe Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin is a superb human being with a great political future, and I look forward to supporting her in the future. HOWEVER, I AM NOW TAKING A NEUTRAL POSITION ON THE NOMINEE FOR THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL SLOT. I was one of the orginal Palin supporters, so why am I now recommending that John McCain NOT appoint her as his running mate?
Through her spokeswoman, Gov. Palin has said she won't support John McCain at this point because he disagrees with her on the wisdom of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The sad part here is that I agree with her that there should be drilling in ANWR, but she is making a profound mistake in using this single issue as a reason not to endorse McCain.
There are many issues critical to the security of the United States, and ANWR is NOT one of them. I can't imagine John McCain choosing a vice-presidential candidate who support him because he's the last man standing, which apparently is what will happen with Sarah Palin.
The sad thing is that she agrees with McCain on nearly every critical issue, including the War on Terror, fiscal conservatism, and the sanctity of life. Compared to such matters, ANWR is small potatoes indeed. Sarah, why????
The upshot is this: I don't believe anymore that John McCain should select Sarah Palin as his running mate. For one of the first times, she's fallen into political pettiness and that should disqualify her as a choice for the vice-presidency.
Right now, I'm leaning toward either Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina or Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. Either of them would help with the constituencies Senator McCain is trying to reach, and both of them endorsed the Senator when it truly mattered. In contrast, Sarah is a day late -- and an endorsement short.
I SENT THE FOLLOWING TO MANY OF MY FRIENDS WHO'VE BEEN INVOLVED HEAVILY IN "THE SARAH PALIN MOVEMENT." IT EXPANDS ON WHAT I SAID ABOVE:
I continue to care a great deal about Sarah Palin and believe she has an excellent chance to become America's first female President. However, today I made the difficult decision to withdraw my support for her as John McCain's V-P nominee. She is refusing to support McCain because they differ on one issue: drilling in ANWR. Perhaps for the first time in her political career, she's engaging in parochial Alaskan politics rather than doing what is clearly the right thing for the nation.
McCain is a man who values loyalty, such as the kind shown by other vice-presidential possibilities, such as Lindsay Graham, Charlie Crist, and Rudy Giuliani. They all provided essential support when McCain needed it. Sarah has not done so, even though she and McCain agree on nearly every vital issue. My colum today (above) tells the story.
It's important to understand that McCain is not going to run a Republican campaign based almost exclusively on appealing to "angry white males," the "dittoheads" of the nation. His goal is to appeal to the same kind of people that have given Sarah Palin such strong support.
The endorsements that matter are those that come at difficult times, and he's not going to nominate anyone who quibbles with him at critical moments.
If John McCain loses the general election, drilling at ANWR probably will not take place in the lifetime of Sarah Palin. It would also lead to what could be 16 years of Democratic presidents. That would certainly not be good for Sarah Palin -- or for the country.
I regard all of you as friends and will continue to do so.
_______________________________________________________________
Is McCain's Success Based on Split Conservative Votes?
Posted by: Michael Medved at 6:22 PM
To explain the startling success of Senator John McCain in the fight for the GOP presidential nomination, talk radio hosts and columnists who loathe the Arizona Senator cite an alleged split on the conservative side between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
According to this reasoning (explicitly advanced by Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt and many others) if only Huckabee withdrew as a candidate, Mitt Romney could unite conservative cadres and pull out an upset victory on Super-Duper Tuesday.
Of course, Huckabee won’t leave the race (in at least six of Tuesday’s state contests he’s running well ahead of Romney) and the argument that he should rests on distorted history and illogical assumptions.
Some of my fellow commentators on the right seem to believe that the minority “moderate” wing of the party has united behind McCain because they had no other candidate, and the much larger conservative base in the GOP fatally split its votes among a number of once-viable alternatives.
These conclusions are flat-out wrong -- both about the party’s ruling conservatives and its remaining moderates.
WRONG ABOUT CONSERVATIVES
To believe that Huck and Mitt are dividing conservatives, you have to believe that Huckabee is a conservative --- which Romney, Limbaugh, Igraham, and countless others have been denying (stridently and strenuously) for months. Romney spent millions on negative ads in Iowa trying to label Huckabee as a liberal RINO—slamming him as soft on immigration, soft on crime, a big spender, a tax hiker and so forth (the same sort of attacks that they’re now applying to McCain). Fred Thompson pronounced Huckabee a “pro-life LIBERAL” and Rush delivered daily diatribes about how the former Arkansas governor was not “a conservative.”
So, has Huckabee now suddenly morphed into a true conservative just to give Romniacs an excuse for the failure of their guy to rally the rightwing base?
Either the elite commentators were wrong when they labeled Huckabee a “liberal populist,” or they are wrong now when they say he’s stealing conservative votes from Romney. The only other alternative is that they view conservative voters as just too stupid to see Huckabee for what he really is.
As to the idea that rock-solid, true-blue Reaganites were divided by too many candidates on the conservative side of the party, where’s the evidence of that?
It’s true that a lot of candidates tried to rally the base but most of them (Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Alan Keyes) got absolutely nowhere.
Nor did Fred Thompson (who co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and compiled a voting record virtually identical to McCain’s during his years in the Senate) draw significant conservative support that hurt Romney. In Iowa, where Huckabee smashed Romney by nine points, Thompson and McCain tied for third. Did Thompson really take more votes away from Romney than McCain took away from Huckabee? In South Carolina, Thompson again finished third – and Romney finished fourth. Even if every one of Fred’s votes had gone to Romney, their combined total still would have fallen 3% (40,000 votes) behind McCain.
WRONG ABOUT MODERATES
But the analysis is also dead wrong that says that McCain’s been winning because he had moderate voters all to himself while conservatives divided their support among several candidates.
Through the entire campaign, Mac has had to compete for moderate or centrist Republican voters (and independents, in those primaries where they could vote) with Rudy Giuliani. Unlike McCain, Rudy has a long background as a moderate on issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control, where Mac has been solidly conservative. Rudy also ran ahead of McCain in virtually all polls last year, and raised triple the money the Arizona Senator managed to put together. At one point, Rudy held the polling lead in South Carolina, and was competing with Mitt Romney for the lead in New Hampshire and Michigan and Nevada.
In other words, it makes no sense to say McCain had moderates to himself while Mitt had to struggle with other conservatives – especially since Rush, Sean, Savage, Laura and countless others relentlessly labeled Huckabee as a “moderate” or a “liberal,” who would be competing for those votes with Mac and Rudy, rather than drawing conservative votes from Romney.
In Florida, McCain’s victory was all the more impressive because Rudy was a powerful factor – investing far more resources into the state, and drawing more votes (15% to 13%) than Mike Huckabee. In other words, even if you assume that Huck and Mitt split conservatives (a very dubious assumption, as noted above), then Giuliani took even more votes away from McCain. Just for the record, the allegedly “moderate” vote in Florida (McCain plus Giuliani) totaled 51% while the allegedly “conservative” vote (Romney plus Huckabee, PLUS Fred Thompson’s 1%) totaled 45%. In other words, even if you combine the votes for all the purportedly “conservative” candidates it doesn’t provide enough support to top the “non-conservatives” who backed Mac and Rudy in a very high turn out primary.
Here’s the SLAM DUNK regarding the stupid argument that if only Huck dropped out, Mitt would surge to victory:
All of the three major national polls taken in the last three days (Fox News, ABC/Washington Post and Gallup) show that even if every single voter who backs Huckabee, switched to Romney (an impossibility, of course), McCain still wins across the country. The numbers, if you’re interested, of McCain supporters vs. the combined total of Romney and Huckabee supporters --- 48 to 39% (Fox News), 48 to 40% (ABC News/Washington Post) and 43 to 42% (Gallup). Meanwhile, all indications are that for many of the Huck-a-nuts—perhaps even a majority – their second choice would be McCain, not Romney.
WRONG ABOUT McCAIN
If you can’t explain McCain’s success by arguing that there’s been a big split among the party’s conservatives, then how can the Senator’s critics come to terms with his surging campaign?
Maybe they ought to recognize the obvious – they’re wrong about Johnny Mac and his appeal.
In state after state, Exit Polls show McCain drawing substantial backing among self-described “conservative” voters. It’s true that he’s weaker with such Republicans than among so-called moderates, but he’s strong enough (drawing over a quarter of conservatives, consistently and reliably, in the divided field) to indicate that many conservatives are simply ignoring the howls from talk radio that McCain is a secret liberal.
Sure, Ann Coulter claims that Hillary Clinton is “more conservative” than McCain, and says that she plans to campaign for Hillary (won’t that be fun?). But who knows the Arizona Senator better – Ann C. (who has very possibly never met him) or the solid, conservative Senate leaders (Tom Coburn, Johnny Isaakson, Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr, John Kyl, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, John Thune, Norm Coleman) who’ve worked beside McCain every day for years and have come forward to endorse him for the nomination? These guys earn nearly perfect voting records from the American Consrvative Union--- Trent Lott, for instance, got a lifetime 92% (even better than McCain's 82.3%), but he vouches for his long-time colleague as a solid, courageous pro-life conservative. Fred Thompson had a less consistent conservative record than Lott (86%) and very close to McCain's, and yet commentators readily embraced him as a "consistent conservative."
As to Mitt Romney, he is certainly a good man and a good candidate and a strong standard bearer for conservatives. Those who back Mitt deserve respect, and should proudly work hard for their guy on Tuesday.
But don’t pretend that McCain is only winning because divisions among conservatives have allowed some squishy moderate to sneak to victory.
It’s true that conservatives are divided in the upcoming primaries.
Some (perhaps a plurality) back Mitt Romney, a strong conservative.
Some back Mike Huckabee, a strong (though much maligned) conservative.
And some of us back John McCain, as the strongest and most consistent conservative in the race.
May the best man win.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/2e932bab-9582-42bb-baf6-5e6f54aa62ad
NOTE: PLEASE READ THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE IN THE COLUMN BELOW. THANKS.
Make no mistake about it: I believe Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin is a superb human being with a great political future, and I look forward to supporting her in the future. HOWEVER, I AM NOW TAKING A NEUTRAL POSITION ON THE NOMINEE FOR THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL SLOT. I was one of the orginal Palin supporters, so why am I now recommending that John McCain NOT appoint her as his running mate?
Through her spokeswoman, Gov. Palin has said she won't support John McCain at this point because he disagrees with her on the wisdom of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The sad part here is that I agree with her that there should be drilling in ANWR, but she is making a profound mistake in using this single issue as a reason not to endorse McCain.
There are many issues critical to the security of the United States, and ANWR is NOT one of them. I can't imagine John McCain choosing a vice-presidential candidate who support him because he's the last man standing, which apparently is what will happen with Sarah Palin.
The sad thing is that she agrees with McCain on nearly every critical issue, including the War on Terror, fiscal conservatism, and the sanctity of life. Compared to such matters, ANWR is small potatoes indeed. Sarah, why????
The upshot is this: I don't believe anymore that John McCain should select Sarah Palin as his running mate. For one of the first times, she's fallen into political pettiness and that should disqualify her as a choice for the vice-presidency.
Right now, I'm leaning toward either Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina or Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. Either of them would help with the constituencies Senator McCain is trying to reach, and both of them endorsed the Senator when it truly mattered. In contrast, Sarah is a day late -- and an endorsement short.
I SENT THE FOLLOWING TO MANY OF MY FRIENDS WHO'VE BEEN INVOLVED HEAVILY IN "THE SARAH PALIN MOVEMENT." IT EXPANDS ON WHAT I SAID ABOVE:
I continue to care a great deal about Sarah Palin and believe she has an excellent chance to become America's first female President. However, today I made the difficult decision to withdraw my support for her as John McCain's V-P nominee. She is refusing to support McCain because they differ on one issue: drilling in ANWR. Perhaps for the first time in her political career, she's engaging in parochial Alaskan politics rather than doing what is clearly the right thing for the nation.
McCain is a man who values loyalty, such as the kind shown by other vice-presidential possibilities, such as Lindsay Graham, Charlie Crist, and Rudy Giuliani. They all provided essential support when McCain needed it. Sarah has not done so, even though she and McCain agree on nearly every vital issue. My colum today (above) tells the story.
It's important to understand that McCain is not going to run a Republican campaign based almost exclusively on appealing to "angry white males," the "dittoheads" of the nation. His goal is to appeal to the same kind of people that have given Sarah Palin such strong support.
The endorsements that matter are those that come at difficult times, and he's not going to nominate anyone who quibbles with him at critical moments.
If John McCain loses the general election, drilling at ANWR probably will not take place in the lifetime of Sarah Palin. It would also lead to what could be 16 years of Democratic presidents. That would certainly not be good for Sarah Palin -- or for the country.
I regard all of you as friends and will continue to do so.
_______________________________________________________________
Is McCain's Success Based on Split Conservative Votes?
Posted by: Michael Medved at 6:22 PM
To explain the startling success of Senator John McCain in the fight for the GOP presidential nomination, talk radio hosts and columnists who loathe the Arizona Senator cite an alleged split on the conservative side between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
According to this reasoning (explicitly advanced by Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt and many others) if only Huckabee withdrew as a candidate, Mitt Romney could unite conservative cadres and pull out an upset victory on Super-Duper Tuesday.
Of course, Huckabee won’t leave the race (in at least six of Tuesday’s state contests he’s running well ahead of Romney) and the argument that he should rests on distorted history and illogical assumptions.
Some of my fellow commentators on the right seem to believe that the minority “moderate” wing of the party has united behind McCain because they had no other candidate, and the much larger conservative base in the GOP fatally split its votes among a number of once-viable alternatives.
These conclusions are flat-out wrong -- both about the party’s ruling conservatives and its remaining moderates.
WRONG ABOUT CONSERVATIVES
To believe that Huck and Mitt are dividing conservatives, you have to believe that Huckabee is a conservative --- which Romney, Limbaugh, Igraham, and countless others have been denying (stridently and strenuously) for months. Romney spent millions on negative ads in Iowa trying to label Huckabee as a liberal RINO—slamming him as soft on immigration, soft on crime, a big spender, a tax hiker and so forth (the same sort of attacks that they’re now applying to McCain). Fred Thompson pronounced Huckabee a “pro-life LIBERAL” and Rush delivered daily diatribes about how the former Arkansas governor was not “a conservative.”
So, has Huckabee now suddenly morphed into a true conservative just to give Romniacs an excuse for the failure of their guy to rally the rightwing base?
Either the elite commentators were wrong when they labeled Huckabee a “liberal populist,” or they are wrong now when they say he’s stealing conservative votes from Romney. The only other alternative is that they view conservative voters as just too stupid to see Huckabee for what he really is.
As to the idea that rock-solid, true-blue Reaganites were divided by too many candidates on the conservative side of the party, where’s the evidence of that?
It’s true that a lot of candidates tried to rally the base but most of them (Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Alan Keyes) got absolutely nowhere.
Nor did Fred Thompson (who co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and compiled a voting record virtually identical to McCain’s during his years in the Senate) draw significant conservative support that hurt Romney. In Iowa, where Huckabee smashed Romney by nine points, Thompson and McCain tied for third. Did Thompson really take more votes away from Romney than McCain took away from Huckabee? In South Carolina, Thompson again finished third – and Romney finished fourth. Even if every one of Fred’s votes had gone to Romney, their combined total still would have fallen 3% (40,000 votes) behind McCain.
WRONG ABOUT MODERATES
But the analysis is also dead wrong that says that McCain’s been winning because he had moderate voters all to himself while conservatives divided their support among several candidates.
Through the entire campaign, Mac has had to compete for moderate or centrist Republican voters (and independents, in those primaries where they could vote) with Rudy Giuliani. Unlike McCain, Rudy has a long background as a moderate on issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control, where Mac has been solidly conservative. Rudy also ran ahead of McCain in virtually all polls last year, and raised triple the money the Arizona Senator managed to put together. At one point, Rudy held the polling lead in South Carolina, and was competing with Mitt Romney for the lead in New Hampshire and Michigan and Nevada.
In other words, it makes no sense to say McCain had moderates to himself while Mitt had to struggle with other conservatives – especially since Rush, Sean, Savage, Laura and countless others relentlessly labeled Huckabee as a “moderate” or a “liberal,” who would be competing for those votes with Mac and Rudy, rather than drawing conservative votes from Romney.
In Florida, McCain’s victory was all the more impressive because Rudy was a powerful factor – investing far more resources into the state, and drawing more votes (15% to 13%) than Mike Huckabee. In other words, even if you assume that Huck and Mitt split conservatives (a very dubious assumption, as noted above), then Giuliani took even more votes away from McCain. Just for the record, the allegedly “moderate” vote in Florida (McCain plus Giuliani) totaled 51% while the allegedly “conservative” vote (Romney plus Huckabee, PLUS Fred Thompson’s 1%) totaled 45%. In other words, even if you combine the votes for all the purportedly “conservative” candidates it doesn’t provide enough support to top the “non-conservatives” who backed Mac and Rudy in a very high turn out primary.
Here’s the SLAM DUNK regarding the stupid argument that if only Huck dropped out, Mitt would surge to victory:
All of the three major national polls taken in the last three days (Fox News, ABC/Washington Post and Gallup) show that even if every single voter who backs Huckabee, switched to Romney (an impossibility, of course), McCain still wins across the country. The numbers, if you’re interested, of McCain supporters vs. the combined total of Romney and Huckabee supporters --- 48 to 39% (Fox News), 48 to 40% (ABC News/Washington Post) and 43 to 42% (Gallup). Meanwhile, all indications are that for many of the Huck-a-nuts—perhaps even a majority – their second choice would be McCain, not Romney.
WRONG ABOUT McCAIN
If you can’t explain McCain’s success by arguing that there’s been a big split among the party’s conservatives, then how can the Senator’s critics come to terms with his surging campaign?
Maybe they ought to recognize the obvious – they’re wrong about Johnny Mac and his appeal.
In state after state, Exit Polls show McCain drawing substantial backing among self-described “conservative” voters. It’s true that he’s weaker with such Republicans than among so-called moderates, but he’s strong enough (drawing over a quarter of conservatives, consistently and reliably, in the divided field) to indicate that many conservatives are simply ignoring the howls from talk radio that McCain is a secret liberal.
Sure, Ann Coulter claims that Hillary Clinton is “more conservative” than McCain, and says that she plans to campaign for Hillary (won’t that be fun?). But who knows the Arizona Senator better – Ann C. (who has very possibly never met him) or the solid, conservative Senate leaders (Tom Coburn, Johnny Isaakson, Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr, John Kyl, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, John Thune, Norm Coleman) who’ve worked beside McCain every day for years and have come forward to endorse him for the nomination? These guys earn nearly perfect voting records from the American Consrvative Union--- Trent Lott, for instance, got a lifetime 92% (even better than McCain's 82.3%), but he vouches for his long-time colleague as a solid, courageous pro-life conservative. Fred Thompson had a less consistent conservative record than Lott (86%) and very close to McCain's, and yet commentators readily embraced him as a "consistent conservative."
As to Mitt Romney, he is certainly a good man and a good candidate and a strong standard bearer for conservatives. Those who back Mitt deserve respect, and should proudly work hard for their guy on Tuesday.
But don’t pretend that McCain is only winning because divisions among conservatives have allowed some squishy moderate to sneak to victory.
It’s true that conservatives are divided in the upcoming primaries.
Some (perhaps a plurality) back Mitt Romney, a strong conservative.
Some back Mike Huckabee, a strong (though much maligned) conservative.
And some of us back John McCain, as the strongest and most consistent conservative in the race.
May the best man win.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/2e932bab-9582-42bb-baf6-5e6f54aa62ad
NOTE: PLEASE READ THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE IN THE COLUMN BELOW. THANKS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
