reprint

from some months ago...

Rick Santorum and Laura Ingraham both came out tonight in support of Romney. I’m not sure what they have been waiting for however, because it may be too late. I pray that is not the case. It’s not enough to simply be anti-McCain, we have to rally behind Mitt immediately.

The misgivings some conservatives have about Romney are so minor, in the grand scheme of things. Such as, he was effectively pro-choice 8 years ago. Well the man is telling you now that he is pro-life, why won’t pro lifers take yes for an answer? Is he somehow lying? What evidence is there that Romney is not an honorable man?

It just frustrates me that it took this long for many of us to come around on Romney. The McCain bandwagon train has left the station at this point. And with scant few days until super Tuesday, only now are conservatives beginning to coalesce behind Romney.
The man can’t do everything himself, he needs our vocal support! Conservatives have let him twist in the wind for far too long while they idly shopped around for a candidate. Well the store is closing now, please bring your final selections to the check out lane. There are only 3 days left to save the conservative movement.
_________________

My conception of Mike Huckabee has progressed to the point where I would now be willing to suggest that the Romney campaign may want to at least consider co-opting the Huckabee campaign and base of support by offering him the VP slot.

This would obviously be a purely tactical maneuver designed to consolidate the social conservative vote rather than divide it.

The main problem is that Huckabee seems to be a big fan of McCain and hates Romney. But cannot an appeal be made to Huckabee’s better nature? The man is not a complete moron after all. Can’t it be explained to him that, in terms of ideology, he has more in common with Romney? What sort of supreme court justices would he want appointed for example? Wouldn’t he favor a strict constructionist pro-life judge like Romney would? In the unlikely event that McCain becomes president, who knows what sort of appointees we could see.

Given McCain’s proclivity to stick his finger in the eye of conservatives, we’d be more likely to get a Ruth Bader Ginsburg than a John Roberts.

This plan also assumes that the Romney people would be able to swallow some pride and do what is tactically the strongest play in the interest ultimately winning the nomination. And Huckabee’s irrational dislike of Romney seems to supercede his supposedly conservative principles.

Like Huckabee’s fair tax, this idea might be too radical in the end to be workable, but if it could be pulled off I would feel a lot better about Romney’s chances and the likelihood of conservatism not coming to a screeching halt in the form of a McCain nomination.
_________________

If Republicans are collectively too foolish to figure out what is going on and they continue to vote for Huckabee in droves, for example, then they don’t even deserve to win the presidency anyway. Dark days will be descending on Republicans and conservatives if we continue down the dreary path that is a John McCain nomination.

Reverence

They heard a great speech — and what was the problem with Rev. Wright’s sermons, anyway?

By Byron York

Philadelphia — The small auditorium here at the National Constitution Center, where Barack Obama delivered what his aides called a “major address on race, politics, and unifying our country,” was filled mostly with guests invited by the Obama campaign. So it was not surprising that after the speech, Obama’s guests, streaming out of the room into the cavernous atrium of the Center, thought he delivered a great speech. What might be surprising, though, is that a number of them saw nothing particularly wrong with the “controversial” remarks by Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that set this whole process in motion.

“It was amazing,” Gregory Davis, a financial adviser and Obama supporter from Philadelphia, told me. “I think he addressed the issue, and if that does not address the issue, I don’t know what else can be said about it. That was just awesome oratory.”

I asked Davis what his personal reaction was when he saw video clips of sermons in which Rev. Wright said, “God damn America,” called the United States the “U.S. of KKK A,” and said that 9/11 was “America’s chickens… coming home to roost.” “As a member of a traditional Baptist, black church, I wasn’t surprised,” Davis told me. “I wasn’t offended by anything the pastor said. A lot of things he said were absolutely correct…. The way he said it may not have been the most appropriate way to say it, but as far as a typical black inner-city church, that’s how it’s said.”

Vernon Price, a ward leader in Philadelphia’s 22nd Precinct, told me Obama’s speech was “very courageous.” When I asked his reaction to Rev. Wright, Price said, “A lot of things that he said were true, whether people want to accept it, or believe it, or not. People believe in their hearts that a lot of what he said was true.”

Rev. Alyn Waller, of the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church in Philadelphia, was effusive about Obama’s performance. “I thought it was masterful,” he told me. Waller explained that he knows Rev. Wright and the preaching tradition from which he comes. “I think much of what he had to say was on point in terms of America needs to challenge her foreign policy,” Waller told me. “While it may be divisive to talk about 9/11 as chickens coming home to roost, what was really being said there is that America cannot believe that our hands are totally innocent in worldwide violence. So at the core of his arguments, I think there is a truth.”

Shortly after “controversial” portions of Wright’s sermons were played on television last week, Obama issued a carefully worded response, saying, “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.” In Philadelphia today, Obama conceded that his earlier statement did not answer all the questions about the issue, and he said he had indeed heard Wright make what are often referred to as “fiery” statements. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?” Obama said. “Yes.”

But Obama equated Wright’s “God damn America” comment with the sort of speaking that goes on in churches and synagogues every day. “Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?” Obama asked. “Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Obama took care not to distance himself any further from his long-time pastor, stressing that Wright had “strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.” If anything, Obama drew Wright closer than he had in the hours after the “God damn America” story broke. “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community,” Obama told the audience. “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are part of me.”

In the end, Obama delivered a well-crafted speech. Has he ever made a truly bad one? But his address at the National Constitution Center did not put to rest the concerns of those Americans who wonder just what he thought as he sat in Wright’s church listening to the pastor’s “controversial” statements; after all, Obama knew of Wright’s positions and had planned, until a very cold day and fear of controversy forced a change, to have Wright deliver the invocation at his presidential announcement last year. Beyond that, the reactions of some Obama partisans in the audience here in Philadelphia today did not put to rest concerns that Rev. Wright’s comments are not the subject of universal disapproval but are in fact positions with which many of Obama’s supporters agree.

the real reason Obama is friends with this man

It has been revealed to me, the real reason as to why presidential candidate Barack Obama has had a twenty year friendship with one pastor Jerimiah Wright who has been recently revealed to be a passionately racist, anti-semetic and America hating mega church pastor who has regularly preached an ideology of a "victimhood mentality" and racial division.

The following is a coversation with an Obama supporter taken from the blog Organized Chaos where the real reason as to why Obama has had a relationship with Jeremiah Wright is discussed:

Chris:

I remember telling a friend a year or so ago that no one will be able to get anything past Obama when it comes to issues. It will be his church and his middle name that will give him the most trouble. It appears to be happening.

Jaz:

Obama’s affiliation with this pastor is about issues. It’s dismissive to attempt to separate Obama’s stance on “issues” and the philosophy behind what shapes his stance. So long as Obama remains a member of Wright’s congregation he is tacitly promoting the world view that is preached there.

It’s not about religion per se at all. It’s about wondering where Obama stands on the very topics discussed at the church which he regularly attends. Does Obama believe that 9-11 was brought about as a result of our so called meddling overseas? Would Obama act quickly to defend Israel if Iran should choose to go to war with them? These are questions that I genuinely do not know the answers to.

The teachings of reverend Wright bring up a host of “issues” which call into question where it is that Obama stands. “Minister” Farakan, as BO calls him, looks mild in comparison to this furiously anti-semitic pastor. Does BO “reject and denounce” this man or will he continue to attend sermons and name books after them (The Audacity of Hope)? Will he still be contributing tens of thousands of dollars to this champion of hate speech?

Something as transcendent as someone’s spiritual guidance and philosophy cannot simply be compartmentalized and then dismissed.

Chris:

Jaz, I would think that someone who openly, proudly, and vehemently supported Mitt Romney would want to do is make religion an issues argument. The church Romney belongs to and regularly attends believes that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and when Jesus returns he will return to Jackson Co. Missouri to setup the New Jerusalem. They also believed until 1978 that black people were second class citizens and were punished by God.

They also believe that God lives on another planet called Kolob. That women only receive salvation through their husbands and must submit to their husbands through God’s demands.

I could go on and on about mormonism and about how out of touch it is with mainstream America. I could also go on and on about how mormonism is the only religion to actually take up arms against the American government, making them a terrorist organization. I don’t think it’s necessary to say much more and to stress the fact that Romney not once had to distance himself from the hate filled teachings of the mormon church. Outside of denouncing what Rev. Wright said, I’m not sure Obama should do anymore distancing, especially considering Republicans have gotten a free pass on religion this year.

“Something as transcendent as someone’s spiritual guidance and philosophy cannot simply be compartmentalized and then dismissed.” Maybe you should apply the same to Romney.

Lisa, Rev. Wright preaches no more hate than Hagee or Parsley or Benny Hinn. The direction of their hate is different but the substance is all the same. Since Jaz brought up the fact that religion is an issue, then, again, someone who supported Mitt Romney should be very careful about pointing fingers at Obama.

It is very possible to attend a church and not know exactly everything your preacher believes. I’ve had many preachers I disagreed with and still attended. For instance, there are a lot of Catholics who don’t support everything the Pope says, especially in terms of birth control and women’s rights. Going to church is just as much a social function as it is a spiritual one.

If Obama is to be held to a different standard about religion then fine with me.

You are correct, Dems are famous for screwing up presidential elections.

Lisa:

The media didn’t ignore Romney’s Mormonism at all. That’s why he had to make a speech about it. While it is true that Mitt Romney did not have to make a point-by-point denial of every aspect of the Mormon faith, it’s also true that the media made his Mormonism an issue. I don’t know how you can say that Republicans got a free pass on religion this year, especially with the microscope Romney was under with the MSM.

But I’ll get back to my argument and let Jaz defend himself, since he’s perfectly capable of doing that. :)

Rev. Wright has a history of saying inflammatory things like the quotes which have been all over the press this week. He and Obama have a close relationship. That’s been well-established (in my view anyway). It’s indeed possible that the Obamas just attended this man’s church as a social affair. Many politicians do it. But why would you have a pastor who doesn’t share your values marry you and your wife, or baptize your children? He has said controversial things enough times that it’s hard to believe Obama didn’t have the slightest idea about the character of this man.

I’m not talking about knowing every single belief of a pastor. I think you’re right that there will always be things we haven’t heard about in a sermon. But if you go to a church for 20 years, it’s very likely you will get a good idea of that person’s core beliefs. My problem with what Obama has recently said is that he said it was the first time he had heard some of these statements by Jeremiah Wright. I don’t buy that at all.

It doesn’t matter what I say to you about this, because you’re loyal to your guy…and I respect that. I had enough doubts about Barack before this minister came along. I wasn’t going to vote for Obama before all this came up, and I still won’t vote for him in November. So at least I’m consistent. :)

Don’t be worried. I still think Barack wins the nomination. He’s got a bunch of delegates now, and I don’t think this will keep him from getting the nomination. After that, who knows?

Chris:

I’m not worried. I’ll vote for Obama or Hillary. Either are better choices than John McCain.

Not one time was Mitt Romney ever asked to reject or denounce mormon beliefs. Not once. He was given a free pass entirely and so is McCain. Never was he asked about Jackson Co. Missouri being the Garden of Eden and the spot where Jesus will return– which is totally out of touch with mainstream America and Biblical teachings. He gave a speech on his mormon beliefs because he felt compelled to. The media never once asked him about which mormon doctrines he agreed with and which he rejected. Not one time has McCain been asked to reject or denounce John Hagee or Rod Parsely, people he actively sought endorsement of. Barack has been asked numerous times to reject and denounce not only people he never sought endorsements from, i.e., Farakhan, but also been subjected to denounce his very own pastor of which he has been saying for years that he doesn’t always agree with everything Wright says and does.

You don’t have to believe Obama, or vote for him. As much as I’ve said Wright’s actions are detrimental to Obama, I also think they are no worse than McCain actively and openly flaunting endorsements from preachers who preach politically-filled hate nearly every day on their television programs. Hagee calls for the destruction of Israel and says America brought on hurricane Katrina. Wright says America brought on 9/11. Not much difference there.

Lisa:

With McCain and the religious right, we know that it’s a wink and nod type deal. He hates the religious right. Always has. He doesn’t like conservatives much, either. The fact that he’s using these endorsements to possibly gain support for the general election doesn’t change how he really feels about us. McCain has a history that shows him calling out the “agents of intolerance” in 2000 and Falwell and his ilk were still popular back then. He needs the religious right and Christian conservatives to support him in the general, so I can understand reaching out to people like Hagee. McCain can say all the conciliatory things he wants to, and most of us aren’t fooled, because we are fully aware that he’s just pandering to get votes, just like any other politician would.

The only reason I’m inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt here is because you know him, and I trust your judgment of people’s character. (Well, except for your portrayal on PN of Dubya, Rush, and numerous other people who happen to be Republicans, but that’s a subject for another post…) ;)

Jaz:

Chris,

So because Barack Obama’s close associate and mentor has been revealed to be an America hating racist you have managed to find yet more fodder to attack Mitt Romney with, a person no longer even in the presidential race, because of his religion?

How Mike Huckabee of you.

The two situations are not parallel. One discussion is about the, often misrepresented, doctrinal teachings of a specific religion and whether the candidate should have to answer for church doctrine.

And the other discussion is about the personal relationship between the possible next President of the United States and his close associating with an anti-semitic racist/race baiter and a domestic enemy of the county.

So no, as I said, it’s not about religion with this Wright flap.

It’s about judgment, questionable associations and core beliefs.

This is not a “side issue” as Chuck Schumer claimed on FOX News Sunday yesterday.

This situation speaks to a central issue of what it is that African American voters actually believe. And what Barack Obama is expected to buy into in order to gain their support. This is getting towards the real reason why it is that Obama has had a long association with this character. Two words: “street cred”.

As far as Romney goes, he freely admits that his faith “informs ” his positions on issues. He has explained himself up and down to no end exactly what role his religion plays in his life. So I do apply the standard of non-compartmentalization to Romney as he does himself. Again the situation is not parallel and only serves to confuse the issue.

Lisa,

Mentioning Romney in the context of this discussion is classic Chris obfuscation (or ‘derailing’ if you like). The strategy being, if he muddies than waters enough around all of these various distinct discussions, then out of the confusion and murkiness will arise a vindicated Barack Obama, rising out of the ashes of the discussion like a phoenix.

I don’t blame him for trying though. This is a fairly desperate situation for the Obama campaign. And like you, I believe that the best evidence I can see explaining why it is I should believe that Obama doesn’t subscribe to the same worldview as his pastor is the fact that Chris vouches for him.

And in the end I still would prefer him to Hillary Clinton in the oval office I suppose. But that sentiment may be fading depending on how Obama plays this.


Chris:

Jaz, if I was half as smart as you think you are I sure wouldn’t be reading blogs. I’m not derailing anything. I can’t help the fact that your man Romney belongs to one of the most hate-filled churches in American history. If there is anyone who should have their pastors checked out it is Romney. Oh wait, Romney is a high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Meaning he believes, by doctrine and rightful title, everything the mormon church has as doctrine. He is a pastor who has not once been asked to denounce the very doctrine he swore to his church he would protect. I’ve never even heard him referred to as a pastor/preacher, which he no doubt is. Talk about a free pass.

I said in my first reply that I agreed with Lisa on nearly every point she made. You were the one who said it was all about issues. And if that’s the case, then anyone who supports Mitt Romney should be very careful about wanting to make religion an issues test. There’s no derailing Jaz. It’s simply the fact that you argue against the very things you never want mentioned about your politics and your politicians. There hasn’t been a bigger free pass in all of presidential history as to what Big Love Mitt Romney has been given. But to you the situation is not parallel. I can’t help but think that if Barack Hussein Obama believed, like Romney does, that God lives on the planet Kolob and the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and one day Jesus will return to Missouri to build his New Kingdom, that you would be saying the situation is not parallel. Instead you would use that as a way to prove that Obama is not part of mainstream America and belongs to a wacko church with ulterior motives for this country. If the best you got is that I’m derailing then I don’t know why you wasted your time responding. I guess because it’s the best you got.

Jaz:

Is that a preview of the tone of BO’s speech tomorrow? First he’ll insult his audience than he’ll cite Mitt Romnney as somehow related to his situation?

I suppose this tactic of conflating the two situations is the best you got.

Lisa:

Gentlemen…tone down the personal stuff. I don’t care who started it, if you all can’t keep that under control, I’m going to close comments on this thread. I don’t want to shut anybody up, but I do expect that ya’ll keep it civil. Fair enough? :)

Chris:

Jaz, you are the one who said that ones personal religion is about issues. That it was “dismissive to attempt to separate” issues and “the philosophy behind what shapes” those issues. You even went so far as to say that so long as Obama remains part of Wright’s congregation, he is promoting that world view. You fail to mention that Wright no longer pastors Obama’s church, thus Obama no longer remains part of his congregation. You also fail to mention that Obama has denounced Wright’s remarks numerous times routinely stating that he does not agree with Wright. What else can he do?

If it’s so dismissive to separate issues, as you say it is, then the same is true for Mitt Romney. Those are your words. I agreed with Lisa from the start. You were the one saying oh no, religion is about issues and is the philosophy which guides the issues. Okay, that’s fine with me, but the same holds true for Republicans. Mitt Romney, who is a member of the only organized religion to ever take up arms against the American government, never once was asked what parts of the hate-filled speech of the mormon church he agreed with. He was never asked to denounce any of it. And if religion is the philosophy that guides issues, then Mitt Romney– who is actively pursuing the office of the VP– subscribes to the philosophy that God lives on planet Kolob and Jackson Co., Missouri is the Garden of Eden. That women only gain salvation through their husbands and Romney unequivacally believes that he himself is a prophet. What in the world would Sean Hannity have to say if Barack Hussein Obama believed himself to be an ordained prophet and was a member of the only organized religion to ever take up arms against the American governmnent? This is the very philosophy and world view that guides Mitt Romney’s issues, according to you that is.

There’s no derailing Jaz. You can’t just apply one set of rules to one person and not the other. I’ll happily agree that religion is the philosophy that guides issues as long as we can use it accordingly, but apparently not. If anyone is trying to conflate it’s you.

Lisa, sorry. I wasn’t trying to be uncivil. But I certainly wasn’t derailing anything either.

Jaz:

“…you are the one who said that ones personal religion is about issues.”

I assume that this incorrect statement refers to when I said that Obama’s affiliation with this pastor is about issues.

I’m not sure why it so unclear to you that I’m not suggesting that Obama must now answer for the doctrine of his church.

Many would argue that in fact the philosophy of Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with any precepts of Christianity. Many of Wright’s teachings are decidedly un-Christian.

This discussion of Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright is simply not about church doctrine.

The concerns are: What evidence do we have that proves that Obama does not believe in these things that Wright says? And, what does it say of Obama’s judgment to be commander in chief that he would choose to align with this man who he and the campaign had to have known could be potentially disastrous to any effort in courting the votes of what Wright vindictively calls “White America”?

I would never take Obama to task because many Christians believe that Moses parted the seas, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or any other aspect of his religion that I might find wacky or unbelievable. This is the last time I’m going to explain that the two situations are separate discussions. You’ve attempted to twist what I said and then use it as some sort of defense for Obama’s political alliance with Jeremiah Wright. I’m not somehow applying a different standard to Romney as I would to Obama. So you can keep repeating all the aspects of Mormonism that don’t comport with mainstream religions all day, but they have no bearing on this discussion of Obama’s political alliance with Wright. Kolob, Kolob, Kolob. Now can we get back to discussing Obama?

I find it almost unbelievable almost that you are arguing that it has been Romney and not Obama that has been given a “free pass” when it comes to media scrutiny vis a vis religion. Did you not see the SNL skit Hillary loves to reference? The media has been so enamored of Obama that even fellow leftie comedy shows have taken to lampooning them.

It is only now that the media is finally starting to apply a level of scrutiny to Obama that is appropriate considering the fact that he is after the most important job in the entire world.

You can’t somehow blame Mitt Romney that Obama is struggling under this level of media scrutiny.

The bottom line is, and I think you and Obama know this but just can’t say it, that Obama had to align with Jeremiah Wright in order to solidify the black vote. This is a mega-church that Wright has preached from which represents possibly a very large voting bloc which is seen as critical to any Obama presidential bid. A parallel situation would be when a Republican candidate courts the mega churches of the evangelical right but doesn’t necessarily buy into all the things that are preached there.

You should be happy, I’m giving Obama the all important “pass” that you imagine Mitt Romney was somehow the beneficiary of.

After listening to Juan Williams and others lately I’m prepared to believe that Obama’s relationship with Wright was more political than it was religious or philosophical. I am prepared to agree with you that Obama does not subscribe to the same hate America world view that he had have known was held by Wright.

And I just don’t buy this argument that somehow Obama was never present during any of his pastor’s hate speech. I imagine an SNL type of skit lampooning this situation where the top people of the Obama campaign had to go in a conference room for 48 hours to brain storm what kind of argument to use to defend Obama’s relationship with Wright.

Some people, led by Michelle Obama, wanted to argue that there isn’t all that much wrong with what Wright preeches. Others advocated the “crazy uncle” defense. Some suggested that if some the wacky tenets of Mormonism are mentioned enough that somehow Obama will be excused from consorting with an America hating racist hate monger because Mormons believe god lives on Kolob.

The argument that the Obama people seem to have settled on is almost breathtakingly unbelievable, that somehow Obama was never present during these speeches and that he essentially had no idea as to the extent of Wright’s anti-American rhetoric.

The amalgamation of all these defenses that I’ve heard made by various surrogates sound like this:

“Well, what it is that Wright said that’s so bad? OK he said bad stuff, but he’s really more like Obama’s crazy uncle. Kolob, Kolob, Kolob… Obama was never present during any of these speeches.”

When we all now know that the real answer is political. Which makes sense, after all Obama is a politician, this is what he does. He makes alliances with various groups in order to consolidate support. I have no problem with that.

I only now wonder how it that Obama and his campaign staff, who have all performed pretty flawlessly so far, failed to foresee the potential trouble that this association with Wright could cause and is causing.

Olbermann Jumps the Shark

This guy is a complete and utter pseudo intellectual tool.

He's from the school of "the more quasi-big words I use, the smarter I sound".

Ugh.. he's so laughable. "Events insist" indeed. Events insist that you are a moron, Mr Olbermann for castigating so thoroughly Geraldine Ferraro for making benign comments when compared to the recently revealed teachings from the spiritual adviser of the candidate that you are so painfully obviously promoting while you masquerade as a journalist.

This is what passes for great thinking on the left.

meanwhile, I have been silenced on this matter when attempting to discuss it on this pro-Obama blog, that for some reason I'm being denied access to

Romney & Hannity

neither

who's ready?

I love it when Hillary Clinton attacks Obama with ads that highlight the fact that Democrats are ill equipped to protect us from our enemies. I guess the Obama people probably imagine that their candidate is being "swift boated" in this ad.

The below video is a funny spoof that lampoons Hillary but of course doesn't make the point that Obama is at all prepared to deal with any international crisis any more than she is. This whole argument should serve as a warning to voters that both Democratic candidates are unfit to be president.

the turban flap and the final word on flip flopping

Hillary Clinton, when asked about it, didn't exactly deny the charge that her campaign chose to circulate the above picture that first appeared on the Drudge report. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called the move “...the most shameful offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election."

It remains to be seen what effect the disbursement of this photo will have on American voters who most likely are not appreciative of the finer points of Taliban-esque fashion.

However, my concern here is the endless use of the term "fear mongering" by those on the left side of the aisle. It is overused and almost exclusively employed by those on the left. Further, the term starts to become a caricature of itself (for lack of a better depiction) when you stop and consider that by running around proclaiming "fear mongering" in everything that the people making the charge are themselves fear mongering. The net result is to attempt to make people afraid of fear mongering. Democrats are, at this point, fearful of fear mongering.

And like a few other bumper sticker tag-lines that Democrats use, it has been used so often and applied to so many situations that it is watered down to the point where it has almost no meaning. The term "swift-boated" , which apparently now applies to any negative campaign attack no matter how substantive is another term that I would ask be retired for similar reasons. Also, the expansion of the definition of what many on the left believe constitutes a "flip-flop" has watered the term down to the point where it apparently applies to every politician who has ever changed their position on any issue, for any reason, over any period of time. When a term is applied so generically like this it loses any distinctive meaning. For example, back in 2004 John Kerry flip-flopped when he said that he voted for the 80 million "...before he voted against it." This was an example trying to have it both ways within the span of one statement. This was back when "flip-flop" meant changing your position within a very short amount of time for political reasons. Apparently now the term flip-flop applies to any policy position change that occurs for any reason during any amount of time. Since this would apply to almost every politician under the sun, the term has now lost meaning and like the terms "fear mongering" and "swift-boated", it should be retired due to bastardization, co-option, and overuse.

Just words. Just not Obama's

The Clinton campaign has accused Obama of plagarizing Deval Patrick when he used nearly identical language in a speech the other night that Patrick used on Boston Common in 2006. The similarities of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama have been chronicled before here. The two men are friends and it doesn't surprise me that they share speeches and, unlike the Clinton campaign, I don't see this as a "where's the beef" gotcha moment. If both parties have no objections, then there is really no problem with two allied politicians sharing the same rhetoric. Deval Patrick responded to this incident by saying,

"Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him [for] responding in just the way he did."

I can't imagine that anyone would at this point be terribly surprised to learn that Obama is using the same playbook that Deval used to wax poetic his way to office. In the end, this is nothing more than manufactured controversy concocted by a flailingly desperate Clinton Campaign.

the movie

Coda

The last hope of conservatives that they might have some representation in November has dwindled away to nothing. Mitt Romney has just suspended his presidential campaign.

Despite all the heaps and heaps of criticism and questioning of everything from his religion, to his conservative credentials, to his stance on the Iraq war, this man was a great candidate. Today is a sad day for conservatives, for Republicans, and for America.

Conservative talk radio decided too late to support Romney and now they have ended up with a presidential candidate who has been the bane of their existence for decades in John McCain who has taken the opportunity to side against conservatives and conservatism almost whenever given the chance.

I suppose Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul remain in the race which isn't a surprise given the politically tone deaf nature of their campaigns. By suspending his campaign now, Romney graciously allows McCain to consolidate Republican support behind him. I would expect nothing less from the man I have passionately supported for years. Today Mitt Romney has acted in accordance with the way he ran his campaign, with class and selflessness.

Independents for Romney

As an independent/unenrolled voter, I hadn't planned on voting in today's Massachusetts primary election. I was under the impression that these were "closed" primaries, but after John McCain won the GOP primary in Florida as a direct result of independents and Democrats voting for him, I figured I would at least try to go and vote for my candidate.

And vote I did, for Mitt Romney. No ID was needed and once I found my name on the rolls I was asked which party's primary I would like to vote in. "Republican", I said happily and moments later I had cast my vote for Romney, hopefully canceling out one of the the countless other independents and Democrats in Massachusetts who today voted for McCain in a contest many believed was restricted to only those registered in a given party.

While I was pleased to be allowed to vote, I would have preferred to have been prevented from voting since I am not in fact a registered Republican.

The fact that independents and Democrats can vote in a GOP primary is disturbing. Given that there really is no difference in terms of policy between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton I imagine that there will be quite a few left-leaning individuals voting for John McCain, thereby corrupting the purity of what should be a contest amongst Republicans rather than the general electorate.

I think the argument that McCain is a conservative and has conservative Republican support will be settled by the end of today's voting when we see the typical Florida-type results where McCain wins, not on the basis of conservative Republican support but because of the independent and Democratic vote.

The latest John McCain TV ad boasts, "John McCain: the True Conservative". That is correct, if by "conservative" they mean "guy who votes with liberals".

mythbusting

As I was reading the lengthy comment section of the latest Hugh Hewitt piece, I came across this gem. I have been ham-handed in my defense of the charge that Romney has flip flopped on issues when compared to this concise run-down written by fellow unknown conservative blogger laboring in virtual (ha) obscurity, Ryan Larsen. As usual, click the title of this post to see the referenced composition.

"This is not just Overbite; it's the media. I'd like to talk about the fact that the timetable charge is not the only false charge made against Romney. If you go down the line you see distortion after distortion.

For example, they say that Romney flip-flopped on Immigration, charging that he supported McCain’s bill in 2005 and that he had sanctuary cities in Massachusetts. But the fact is, sanctuary status was instituted on a city level that Romney had nothing to do with and with a liberal legislature there was nothing he could do about it. And Romney did not endorse McCain’s bill in 2005. In fact he explicitly said he was not willing to endorse it. He did say that it was “reasonable” but the 2007 bill is very different from the 2005 bill and the provisions Romney objects strongly to like the z-visa, were NOT in the 2005 bill. So his position did not change, the bill changed.

They also say he changed on the death penalty because he didn’t execute anyone in Massachusetts. But the fact is, Massachusetts doesn’t have the death penalty and Mitt Romney fought to try to get one.

They also say that Mitt Romney changed on gay marriage. But the fact is, Romney has always been against gay marriage.

In 1994 he said he supported gay rights, but the term “gay rights” had a different meaning in 1994 than it does today.

They also say that he changed on waiting periods for guns. But the fact is, Romney supports background checks and because technology has changed, waiting periods are no longer required for background checks.

They say that Romney refused to comment on Bush’s tax cuts, but the fact is, when he was asked he was trying to pass a budget through a liberal legislature and wisely chose to stay out of national politics.

They also claim that the total tax burden went up under Romney, but the numbers they use include city taxes. At the state level, taxes went down because Romney cut them. And then they try to say that fees are like taxes. And I’m surprised at how many conservatives don’t understand that fees are conservative. A fee covers the cost for a special good or service (similar to paying a local business except it’s the government); when the fee is not high enough to cover the cost of the service provided, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing. Romney saved tax dollars by eliminating the taxpayer subsidizing of fees. This is conservative because if I lose my drivers license, why should tax dollars be used to get me a new one?

And then with the Martin Luther King stuff, they conveniently leave out the fact that George Romney not only led civil rights marches but Martin Luther King Jr. actually said that he thought George Romney would make a good president.

And then another distortion is they claim that Mitt Romney put 50 dollar abortion co-pays into his healthcare plan. But that’s a lie. It was a court decision that did that, it was not in the bill.

These facts need to get out"

The sell out express

Conservative thinker Thomas Sowell has written a scathing piece regarding the very same subject matter that I have been addressing here at length lately. Sowell suggests that McCain's lies about Romney are a symptom of a larger issue, namely his lack of character and his general dishonor.

"We have been hearing for years that Senator John McCain gives 'straight talk' and his bus has been endlessly referred to as the 'Straight Talk Express.' But endless repetition does not make something true.

The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker.

There are short, blunt lies — and he told a big one on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Even the Washington Post, which supports McCain, said that the senator 'has distorted the meaning' of what Governor Romney said, that Romney 'has never proposed setting a date for withdrawal.’

During Mitt Romney’s ABC News interview that Senator McCain twisted, Governor Romney was asked by the interviewer whether he agreed with President Bush’s veto of congressional legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal, and whether Romney as President would veto similar legislation.

'Of course,' was Romney’s reply. There was no ambiguity.

Confronted with his lie on Wednesday night’s debate, McCain blustered and filibustered in a manner reminiscent of Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny, when he was caught in a lie during a navy inquiry.

When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.

Let’s talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming president of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.

The presidency is a heavy responsibility for the future of the nation, including generations yet unborn. Character and integrity are major qualifications.

The passing years and a friendly media have allowed Senator McCain’s shortcomings in the character and integrity department to fade into the background.

McCain was one of 'the Keating Five' — senators who used their influence to try to protect a failing savings & loan company, which also became the subject of a corruption investigation.

During the 2000 primaries, the Associated Press reported Senator McCain’s joking about people with Alzheimer’s.

This went beyond bad taste because (1) it was known at the time that Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s and (2) the media to whom McCain was pandering hated Ronald Reagan.

It is especially ironic now to see McCain wrapping himself in the mantle of President Reagan.

With the momentum of his Florida primary win behind him, going into the 'Super Tuesday' primaries, John McCain has now been restored to the position of front runner that the media gave him at the outset.

Other Republicans are jumping on his bandwagon. This may have less to do with McCain’s own qualities than with the prospect of getting Cabinet posts or Supreme Court appointments as rewards for their political support.

It may all look like a done deal. But the McCain-Kennedy bill giving amnesty to illegal aliens looked like a done deal two years ago — until the public realized the truth behind the spin and brought that sell-out to a screeching halt.

Super Tuesday may be the voters’ last chance to bring the so-called 'straight talk express' to a screeching halt.

It should be called the 'sell-out express' because McCain has sold out not only with amnesty for illegal aliens but also sold out the First Amendment with the McCain-Feingold 'campaign finance reform' bill that was supposed to take big money out of political campaigns, but blatantly has not.

McCain also sold out on judicial nominations by making his own side deal with the Democrats, undercutting Republican attempts to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees instead of voting them up or down.

This is quite a record for someone running as a straight talker.

McLame

John McCain's debate performance last night was an affront to reason. It grated on every precept of logical discourse and good taste.

Listening to McLame attempt to explain why he has been lying about Romney's record on Iraq war policy was a crash course in all that is wrong in politics. The kind of answers McCain gives, full of obfuscation and topic jumping, are part of the reason why so many non-political junkies are so disenchanted with politics and politicians. And listening to John McCain drone on generically and uninspiringly last night, I don't blame them. The only time John McCain said anything interesting or exciting was when he was relentlessly reinforcing his lies and circling the wagons in defense of his mind-bending twists and turns of the truth.

"Romney supported a time table for withdrawing American troops from Iraq like Hillary Clinton does."

No, categorically wrong. This accusation is a complete and intentional mischaracterization of Romney's philosophical and literal position on the Iraq war.

Romney batted down all of McCain’s intentional misrepresentations of the facts last night immediately and forcefully. By any kind of objective standard resembling anything close to the truth, Romney trounced McCain last night. But to listen to the pro-McCain CNN 'experts’ after the debate, the fact that Romney effectively confronted each and every fraudulent charge directly, honestly, and succinctly was unremarkable. The CNN panel must not have been watching the same footage I was. In fact, I’m not sure how any adult who comprehends the English language could watch last night’s debate a conclude that McCain came out on top.

If I was in a coma for the last 5 years and just woke up in time to watch last night’s debate, I would come away with the same conclusion I do now. Because, regardless of the issues, I would see how illogically and churlishly John McBlame was behaving. He debates like a Democrat, which shouldn’t come as a surprise since he is one. He rarely answers a question or charge directly, if at all. For example, the final question of the debate last night was:

“Would Ronald Reagan endorse you? And if so, why?”

McCain responded:

“Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is.

Ronald Reagan -- Ronald Reagan came with an unshakable set of principles, and there were many times, like when he had to deploy the (INAUDIBLE) cruise missile to Europe and there were hundreds of thousands of demonstrators against it, he stood with it. Ronald Reagan had a deal in Reykjavik that everybody wanted him to take, but he stuck with his principles.

I think he knows that I stick with my principles. I put my political career on the line because I knew what would happen if we failed in Iraq.

I hope that the experience I had serving as a foot soldier in his revolution would make him proud for me to continue that legacy of sticking to principle and doing what you believe in, no matter what.”

Summary? Rather than answer the question, McCain took a final cheap jab at Romney, mentioned some Reagan history and finished up with a general platitude.

If that same answer had come from Romney, Anderson “in-the-tank-for-McCain” Cooper would have followed up with something like, “So… does that mean that he would endorse you or not?” But at after 10 o’clock on a Wednesday night, the vibe with old man McLame was, just move on, it’s getting late and McCain is getting (more) angry and tired. Cooper was too afraid to press John McCranky, so he just let it go. Another bad moment for McLame swept under the rug by the MSM, whose bias was on full display last night.

In fact, CNN was running a clinic on leftie media bias last night. Anderson Cooper completely blew off the results of an entire Frank Luntz-esque focus group in which Mitt Romney scored extremely well. He listened to the report on the focus group from Erica Hill and then went directly to commercial promising to “discuss the results [of the focus group] after the break”. When the program returned from commercial, a long clip of Ron Paul played followed by a lengthy panel discussion about how great McCain and Huckabee were in the debate. How stupid CNN must imagine people are. If you are going to take the time to run an in depth focus group, you should at least address the results in any panel discussion that follows. But because the results were so overwhelmingly pro-Romney, they swept them under the rug. It was a moment that exceeded even some of the most brazen and careless examples of media bias I have ever seen. It was a Stalin-esque moment of straight up censorship and reverse propaganda.

Conclusion? CNN is biased and Anderson Cooper is a twit. He would not shut up at certain points to let the candidates explain themselves, stammering over Romney’s attempt to bring some clarity to the discussion of his own April 2007 Iraq comments. "How is it that you're the expert on my opinion on Iraq?" Romney turned and questioned McCain. And just when Romney began to make progress and really make McLame look bad, Anderson Cooper shouted over him, brusquely changing the subject back to one where Romney was again on the defensive.

If I were on the left side of the aisle, I’d be rolling in the aisle watching last night's debate. The idea that Democrats are afraid to face John McCain in a general election is a red herring, by the way. If I'm an Obama supporter, for example, I'm looking forward to seeing my guy run circles around a confused, backward looking, angry old man in John McCain. And the MSM will turn on McLame so fast in a general election, it will make your head spin. Right now they're holding back and even propping up McLame. All of the bogus charges the left and their like-minded pals in the MSM have come up with have already been leveled at Romney, while McCain has been issued a temporary free pass. It’s so obvious what is going on here with McCain, the left, and the MSM. They want McCain as a fall back plan if somehow Americans are not yet ready to elect an anti-war woman or far left African American.

If Republicans are collectively too foolish to figure out what is going on and they continue to vote for Huckabee in droves, for example, then they don’t even deserve to win the presidency anyway. Dark days will be descending on Republicans and conservatives if we continue down the dreary path that is a John McCain nomination.

would reagan endorse you?

The great one speaketh

Goerge Will and others have written devastating articles about John McCain and his countless flaws. While these efforts certainly help, it is not enough to merely tell the truth about McCain. Mark Levin has now sharpened the anti-McCain message and attached the necessary conclusion: That conservatives must rally for Romney.

McStain

John McCain did not win amongst Republican voters tonight in a race that was supposedly a "closed" primary. I guess it was wishful thinking to assume that everything would be on the up-and-up in the land of 'hanging chads'. Exit polling data showed that Romney won by a few percentage points amongst actual Republicans, but McCain ended up defeating Romney once all of the non-conservative and independent votes were counted. Apparently independents showed up at polling places and declared themselves Republicans on the spot and promptly voted for McCain. Call me crazy, but I was under the impression that these events were 'the Republican primaries' not merely primary events in which Republicans happened to be running.

"Romney won [The GOP vote] 33-31 according to CNN exits. Even in Florida, independents were McCain's margin of victory. Kind of incredible." -Rich Lowry

According to the exit polls in tonight's "Republican" Primary, only 8 in 10 voters were actually registered Republicans. Somehow Independents and Democrats managed to account for 20 percent of the Florida Republican primary vote again corrupting the process and making it look more and more like the general election choice will between a Democrat and Democrat pretending to be a Republican. The New York Times will be pleased.

I wonder if now McStain will at least stop inventing facts about his opponents. I guess we'll see what lies he comes up with about either Hillary or Obama. It will be poetic justice to have the McStain dishonor campaign go up against the Clinton character assassination attack machine. After all, they essentially have the same campaign strategy, characterized by avoiding mentioning their own shaky records and instead simply making up lies about and personally attacking the character of their opponents. And on a side note, they also both have their own special type of creepy laugh. The forced, inappropriate cackle of Hillary will go up against the angry and over-confident snicker of old man McStain. These two candidates, Hillary and McCain, do truly deserve each other.

It's still hard to comprehend that all of the sleazy tactics of McStain ultimately paid off tonight. After all the lies, all the distortions, all the personal attacks, all the robo-calls and the push polling, all the tag teaming and piling on with help from henchman Huckabee and this is how the results turn out? It's hard to be optimistic about our country tonight, the dumbing down of America is in full effect.

And as if the tag team duo of McStain and Hackleberry wasn't enough, it now appears that Giuliani will bow out and endorse McStain. If you didn't have a reason to question the conservative credentials of Giuliani before, you do now.

I haven't quite given up hope yet that there might be some conservative representation moving forward into November but tonight it's hard to see the silver lining. If there are any conservatives left in America, I urge you to please vote for Mitt Romney because any Republican who votes for McCain is either not any kind conservative, a shockingly uninformed conservative, or a RINO.

A sad state of affairs

Desperation

John McCain makes me sick. He has now taken to inventing facts about Mitt Romney.

In the last 24 hours, he has accused Mitt Romney of having "wanted to set a date for withdrawal [from Iraq] that would have meant disaster."

This statement is untrue, as in false, incorrect, fictitious.

That is the beginning and end of the debate on this issue. John McCain is making statements about Romney, as Obama said of Bill Clinton's South Carolina attacks, "...that are unsupported by the facts".

This is yet more evidence that John McCain is a Democrat. Or at least, he certainly represents the worst of Democratic tactics as made evident by this latest reprehensible and blatantly desperate attack strategy. He is going well beyond distorting an opponent's record into straight up inventing facts about it.

McCain is also demonstrating that he is a very stupid man. Did he not see what just happened to Hillary in South Carolina? Barack Obama just wiped the floor with Hillary for many reasons, chiefly among them a backlash against the over the top and fictitious attacks made by Bill Clinton against Obama.

McCain admits that he knows next to nothing about how the economy works, so I can see why he would want to change the subject. But by trying to mislead voters about an opponent's record he again reveals why he is severely lacking of the character one would want in a commander in chief. John McCain is supposedly honorable? There is no honor in lying about the record of your opponent simply because he is surpassing you in the polls.

John McCain represents the worst kind of old school, egotistical, and cheesy politician. Even if he wasn't a RINO, I would never vote for a man of his ilk. This latest behavior is without honor. He deserves to lose in Florida and be driven from the race. And then he should go sit in the corner with a dunce cap on.

good ole Fred

redound against them

old media, old guard

The New York Times, standard bearer of the old school left-wing dinosaur media, has endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain. To anyone who finds themselves agreeing with the New York Times editorial pages more often than not, these are your candidates.

Those of us who do not agree with the New York Times editorial pages on a regular basis should take notice of these endorsements and vote accordingly.

If the New York Times were to endorse Mitt Romney, for example, it could be a crippling blow to his campaign. But somehow, since McCain is already the media darling, the fact that the far left bastion of the New York Times has endorsed him will most likely go unnoticed and underreported.

"We'll always stand strong together"

Fred Thompson has officially withdrawn from the presidential race. With no campaign events planned in Florida and a top adviser explaining why Fred would make a good vice-president, one might have seen the writing on the wall. His final speech was sadly one of his most forceful, as if to lay to rest once and for all the notion that the man is without passion.

"We will always be bound by a close bond because we have traveled a very special road together for a very special purpose. We'll always stand strong together... we'll always stand strong together, and I can't thank you enough for that."

I hope that we do all stand together. And by 'together' I mean with Mitt Romney, the only remaining conservative in the race who is not required to finish first in Florida in order to justify further campaigning.

With the Fred votes now up for grabs, we have to focus on the next order of business: John McCain. Having him in the race is like having a Democrat in the Republican primary. He must be defeated as the first order of business. In order to do that, Republican voters will have to settle on a single alternative sooner than they might have wanted to.

Of course, it would be nice if pastor Huckabee realized that his own one-dimensional appeal precludes his viability, but driving McCain out of the race takes priority at the moment. So, to the conservative forces of the blogosphere and elsewhere, train your rhetorical guns on McCain and commence firing!

Strategery

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune is urging conservatives to cease the 'whompin' of John McCain.

"While they're whomping, they might want to answer this question: Don't they want to win the White House?

Or would they feel better if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were commander in chief, dealing with the Islamofascists, filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court and turning the Justice Department over to a big city political machine?"

As a Romney supporter, I have to admit that I have used this kind of an argument to attempt to convince people not to vote for Mike Huckabee. My rationale is simple; if Huckabee wins the nomination, he will certainly lose the general election almost solely because he does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. I simply don't believe that Americans, in this day and age, would elect such a blatant enemy of science and scientific advancement.

But the argument that I had better embrace McCain or face the prospect of a Barack Obama presidency, for example, is not convincing. I know that it's a conservative apostasy to say this, but I think I would prefer Obama to McCain at this point, so to try to scare me with an Obama presidency rings hollow.

Hillary Clinton is attacking Obama on the campaign trail today because in a radio interview Obama conceded that, "I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Obama is of course, correct. Whether Republicans can still claim to be the party of ideas is perhaps debatable, but this statement by Obama shows remarkable frankness and an accurate grasp of reality.

Hillary responded in a nasty tone, "That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years."

Here we have an example of the stark contrast of old style partisanship -not willing to concede anything- versus forward looking open-mindedness and a willingness to bring in new ideas, regardless of the source. This is a mature attitude for Obama to adopt and I have to say that I am impressed.

In another study of contrast, McCain seems anything but mature at times. In his ABC New Hampshire debate performance he looked at times childish, petty, and thin-skinned. Couple this with the fact that his 'maverick' attitude seems at times to adopt the contrarian view simply for the sake of being contrarian and we have a picture of a man who, like Hillary, represents the old style of ego-politics. McCain seems obsessed with showing that he is own man at the expense of his own willingness to listen to good ideas. In this regard Obama seems to have much more of a sensible and reasonable approach. As right leaning individuals, we don’t ask that liberals become conservatives overnight, but a willingness to at least listen to conservative ideas and not dismiss them out of hand like Hillary Clinton would is refreshing. Maybe there is something to the ‘new politics’ that Obama seems to be peddling. One thing is sure, Hillary Clinton represents the old guard, characterized by bitter partisanship, the politics of polarization, and the politics of personal destruction. There is not a more divisive figure in American politics than Hillary Clinton.

I would welcome a debate on ideas between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and I hope that they both win their respective nominations. Both men strike me as honorable and earnest in their desire to improve the country. Of course, because Republicans are more interested in substance than they are flowery rhetoric, we have the benefit of knowing a lot more about what Romney would do as president when compared to the tabula rasa of Barrack Obama. And While Romney has had to go into much greater detail about issues of policy than any Democrat has ever been asked to, we can at least have the 'audacity to hope' that Obama would be a president who would listen to well reasoned ideas regardless of the source.

I really don’t care if Hillary is considered more beatable than Obama in a general election and similarly, I don’t care if McCain is considered more viable than Romney in a general election. It’s time to dump the old guard, time to bring about more solutions instead of more Hillary Clinton 90’s style partisanship and/or the ego trip of John McCain.

"Manifestly the best candidate."

Ann Coulter has written a very illuminating and somewhat scathing article explaining to Republican voters, hopefully once and for all, that Mitt Romney is "...manifestly the best candidate."

Coulter makes an argument that I have been making for about six months now and that Rush Limbaugh has been hinting at lately. The argument is essentially this:

"The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide."

Coulter chides voters who have thus far supported Mike Huckabee and/or John McCain. And as I have pointed out in various formats, the votes for McCain or Huckabee are derived from almost any other method than critical thinking. Emotion, identity politics, popularity contest, nostalgia, random implulses ... pick your poison, but those who take a moment to think things through in only even the most minor of ways will arrive at the same unmistakable conclusion that Ms. Coulter has.

"One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain."

Coulter brazenly chastises her own audience, urging Republican voters to "...please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car."

I share her frustration with some of the voters so far who, other than in Michigan and Wyoming, seem to treat the election with a noticeable lack of seriousness and due diligence. It would be nice if voters could take a break from watching American Idol and tracking the latest Britney Spears news long enough to put at least some thought into who should be elected as the next leader of the free world.

No-Mentum

Chaos Theory?

Does Romney's win in Michigan represent a three way split for the Reagan Coalition?

I know what my answer is. Here's a hint... No. Romney is strong in all three areas of concern: Economic, National Security, and Social.

On the heels of tonight's Romney win comes the latest talking point out of the McCain camp, that Romney was somehow against the surge and has been or is anti-Iraq war. Just like the McCain campaign would like us to believe that McCain is a tax cutter and that he's tough on illegal immigration, this 'Romney was anti-war' argument is divorced from reality. Let me save the McCain camp countless advertisement dollars.

There is no substantive piece of evidence that you can point to that suggests that Romney has been or is anti-Iraq war.

If I was advising the McCain campaign, I'd advise against attacking Romney for not being Hawk-ish enough on the war in Iraq. It would further burnish the notion that McCain is a one issue candidate. That, and it has no basis in objective reality. Romney, by no stretch of the imagination, has ever been opposed to the surge. Short of jumping up and down with pom poms, Romney has been in full support of our efforts in Iraq. Let us also remember that on the issue of torture, that while McCain has the high moral ground for being categorically against it, Romney has the more responsible and more practical approach by not arbitrarily ruing it out. So if anything, McCain is weak on national security when compared directly to Romney. In any event, there simply is no running room with this issue for McCain based upon objective reality.

Romney takes Michigan

Michigan

Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani

The days of this race characterized by having unacceptable Republican candidates as front runners may be drawing to a close. Jay Cost of RCP makes some interesting points about the McCain candidacy, the Romney candidacy, and the (Republican) race in general.

"Examining congressional endorsements for McCain and Romney, excluding in-state supporters (as they often act more out of home state pride than ideological proximity), we find some interesting results. 34 Republicans have endorsed Mitt Romney, while just 24 have endorsed McCain. Furthermore, Romney's supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for McCain's supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states."

"I do not think that McCain can end the nomination battle with wins in Michigan and South Carolina. Because conservative leaders dislike him, I think they might 'rediscover' a viable alternative to him. Romney, Thompson, or even Giuliani could be brought back to life in a final effort to stop McCain."

"...Everything that has been written here applies to Mike Huckabee all the more. Huckabee is even more unacceptable to conservative leaders (he has the endorsement of only three out-of-state Republican members of Congress). His campaign even seems to be courting their contempt. McCain, to his credit, has worked hard since the immigration bill not to thumb his nose at conservative leaders. But not Huckabee. And I think that they would only accept Huckabee's nomination after he has won a majority of delegates. Until then, they'll find somebody, anybody to oppose him."

There is a growing consensus building amongst the Republicans who are not jumping onto the John McCain and Mike Huckabee popularity contest/populism bandwagon. That is, any combination of Romney, Thompson, or Giuiliani is preferable to John McCain or Mike Huckabee.

Escape & Evasion

Fred Thompson was strong in last night's South Carolina GOP debate. For once, it wasn't only Romney who effectively targeted Mike Huckabee for the pretender that he is.

In one exchange, Thompson ticked off a devastating litany of the not-so-conservative credentials of Mr. Huckabee. When given the chance to respond, as pointed out by the guys at Powerline, Huckabee addressed exactly none of the very valid points made by Thompson.

Instead, Huckabee smiled and trotted out one of his tired cliches:

"The Air Force has a saying that says that if you're not catching flak, you're not over the target. I'm catching the flak, I must be over the target."

This huckster-ism wasn't even appropriate. He's certainly not "catching flak" because he is too conservative, that's for sure. In fact, exactly the opposite. If the "target" is Reagan conservatism, he's at least three timezones away from being "over the target". Chuckabee must have zoned out during Thompson's laundry list because this generic answer, meant to charm the audience, was not a good fit rhetorically based upon what Thompson said.

I, for one, have had my fill of one-liners and quips in this election cycle. Mike Huckabee is trying to smile and wise crack his way into the White House at this point. He's the used car salesman of Presidential politics.

Here's what Thompson said of Huckabee to which the silver tongued Huckster escaped and evaded with no substantive response:

"This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and its future. On the one hand, you have the Reagan revolution. You have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security.

On the other hand, you have the direction that Governor Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies. He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy and the tradition of, blame America first. He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer-funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states' rights. So much for individual rights.

That's not the model of the Reagan coalition, that's the model of the Democratic Party."

Right on Fred, right on.

the Silver (lining)

While real conservatives may be disappointed with a second place finish by Governor Romney in Tuesday's NH primary election, I would hasten to point out several items.

The state of New Hampshire, which allows independents to vote in either primary, is one well suited to a centrist like John McCain. Before the results were revealed last night, many pundits believed that there would be a heavy independent break towards Barack Obama resulting in the trouncing of Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, this analysis was woefully incorrect. Perhaps it was a case of the media shaping the results by leading independents to believe that since Obama was going to win resoundingly, independents could now vote for McCain in what may have been perceived by the public to have been the closer race. Whatever the case may be, McCain was able to garner the affections of moderate and even probably some left leaning voters and Romney did well amongst conservatives, as in, those of us you want the borders closed, want lower taxes and less government intrusion into our daily lives. The AP is reporting that, “In New Hampshire, McCain won among moderates and independents — despite his strong right-leaning Senate voting record — while Romney had an edge with hard-core conservatives.” If you also keep in mind the fact that McCain skipped Iowa to do several straight weeks of campaigning in the Granite State, I think it's fair to conclude that McCain had a kind of unnatural advantage. McCain may have been able to win over independents in New Hampshire using largely an emotional appeal, but it will be interesting to see how he does in states in which he cannot rely on voters who might usually vote for Democrats. Many anti-Romney pundits assert that since Romney has his own personal fortune to contribute to his campaign that there is no excuse as to why he did not win in NH. These same pundits never mention the fact that Romney out raised McCain in NH by nearly 2 to 1. So, the anti-Romney pundits can bash Romney for having the ability to contribute to his own campaign and spin it as a somehow a bad thing, but the fact remains that Romney is raising more money than all other Republican candidates. How you can construe either the ability to contribute to your own campaign or the ability to raise more money than your opponents, as a negative is certainly foreign to my way of thinking. How do these various right leaning, in some cases, pundits imagine that a Republican candidate would be better poised to defeat the now back on track Hillary Clinton coronation machine? The idea that raising or having more money for your campaign is a drawback is ludicrous.

Mike Huckabee proved in Iowa that in a presidential race, money isn’t everything. If you have a fairly mindless voting bloc that votes on the basis of identity politics and/or an ‘us vs. them’ message of economic populism, all the money in the world won’t stem a lemming-like tsunami of voters who vote more by mood than they do critical thinking. There are, luckily, objective criteria one can use for determining who is leading in a given presidential race. If you throw out all of the media noise, either the anti-Romney noise or the swooning media support for Huckabee and McCain, you can look at the actual scoreboard of the contest so far. On that scoreboard, otherwise known as the delegate count, Romney is way out in front of all other Republican candidates. The scoreboard is as follows, in terms of total delegates: Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, Thompson 6, Ron Paul 2, Giuliani 1.

So, at this early phase of the race, Romney is leading all other candidates if you look at the most objective criterion, the delegate count. On top of that, Romney is raising more money than the other candidates and, as the anti-Romney press loves to point out, he has more money of his own to theoretically contribute to his campaign. The only evidence that I see that Romney is not doing well overall comes from the fact that the media keeps telling me to think so. As someone who is able to look at the facts of the situation rather than the media spin, it is clear to me that Romney is leading all other candidates at this point. Anyone who preaches that Romney is not doing well overall is either a closet liberal who wants the most articulate champion of conservative principles out of the race or they are a very confused conservative who is not familiar with the not-so-conservative records of Mike Huckabee and John McCain. To be fair, Fred Thompson and Giuliani haven’t started to really compete yet but certainly their supporters would not claim that their guy is beating Romney at this point.

I welcome any explanation of the position that Romney is not leading at this point in the race. Hopefully you would agree that, while it was disappointing for Romney voters to see another ‘silver’ in NH, there is still plenty of upside to his campaign's performance thus far overall. By looking at objective criteria such as the delegate count and money raised, Mitt Romney is beating all other Republican candidates at this point in the race.

Manchester NH Campaign HQ

Mitt Romney receives a warm welcome at his Manchester, New Hampshire campaign headquarters the night before the closely contested Republican primary election.

Non-pundit review

The cool kids

A few thoughts on last night's ABC GOP debate.

How is it that someone like McCain attacks Mitt Romney for changing his position on abortion over the years while McCain himself changed his position on illegal immigration during the campaign? McCain has drastically changed his position on one of the most pressing issues of the day within the last few months. McCain is a candidate who will prevail only if adequate scrutiny is not paid to his record as a senator. The McCain-Kennedy bill and the McCain-Feingold bill are not exactly hardcore conservative credentials.

And when has Romney ever changed his position on the war in Iraq? Huckabee supposedly scored a hit when accusing Romney of changing his position on the war? This is the same man who accused Bush of having bunker mentality? How Huckabee has any running room criticizing some one else's foreign policy ideas is beyond me. In last night's debate Huckabee again proved himself to be an utter hack, representing the worst kind of opportunistic and substance-free politician.

Then we have what I call the 'cool kids' factor. The piling on of personal insults and marginal policy critiques by every candidate upon Romney. First of all, the fact that no one piled on say, Fred Thompson is revealing enough. You don't pile on a non-factor. But beyond that, what we saw last night was reminiscent of high school cafeteria table where the cool kids gang up on the smart kid. (Often times in 7th and 8th grade I was with the cool kids, I'm not proud to say.) We've all seen versions of this phenomena countless times in life, some people are threatened by smart, capable individuals. It's just easier to team up and pile on than it is to compete on a legitimate basis. In the case of last night's debate, it was easier to rely on personal attacks, one-liners, and quips in an attempt to hide mediocrity.

During the debate, John McCain snickered at his own supposed jokes and sat back in his chair with an over-confident smirk after delivering insults. As Romney's press secretary suggested, McCain "Looked like the guy who had just pushed someone down a stairwell." He's right, McCain looked childish, the ringleader of the brats who are tired of having their not-so-conservative record being pointed out.

If Romney were to drop out of the race, all other candidates would look much better. Guiliani would look like a genius. McCain would look like a wise elder statesmen and not a petty, sinister, grumpy old man. Fred Thompson would look like the only legitimate conservative choice. Huckabee would be the sole 'family values' candidate. Ron Paul would be... well he'd still be Ron Paul, the natural foil to any Patriotic American who believes that the Islamo-fascists are the enemy, not our own foreign policy.

The more the Republican candidates pile on Romney exactly because he is a worthwhile candidate, the worse they look. Romney wanted to have an honest policy discussion last night and largely succeeded. But by teaming up on the smartest guy in the room and playing the role of the cool kids, the other major candidates (aside from maybe Fred Thompson) merely succeeded in looking petty, vindictive and loser-ish. These are not the qualities I would want in a president.