McCAIN ON THE WARPATH

Well, it finally happened. John McCain showed a bit of his famous temper yesterday. The trouble is, it wasn't against his prospective opponents among the Democrats. Once again, John McCain has demonstrated why he shouldn't even be in the Republican Party, let alone the putative nominee for the presidency.


What got McCain all in a twist were the comments of Billy Cunningham, a Conservative talk radio host who was doing the warm-up for a McCain rally in Cincinnati, Oh. Apparently, Mr. Cunningham's remarks were so beyond the pale that Senator McCain made a special point to repudiate those remarks. He then went on to apologize that they were made at his rally. USA Today quotes the GOP front runner:

"I take responsibility and I repudiate what he said. I will not tolerate
anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen.
(Hillary) Clinton."

This is all fine and dandy. It shows McCain's genteel side. It's just a shame that he can't show the same fire and outrage about the Democratic contenders that he shows for his Republican supporters. There was the famous exchange last year wherein McCain dropped the F-bomb on fellow Republican Senator John Cornyn during official Senate business. CNN's Jack Cafferty wrote an extended piece on his temper. Let's not forget that he implied that Conservative opponents to his amnesty bill for illegal aliens were racist nativists.

But enough about McCain, at least for the moment. What did Billy Cunningham say that deserved such ire? What did he do at that rally that so embarrassed John McCain?

Well, he made several pointed comments regarding the front runner for the Democratic nomination: Barak Hussein Obama and the coverage of his campaign in the Legacy Media. From the USA Today story:

• [sooner or later, the media would begin covering Obama's] "sweetheart deals in Chicago and the illegal loans he got in Chicago."


• He also called Obama a "hack Chicago-style Daley politican"


• He described an Obama administration as "the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbaya together around the table with Barack Obama."


• What was even worse he called Barak Hussein Obama-- not once, but twice...TWICE, I say! -- "Barak Hussein Obama".
  

These would be very serious matters in the fantasy world that the Legacy Media and John McCain live in. But here in the Real, we know that everything Billy Cunningham has said is absolutely true!

Saint Obama has yet to explain his cozy financial arrangements with the indicted Tony Rezco, other than to say it was a mistake. But just what was the mistake? What did he do to make it right? We don't know, because Obama won't say and Rezco is now lawyered up. But it is apparent that Obama received some loans from Rezco, and that Rezco didn't have that kind of money. So where did it come from?

Here's a trick question for you: Name one politician from Chicago who wasn't a "hack Chicago- style Daley politician"? Let's be real here, folks! We're talking about a town where everyone who dies is immediately registered as and votes for Democrats. The Daley's have run this town for decades, and there is little chance that this state of affairs will change in the near -- or even the distant -- future. Only New Jersey and New Orleans can come close to the corruption of Chicago. These aren't attacks on Saint Obama. These are merely statements of fact.

Oh, so why do I write "Saint" Obama? It's his supporters who claim his near divinity. Right here on BlogSpot, there's a site that asks the question "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" Timothy Noah posts, on Slate.com a periodic item entitled "Obama Messiah Watch" which explores the possibility that Obama is the Son of God. And then, Louis Farrakan had this to say about Obama:

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be
made better. This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red
and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of
his words, those people are being transformed. A black man with a white
mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. A
black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from
her fall."

Which now brings us to Billy Cunninghams next point about the "great prophet from Chicago etc..." What is a messiah but a "great prophet"? Isn't that what Obama's supporters are saying?

And what of Obama's foreign policy statements? He's already signed on to the idea of diplomacy, first, last, and only. He's already pledged to meet with our enemies unconditionally. And he's threatened to invade one of our allies, Pakistan.

And John McCain says "I will not tolerate anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen. (Hillary) Clinton"? What did Billy Cunningham say that wasn't true?

Could it be that he used Barak Hussein Obama's full name, as has been done for many past presidents and presidential candidates? William Jefferson Clinton, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Richard Milhaus Nixon, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Since when is using a candidates real middle name a faux pas?

But you have to give Billy Cunningham credit. When he found out how McCain threw him under the bus he said '"I've had it with McCain. I'm going to throw my support to Hillary Rodham Clinton."

This story is precisely the reason that John McCain won't win the election in November. He has no fire in his belly when it comes to the Democrats he is running against. He has nothing but disdain for his fellow Republicans and, when speaking of the differences between him and the Democratic contenders, he mumbles his remarks in a passionless monotone.

John McCain, in short, would have been a far better candidate for the Democrats.

Copyright Feb. 26th, 2008

LET'S GET DIRTY!

You just know it was going to happen. Lots of people have been predicting it. Now it has come to pass.

Facing a punishing defeat for the Democratic nomination, the Clintonistas are getting down and dirty. Barak Obama is in for a nasty couple of months.

Bill and Hillary are inveterate political street fighters. They'll fight fair and clean, just so long as they are winning. And even then, the opportunity for a cheap shot can be just too tempting. It's not just to win, they want to destroy anyone with the temerity to oppose them.

Barak Obama, it seems, has become just the sort of insolent upstart that Hillary's hobnailed boots were made for.

Should there be any doubt, let's not forget the 900 or so raw FBI files that were found in the Clintonistas' possession in the White House. These were the sort of files that didn't make it into official FBI reports, since they included every accusation and rumor about their targets. Only careful vetting and sifting of such information could complete the official reports. However, these were the sort of files that can be used to blackmail, punish, or destroy anyone who fell into the Clintonistas' disfavor. For the record, Google comes up with 1,400,000 hits when you search for "Hillary Clinton; FBI Files"

Is that too speculative for you? Well what about the scorched earth policy aimed at Bill's famous "Bimbo Eruptions"? First of all, the affairs and the philandering are a part of public record. Second, it was Bill's own Arkansas chief of staff, Betsy Wright, who coined the term. Among the 135,000 Google hits for the words "bimbo eruption", was the Wikipedia entry that documents her role in minimizing the damage from all those women coming forward to tell of their affairs with Bill. The books by Carl Bernstien ( A Woman in Charge) and Jeff Gerth and Don van Natta ( Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton) clearly document the lengths that she would go to pillory anyone who would sully either Clinton's character by telling the truth.

Here's some names, a sort of Blast From the Past: Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Marilyn Jo Jenkins, to name just a few. All of them have been ravaged by the Clinton attack machine for daring to disclose Bill's peccadilloes.

Then there was the White House Travel Office, and the way they weren't just fired, they were libeled and slandered, brought up on false charges, bankrupted, audited by the IRS, and, in general, had their day ruined. And why? Just so a Clinton cousin and a couple of Hillary's Hollywood friends could take over the position.

Ken Starr received extra special attention. Until he was brought into the sights of the Clintonistas, his reputation was impeccable. Lanny Davis and the boys, however, leaked all the grand jury testimony and blamed Starr for the leaks.

I could go on and on about the '90's, but this column today is about the 2008 campaign. Let's not doubt that the Clintons' attack machine is being wound up and aimed right at Barak Obama.

Whatever my differences with Obama politically, I have to admit he is running a pretty classy campaign. Although his rhetoric is vacuous, he at least tries to appeal to our better human natures. Specifically, he has not made the elections about race. Which, considering the Democrats' wont, is something of a breath of fresh air.

So what is the Clintonista response? The Iowa county chair Hillary volunteer sent out an e-mail, detailing the various connections between Obama and Islam, saying the following:

“Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major
public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the
United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.”

Of course, Media Matters, that Hillary front group, tries to make the case that it was right wing talk radio that was responsible for forwarding "the accusation made by a website controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon...", but we've seen this tactic before, haven't we?

Then we have Bill Shaheen, a big time Democrat from New Hampshire and a Hillary supporter. In an interview, he said this:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use. It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

The beauty of this bit of misdirection is that you get the story (Barak Obama is a junkie and a dealer) out there while leaving the blame on your ultimate opponents, the Republican Party. Never mind that the Republicans didn't really care about Bill's "I tried marijuana, but I didn't inhale." In the mind of a Democrat (which is where Shaheen's comments were aimed) the Republican will stoop to nothing to achieve their goals. When the uproar began, rightfully so, Bill Shaheen, like the good Clintonista he is, fell on his sword and resigned from her campaign. But you know either he or his wife, also an up and coming Democratic politician, will get some consideration for their troubles.

I've already catalogued "Fast Eddie" Rendell's indictment of "racist America" in my column And Now, Back To The Front Runner. Now we have the spectre of alleged homophobia looming out of the back pages.

World Net Daily reports that one Larry Sinclair has come forward with the claim that, in 1999, when Obama was a state legislator in Illinois, he had shared cocaine and oral sex with Obama. Failing to get any notice, he posted his claims on YouTube and is offering to take a polygraph test to back up his story. Regardless of whether he is telling the truth or not, does anyone want to bet that the Clintonistas didn't have at least something to do with this story getting out?

Then there was the kerfuffle of Obama's alleged plagiarism. Despite Hillary's claim that it was the media that made the connections between an Obama speech and one by Deval Patrick, the Associated Press shows the lie, telling of Clintonista Howard Wolfson's conference call to reporters hammering home the plagiarism angle.

Learning the lessons from Al Gore and his attempt to steal the 2000 elections, the Clintonistas are gearing up to battle the DNC for the nominations, even if Hillary loses the primaries. It's not enought that the fix is in at the DNC's Credentials Committee where, as UPI reports, all three of the chairs are held by close Clintonista pals. The Credentials Committee is the group that decides which delegates are seated at the Democratic Convention. Having some pull with the chairs of that committee gives a huge advatage to Hillary, regardless of the vote in the primaries.

Then again, there are also the delegates from Florida and Michigan. These delegates, as per DNC rules, were not to be seated, nor were the Democratic candidates supposed to campaign there, since those states had moved their primaries too far up. Anyone want to bet against me that Hillary doesn't try a lawsuit to get those delegates seated, since she didn't bother to adhere to the rules and won the primaries in Florida and Michigan? Better read the International Herald Tribune first. Al Sharpton is already threatening a march on Washington DC (That's like so '60's!) if Hillary tries that.

You know, I kind of feel sorry for Barak Obama. He's going to be dragged over the coals by Hillary. If he wins the primaries, there will be legal blood spilled before the convention is over and done. Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart.

John McCain, however, still has to make the case that he's a better choice for president. I haven't seen any sign of evidence to this effect yet.

But that's another column for another day! In the meanwhile: Here's mud in your eye!

Copyright Feb. 20th, 2008

AND NOW, BACK TO THE FRONTRUNNER

Today, I'd like to examine Barak Hussein Obama a little more closely than I had in Obama Where Art Thou.

Having already outlined his biography, let's examine the man as a candidate. He is young, energetic, and articulate. I won't go so far as Joe Biden, who said Obama was "clean". I doubt that he was talking about personal hygiene. Although, with Biden's track record for unfortunate comments, maybe he was.

Obama is a stunning speaker. He has, as the Irish like to say, "The Gift of Gab". His speeches seem to move people in a way that neither McCain nor Hillary can. He is a welcome change, in a rhetorical sense, from the linguistic manglings of President Bush or the holier-than-thou intonations of John Kerry. And he is (Thank God!) not at all shrill like Hillary.

His technique of speaking is reminicent of Martin Luther King, Jr. His youth and his energy calls to mind John F. Kennedy, as do his looks. Compare this to Hillary. It's been said that a man could listen to Hillary promise him a million dollars, and all he'd hear is his ex-wife yelling "Have you put out the garbage yet?"

That is only the style, however. What of the substance? Well, that is a question, isn't it?

Obama speaks of "Change We Can Believe In." He believes in "The Future" and "All Americans Uniting." His supporters echo his slogan, "Yes We Can."

"Change"? What kind of "change"? What does he see in our "future", of which he is wont to tell us he looks toward?

What are his policy proposals? There, he's a little bit vague. During the primaries, he, Hillary and Edwards vied for who would raise taxes the most and fastest. They argued about who's Universal Healthcare plan would have the most mandates. And all three want to punish Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, and Big Insurance -- everything, in fact, but Big Government. And for a while, it seemed, they were in a race to see who would get out of Iraq first, although only Edwards would suggest a date for that withdrawal. In short, if you heard Edwards or Hillary, you've heard Obama's proposals. They are all interchangeable.

What Barak Obama does is use his soaring rhetoric to hide his extremely Liberal (face it, he's a Stalinist) ideology. He doesn't speak about his policies in detail because then everyone would know he isn't the "Agent of Change" he portrays himself to be. His policies are nothing but warmed over Socialism.

One need only to read his speech today in Janesville, Wi.:

• Universal Healthcare, whether Hillary's or Obama's, would be a Marxist nationalization of one of the largest parts of our economy.


• He describes the current mortgage troubles as if they were President Bush's fault, rather than the result of government forcing lending institutions to write bad loans, lest they be accused of "red lining".


• He is a master of the rhetoric of class warfare, pitting us against the rich and the corporations, never mind that they provide the investments and the infrastructure of our economy.


• He wants to subsidize what he calls "working families" with tax credits and federally funded daycare, all while punishing the achievers who actually made the jobs held by "working families".


• He proposes to "reform bankruptcy laws" to protect "victims of predatory lending".


• Obama wants a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" spending billions, and payed for by surrender in Iraq.

Friends, this is all boilerplate Liberalism, the kind that Democrats have been spewing since George McGovern. The only difference is that Barak Obama looks and sounds better than McGovern.

But, really! All he offers are platitudes. He is like the Miss America constestant that says "All I really want is world peace."

Barak Obama is an empty suit, nothing more. He offers loads of style, mounds of soundbites, and inspires much enthusiasm. But he says nothing new.

Last December, the Boston Globe asked Obama a series of questions regarding the Constitution, the Congress and the powers of the presidency. His answers were stunning, not only in their Liberal naivete, but in their total ignorance of just what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues.

Let us not ignore the question of race. Obama has been quite successful running as an American, avoiding the issue of race as much as the Clintonistas will allow. It is noteworthy that, among the Republican candidates, no one has so much as mentioned his race. Although Mike Huchabee was reprehensible when he maligned Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

But among the Democrats? Pennsylvania's Gov. Eddie "Don't Call Me Fast Eddie" Rendell had the temerity to say "...I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." This is stunning, aside from the obviously libelous and inflamatory denouncement of white America, when one considers that he is talking about the frontrunner of the Democratic field. I've already cataloged other instances of this sort of Liberal racism in previous columns, so I'll just leave it at that.

My friend, Evan Sayet, wrote today: "Whites WILL vote for a black man so long as he's not running as a black man." He's correct. Previous black Democratic candidates (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, for instance) ran on the idea that America is racist and they were rightfully rejected. Obama, as Liberal as he is, doesn't, and that gives him traction outside the black electorate.

What Barak Obama proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that America is no longer the racist nation portrayed by Civil Rights, Inc. A truly racist country would never have a black candidate do so well. This is especially true given his success in a Party that has its roots in the Confederacy and the Klan.

Of course, Obama is still wrong in so many ways and with so many issues. He is, before his blackness or lack thereof, still a Liberal. And his administration would be catastrophic for our country, despite all his talk of hope and change. If he is defeated in his quest for the White House it won't be because of racism, at least not from the Right. It will be because the electorate looked at his ideas and found them wanting.

Given the almost certain nomination of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate, I am still certain that either Obama or Hillary will become our next president. McCain is too distrusted by the Republican base to beat Hillary, and Obama is far too shiny and new compared to McCain.

Of course, as noted yesterday in Through Race Colored Glasses 2/12/08, Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart along the fault lines of race and gender.

As I said yesterday: "Ah! Life is good!"

Copyright Feb.13th, 2008

THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES 2/12/08

One of the many joys in my life is to watch Political Correctness run, head on, into itself. This year's presidential election is perhaps the most extreme case I've seen in my life.

Political Correctness (or "PC" for the remainder of this column) is strictly in the province of the Left. In simplest terms, it is a form of thought and speech control, wherein any deviation from the precepts of PC are to be met with howls of "Racist, Homophobe, Misogynist, Zenophobe!" Or, in other words, anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.

For instance, if we were to point to the serious troubles in the black family, we are told that we are "blaming the victim". Similarly, if you took the trouble to examine the actual statistice that undermine the theory of the Glass Ceiling for women, you are obviously lying, since the oversimplified statistics show just a ceiling.

Another way of looking at PC is that it is completely given over to identity politics, or the issues of people as part of ethnic groups or some other such artificial division, rather than as individuals.

In New York City, we have the very Liberal Mayor Mike Bloomberg going on a very PC war on tobacco, banning tobacco from almost every enclosed public space. Yet, in Astoria, Queens, he is unable, or unwilling as a leading proponent of PC, to confront the proliferation of Arab coffee houses that feature hookahs, or waterpipes, for the tobacco enjoyment of their patrons. This has become a bone of contention for restaraunts and bars in the area that aren't Arab-centric. Neighborhood bar? Outside with your cigarettes! A hookah? Sure, no problem! Go ahead and light up!

But the most amazing collision of PC with itself has been in the Democratic primaries of this presidential election season. On the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, formerly the annointed candidate of the Democrats and her identity group of women and feminists. On the other, we have Barak Hussein Obama with all the hopes and dreams of Liberal blacks and other minorities. Suddenly, we find the Democratic Party and the Left in collision with themselves, all thanks to looking at life and politics "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Hillary Clinton, by past record, shouldn't have any troubles like this. After all, Toni Morrison, in 1998, had already crowned her husband, Bill as America's First Black President, citing his upbringing in a single-parent family and his serial adultery as credentials. (Personall, if I were black, I'd be insulted by this.) Hillary, Bill, and even that tree, Al Gore, have all spoken before black audiences, often, embarrassingly, adopting the speaking style of black preachers.

Now, though, Toni Morrison is endorsing Barak Hussein Obama. What's Hillary to do? Oh, sure! She can get Andrew Young, that icon of the Civil Rights Movement and former ambassador to the United Nations, to point out, simultaneously, Obama's youth and Bill's "blackness" saying: "Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack." But this just doesn't seem to be enough.

Obama, meanwhile, has identity politics troubles of his own, albeit minor troubles. His leading star-power endorsment is Oprah Winfrey. Now, Oprah, while herself black, isn't perceived necessarily as black. She is the uber fem, the avatar of WOMAN. This makes her something of a feminist icon, since she is also the richest woman in America. The British Times Online, however, reported last month on the backlash from women and feminists (these are not necessarily the same folks, although most feminists are women) calling Oprah "a traitor to her gender", by not supporting the female candidate.

So here we have the Establishment Civil Rights guys (Jackson, Rangel, Young etc.) lining up behind Hillary along with the Feminist intelligentsia. Meanwhile, the younger Turks are ginning up for Obama, notably the Hollywood set. Throw in the Kennedy's for a little Establishment gravitas, if you will, and we have the Democratic Party in extreme meltdown mode.

Today is the Potomac Primary and it looks like Hillary is about to get her clock cleaned. Obama is running away, apparently, with the Democratic votes. But don't you dare think that Hillary is going to go off and lick her wounds. Rush Limbaugh, today, made the prediction that, whoever wins in the primaries, Hillary will be sure to get the nomination.

And if she does, what happens in the Democratic Party?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Obama wins the majority of delegates to the Democratic Convention. Florida and Michigan, punished by the DNC won't have their delegates seated at the convention, based upon rules agreed to by all the Democrat candidates. Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary won't demand that those delegates be seated and counted as hers? After all, they were won by Hillary since she "just didn't have time" to remove her name from the ballots in accordance to the DNC's decision. And just who runs the DNC? Why it's the Clintons, since Bill was their most recent president.

Now let's imagine the response by black Democrats to the usurping of the primaries by the white candidate. Hmmm... Not pretty would be my guess!

Of course, if anyone in the Democratic Party had any sense at all, not only would they be Republicans, they would see this sort of happy nonsense coming a mile away. These are the logical results of identity politics and PC. This is the direct result of looking at people as groups, rather than individuals. These are the fruits of looking at life "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Ah! Life is good! I love watching the Left crash on the rocks of their own irrationality!

Copyright Feb. 12th, 2008

NO COMPARISON

Now it is all but official. John McCain has little, or nothing, between him and the Republican nomination. The rest of the primaries might be nothing more than formalities.


Mitt Romney has stepped aside, leaving Mike Huckabee angling for the Number Two spot in McCain's inexorable drive to the Republican nomination. Ron Paul, playing to part of the "crazy uncle in the attic that no one likes to talk about", is still in the race. Of course, that is merely for comic relief at this point.


Having read the speeches today of both Romney and McCain, I thought that a comparison would be in order. The two candidates show remarkably different attitudes toward Conservatives.


John McCain finds himself in terra incognita. His is one of the only campaigns that, having secured the nomination (or all but the signature on the document) he has to go back and secure his base. Ever since Richard Nixon, Republican candidates had to make more Conservative noises to gain the nomination, and then had to move "toward the center" to secure the election itself. Similarly, Democrats had to appease their most Liberal base for the nomination and move to the center in the general election. John McCain finds himself with broad support among Liberals, Democrats, moderates and Independents.


Unfortunately, the base of the Republican Party -- Conservatives, that is -- have been left cold by his penchant for "reaching across the aisle". McCain correctly notes that the Gold Standard for Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, often "reached across the aisle" to Democrats. This is supposed to allay Conservative fears, I guess. But Conservatives know that this is misrepresenting what Reagan was about.


Sure, Ronald Reagan "reached across the aisle" to the Democrats. However, he did so to bring them over to his point of view. Reagan didn't move his policies to the Left when he "reached across the aisle", he moved the Democrats to the Right. On the other hand, McCain has made a two decade career of siding with the Democrats on issue after issue.

• He explained his vote against the Bush tax cuts with Democratic rhetoric, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".


• He has sided with the Democrats over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, urging the closure of the base and the inclusion of enemy combatants in American civilian courts and prisons, presumably giving them access to the same rights as American criminals. He would also deny our interrogators the tools they need to quickly elicit information from detainees that would prevent further terrorist attacks.


• He has sponsored the most serious breech of the First Amendment in American history, teaming up with Russ Feingold to create campaign finance "reform", which neither gets money out of politics, nor empowers anyone but the Legacy Media and the unions. Does anyone seriously believe that he would ever appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would rule against McCain-Feingold?


• Speaking of judges, McCain led the infamous "Gang of 14", that left the Senate with the ability to block any judges they disliked with a minority of dissenting votes, rather than the majority demanded by the Constitution.


• McCain-Kennedy, meanwhile, made a mockery of the rule of law, failing to secure our borders, while simulaneously creating all sorts of incentives to violate American immigration law. He claims it isn't really amnesty, but it didn't provide for any real enforcement and totally ignored border security.


• And what Conservative in his right mind would suddenly decide that Global Warmism can be averted with Cap & Trade laws that would, incidently, stifle the American economy? And yet, here we have the putative nominee of the GOP cosponsoring the economically devastating McCain-Leiberman Bill.


• McCain is claiming the Pro-Life mantle, while voting for embryonic stem cell research, and opposing a Constitutional amendment to define, once and for all, marriage as a state between a man and a woman. So why vote for Barak or Hillary, when we've got McCain?

Now, today, with the nomination all but sewn up, John McCain speaks before the Conservative Political Action Committee, or C-PAC. Suddenly, he's a Conservative. He tells this august body of Conservative thinkers and activists that he has "a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November." So, where was he for the last 25 years?

He also makes this spectacular claim: "I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles..." Of course, in "reaching across the aisle", one should never let those "most basic of principles" get in the way!

Lest you might confuse him with being blind to his controversial nature, McCain acknowledges his "occasional" lapses from Conservative philosophy: "Surely, I have held ... positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives." Looking back at the above list, one could be excused for exclaiming, "Well, DUH!" Apparently, the Senator from Arizona has been hiding a mastery of understatement.

Of the November elections, he says that, rather than debating small differences between the Parties "We are arguing about hugely consequential things." OK! But where, exactly, besides the surge in Iraq, does McCain really differ from the Democrats?

In summation, McCain says that he is the Conservative candidate because he says he is. Therefore, all us Conservatives need to get over any belief that "...I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative..." and get behind him as the Republican nominee.

This is condescending at best. This is almost as insulting as Dorothy Rabinowitz calling Conservative critics of John McCain and his record "semi psychotic". As far as I'm concerned, the only thing "semi psychotic" is this inane effort to recast Conservatism as John McCain. Such an effort is Orwellian.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has shown what a class act he really is. Yes, he dropped out of the primary race. But he did so for the best of reasons: he wants to see whomever the Democratic nominee is to go down in defeat in November. Hence, although he has garnered enough support around the nation to continue, especially among Conservatives, he would step aside to prevent the sort of internecine bloodletting that would all but hand the White House over to the Democrats.

Of the need for Conservative values, he said "We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future."

And of failure to embrace these Conservative principles? "I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century—still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower."

Truer words have never been spoken! One of France's biggest problems is that it is losing its culture thanks to unrelenting Muslim immigration and an overexpansive welfare state. An Obama or Hillary administration (or McCain, for that matter) will send us ever onward down that slippery slope.

Romney warns us of the perils of electing a Liberal to the White House: "Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead." Don't forget that John McCain belittled Romney's business experience saying "I did it out of patriotism, not for profit", as if there was something unpatriotic about being a businessman.

Friends, put the two speeches, both delivered to C-PAC on the same day, side by side and compare. Clearly, Mitt Romney showed himself to the true Conservative. John McCain tried to obfuscate his record in Congress, while wrapping himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. (A comment posted on a news article about McCain said "I don't want to see what's under that mantle!")

Romney only had to speak of his beliefs, he needed no props. McCain had to trot out all those old photos of him with Reagan.

McCain kept claiming to be the Conservative candidate.

Romney merely spoke about what that Conservative stands for.

The distinction is clear. And the Republican Party didn't get the best man.

Copyright Feb. 7th, 2008

SUPER DOOPER!

I write this as Monday turns to Super Tuesday. There are now 43 primary constests in 22 states. This is the day that makes or breaks Mitt Romney. For the Democrats, the slogging goes on until Feb. 12, and then we'll see what's what.

We all know where I stand on the races. John McCain would be like voting for Democrat-Lite. As near as I can tell, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Barak and Hillary. Huckabee wants to vice president under John McCain. And Romney is the only Republican who is actually Conservative and has had any real world experience.

John McCain, as was explained last week in The Elites Choose a Candidate, is the choice of the Establishment Rockefeller Republican elites, or RINO's. These Jurrasic era bluebloods look to McCain as the Republican most likely to win in November. Indeed, if some of the early polls of a match up between McCain and Hillary are to be believed, he has a slight lead, at least for now. That lead, though, is likely to evaporate should he become the Republican nominee and the Legacy Media bring out their knives.

That apparent lead, also doesn't take into account the simple reality that, without the Conservative base, the Republican Party would be in permanent minority status, as it had been before Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, it seems aren't quite ready to drink the Kool-Aide for McCain, nor are they likely to just hold their noses and go along with their RINO leaders. And it's not just Montag's World that is decrying the apparent McCain juggernaut. Here are just a few examples

• Sean Hannity has endorsed Mitt Romney.


• Rush Limbaugh, who claims that McCain will mean the destruction of the GOP.


• Mark Levin, who frequently writes of McCain's apostacy from Conservative principals.


• Evan Sayet on his blog is quite critical of McCain and has endorsed Romney


• Ann Coulter has gone so far as to threaten to campaign for Hillary, should McCain get the nomination.

These are just a few of the Conservative luminaries, the brain trust if you will, who are vehemently opposed to a McCain candidacy. Should McCain sweep Super Tuesday, as the conventional wisdom says he will, rank and file Conservatives such as myself are left in a quandry: Do we support the Establishment candidate who has opposed our ideals for more than twenty years, or do we sit out the election, ensuring a Democrat in the White House. Actually, the choice isn't all that stark, since a McCain administration would look a lot like a Democratic administration, although a wee bit stronger on the War on Terror.

In The McCain Mutiny I wrote of a McCain nomination "...even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice." Now I'm starting to rethink that. For what possible reason would any Conservative stay with the Republican Party if our own elites reject us? What good is it to support a RINO just because "he's not as bad as those Democrats"? For all I can see (based on RINO's in New York and both Bush Administrations) we're still heading for the same destination, just at a slower pace.

Dennis Prager once said that you don't vote for the candidate, you vote for his Rolodex. In other words, who will he appoint to his Cabinet, his advisory staffs, or the courts? Generally, most RINOs have been OK on these matters, but there are some extreme exceptions. Although Bush the Elder chose well with Clarence Thomas, David Souter has been a nightmare. And we still have John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, another RINO. Even Conservatives give us a clinker now and then, Reagan having given us Anthony Kennedy, another Liberal judge.

So who's in McCain's Rolodex? One need only to look to Michelle Malkin to find out that he has advisors like Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, of the radical group, La Raza. Lest anyone doubt La Raza's radicalism, they oppose all immigration enforcement, favor immediate citizenship for all illegal aliens, and support the creation of Aztlan, the apocraphyl legendary home of the pre-Columbian Mexicans. Human Events, in an essay penned by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R. Ga) deftly traces the relationships between radical, anti-American "immigrants rights" groups and their ultimate goal of having the entire America Southwest annexed to Mexico. These aren't the kind of folks I'd like in my president's Rolodex!

Of course, in an age where the electorate tires of the bitter partisanship in Washington DC, is it any wonder that maybe a John McCain, who has proven he can "reach across the aisle" to Democrats, would be welcom change? But is the purpose of a Republican president to reach across the aisle and become a "Me too!" Democrat? Or is it to convince the Democrats to move more to the Conservative point of view? The RINOs, it seems would prefer the former.

No, Friends! The answer isn't to redefine Conservatism as Democrat-Lite. That way lies madness and defeat. I'm still hoping and praying for a Romney come back. California is beginning to look promising, as John Zogby points out. Although the premeir pollster is still confident in an ultimate McCain victory.

And yet, I believe in miracles. Just last night, I was talking to a few people about miracles and my belief in them. One of them said "It'd be a miracle if the Giants won the Superbowl." Well, guess what? The Giants did indeed win the Superbowl!

McCain, like Hillary, may be the presumptive winner of the nomination. But, again like Hillary, the conventional wisdom might be wrong, as it so frequently is, once again.

Here's to Mitt Romney! May he prove the RINOs wrong, just as Ronald Reagan did in 1980!

Copyright Feb. 4th, 2008

THE ELITES CHOOSE A CANDIDATE

Yes, that's right! It has become more and more obvious that the elites of politics and media are trying to choose the Republican nominee for the presidential election of 2008. And, just as in the past, the choice of these elites will go down in flames, leaving America weaker for their troubles.

What I am talking about is the almost monolithic drumbeat for the McCain candidacy. Over and over, we are told that only McCain can defeat the Democrats in November. Conservatives who criticize McCain's Liberal tendencies are called "semi-psychotic", in the words of Wall Street Journal editrix Dorothy Rabinowitz. Even the New York Times, which hasn't found anything nice to say about any Republican candidate, has endorsed John McCain. If that weren't reason enough to oppose him, I just don't know what is!

Since I've mentioned two of the media elitists who are in the tank for John McCain, let me explain who the political elties in this travesty are. I am talking about those Old Guard, country club, blueblood, "Rockefeller", Establishment Republicans. These are the real problem for the Republican Party, not the Democrats.

Hence forth, in the interests of accuracy and simplicity, we shall refer to these elitist snobs as RINOs, or Republican In Name Only.

Let's not quibble either. Let's name names:

• John McCain


• Mike Huckabee


• Arnold Schwazennegar


• Olympia Snowe


• Lincoln Chaffee


• Arlen Specter


• Dorothy Rabinowitz


• David Broder


• William Kristol


• Both Presidents Bush
  

This is only a partial list, but it will suffice for our purposes. These RINOs are known for their desire to be liked by the Democrats and the Legacy Media. Of course, I repeat myself, but they think they're separate entities. They do things like let Ted "Chappaqiddick" Kennedy cosponsor or cowrite laws, agree with Liberals on trampling the First Amendment, oppose tax cuts, claim to be tough on terror but go easy on detainees, help block originalist judges appointed by the president and grant illegal immigrants amnesty while denying that it's amnesty. This list of calumny is long and sordid and would take up more than one blog to encompass.

These RINOs have only one goal: their own personal political power. As such, they are opportunists of the worst sort. Take Johm McCain, for instance. Please! He has spent the last twenty or so years in Congress defeating or obstructing almost every Conservative initiative that came his way. He has barely supported the most minimal of restrictions on abortion. He's never voted for a tax cut, at least to my knowledge. He has no respect for the First Amendment. Nor has he any respect for our borders and our own national identity. These pecadilloes earned him the sobriquet of "maverick", and endeared him to the Legacy Media, which agreed with all of these positions. Therefore, McCain became the one Republican they actually like.

In short, McCain's positions are meant only to garner a free pass from the Legacy Media.

Now, though, he's running for the presidency. In 2000, his aura as maverick counted against him, losing, for instance, the evangelical vote due to his lack of respect for the religous. Also, he has learned that he must at least pay lip service to the Conservative base, without whom he will go down in defeat. So, suddenly he wants to close our borders, he sucks up to evangelicals, he's found the calling of tax cuts, and he wants to ban abortion.

Naturally, Conservatives aren't convinced at all about his sincerity. Where was all this Conservatism twenty years ago? Heck! Where was it last year when he was trying to deny his amnesty bill was an amnesty bill?

And what kind of a Conservative makes the case that he's the better leader on the economy by saying: "I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit."? Being a military leader makes him a better economic leader than a businessman? How so? Does he really say that successful businessmen are less patriotic than soldiers? If he is, then why hasn't he switched parties, other than the fact that most Liberals think they are more patriotic than soldiers?

Now, we all know that when the Clintons' lips are moving, odds are they are lying. But McCain has the "Straight Talk Express", right? OK, then what are we to make of his repeated lie that Romney wanted timetables for troop withdrawals from Iraq? And how's this for "straight talk": his claim that he voted against tax cuts because they didn't include spending cuts? Libby Quaid, of the Associated Press, did the fact checking on that: he never said anything about spending cuts, using the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra of the Democrats.

Time and again, we see John McCain trying to be like the Clintons, both in the political and the truthful sense. Unfortunately, he's in the wrong party for the political, and he just doesn't have Bill's smooth, unfettered facility with the Big Lie. Where Bill would parry and bury an attack on his veracity with ever more facile lies, McCain merely hunkers down and repeats the lie again and again. All it does is make him look foolish and curmudgeonly.

In the comments on a friend's blog, someone wrote "Our choices in November are Clinton and Diet Clinton." This might have been funny, if it werren't so close to the truth.

Once again, it seems, we Conservatives are afflicted with Electile Dysfunction. Sooner or later, we Conservatives are going to have to rid the Republican Party of these RINOs! It's coming time to let these elitists know who the real power is.

Copyright Jan. 31st, 2008

NOW IT'S A HORSE RACE!

Alright! Now we've got a horse race! The results of the Florida primary are in and we've narrowed the field. John McCain narrowly defeated Mitt Romney, while Hillary trounced Barak Obama. These results prompted Rudy Giuliani to drop out of the race, throwing his support to McCain, while John Edwards threw in the towel and has not endorsed anyone at this writing.

Unfortunately, for both winners, this was a pyrrhic victory at best.

Hillary may have won in Florida, but to what avail? The Democratic National Committee had already declared Florida's primary null and void, since the state moved its primary date up before February 5th. In true Clinton form, Hillary is now trying to back out of that agreement and wants the delegates awarded to her.

Let's say that Hillary succeeds in her bid to aquire the Florida delegates. Add this insult to the injury of playing the race card against Obama. How will the black vote, reliably Democratic, be affected? Would it be unreasonable that many would think that the white candidate effectively did an end run around the black candidate? What would that do to Hillary's image as the wife of "The First Black President", as Toni Morrison so famously dubbed Bill? Don't forget what Hillary did to Carl McCall in New York, effectively ending his burgeoning political career for her own Senatorial aspirations. Once again, it seems, the Democratic Party is going back to its segregationist roots to marginalize a viable black candidate.

Apparently, the Democratic Party is incapable of truly representing the black vote, taking their near monolithic support completely for granted. They can only lie about Republican policies and make ever emptier promises to do better than the last time blacks supported them. One can only hope that, sooner or later, people wake up to the institutional racism of the Democratic Party. I, however, will not hold my breath. I'd thought I'd seen the cracks before, only to find out they were minor and quickly healed.

And where does John Edwards (he of the silky locks and womanly charms) throw his support? After all, he is the leading candidate of the Trial Lawyers. Granted the Trial Lawyers will be happy with any Democrat. But would they be better off with Hillary or Obama? This will be very interesting to watch.

For the Democrats, we have the spectacle of watching two of their premeir identity political groups facing off against each other. It's kind of fun watching the Feminists cry foul when Ted (It took nine hours to open a lady's car door) Kennedy endorsed Obama. Similarly, we find the Old Guard of the Civil Rights Movement line up behind Hillary, while Oprah stumps for Obama. Perhaps it's time for me to revisit "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Speaking of Uncle Ted, it's been said that his word is gold among Hispanics. Would this hurt Hillary's chances further than an erosion of black support? Don't you just love when Political Correctness and identity politics run into themselves in such a spectacular fashion

Many on the Left seem to be tiring of the nefarious methods of the Clintonistas. Even the Legacy Media has taken to pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary. Bill's astounding claim that he never supported the Iraq war was too much even for those Liberal sycophants. His red-faced, finger wagging tirades on the stump for his putative successor are getting rightful criticism from all sides as well.

Still, the Legacy Media downplays the internecine fighting, the callous gender and racial attacks, to focus on "The Demise of Conservatism". To help that along, they have shamefully attacked the Mormon faith on every show, from newscasts to historical documentaries. Then they downplayed Mike Huckabee's Christianity, since his Liberal ideals are more in tune with their own.

Meanwhile, ponder this: if Conservatism is on the decline, why, then are both McCain and Romney trying to claim the Reagan mantle? Why, in his victory speech, did McCain preposterously state that he "is the Conservative who can unite the Republican Party"? Furthermore, his aides are telling anyone who would listen that McCain is going to "do outreach" to Conservatives. Why would that be necessary if Conservatism is in decline?

Let us consider CNN's exit polls, as interpreted by blogger Joshua Trevino:

Romney won pro-lifers.
Romney won the mainstream religious. (Huckabee won
the very religious--less than one-fifth of the pool.)
Romney won the Protestants.
Romney tied Huckabee with Evangelicals.
Romney won the pro-GWB voters.
Romney is the primary second choice of Giuliani voters,
Thompson voters . . . and McCain voters.
Romney won the immigration hard-liners.
Romney won the upper-middle class, earning between
$100,000 and $200,000 annually.
Romney won the terrorism-oriented voters.
Romney won the self-identified conservatives and the self-identified
very conservative.
Romney won the values-oriented voters.
Romney won the white voters.
Romney won the tax-cutting voters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same issues Conservatives are most concerned about? How, then, can McCain claim to be "the Conservative Candidate"?

Here's another question: Why is Mike Huckabee, with no money and not even placing in the primaries, still in the race? Mark Levin makes a convincing case that there is a deal in the works. Huckabee siphons off enough of the Christian and social Conservative votes from Romney and, in return, McCain makes Huckabee the Vice Presidential candidate in November. I can find no fault in this reasoning, since Romney's and Huckabee's votes (as evidenced by CNN's exit polling) combine to be a decisive defeat for McCain in Florida.

Rudy Giuliani has become a real disappointment to me. Beyond the fact that his campaign strategey (putting all his eggs in the Florida basket) was flawed, he further showed that his Conservative bleatings on the campaign trail were nothing more than pandering. This is demonstrated by his immediate endorsement of McCain. After all, Rudy and McCain share much the same disdain for Conservatives. I point you to their careers in elective office. McCain voted against every tax cut that came before him. Rudy supported Mario Cuomo and Mike Bloomberg in New York, two very prominent Liberals. McCain wanted to turn America into a "sanctuary city", just as Rudy did with New York City. Both have been very Liberal on social issues, swinging to the Right only in this election cycle.

Similarly, the disappointing Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse McCain. I guess that Arnold, being a Kennedy by marriage, has finally drunk the Kool Aide. I would be surprised if, in the near future, Arnold leaves the Republican Party, a la Mike Bloomberg.

Speaking of Bloomberg, there are still rumblings about his possible third party candidacy for the White House. Hmmm... It's almost as if there were a conspiracy out there...

Well, perhaps there is! After all, the Republicans have their elites, just as the Democrats. These "blueblood", so-called "Rockefeller" Republicans are better known among Conservatives as RINOs, though they would probably prefer the title "Establishment". They were never comfortable with Conservatives, as evidenced by the 1976 primaries, when they blocked Ronald Reagan and we got stuck with Jimmy Carter. These are epitomized by folks like Christie Todd Whitman, who famously wrote the whiney tome. "It's My Party Too!" Both of the Bush's are of this ilk, as seen by their rather more Liberal policies. These folks aren't comfortable with any true Conservative. They are the purveyors of "Comprhensive Immigration Reform", expanded entitlements, higher taxes and Democarat-Lite social policies. Hence, their support for McCain and their disdain for Romney.

So what do we have? We have a Liberal Republican garnering the support of the "Rockefeller" wing of the GOP, using a Liberal evangelical Christian to siphon off votes of the more Conservative candidate, to drive a stake into the true base of the Republican Party, the Conservatives.

I dunno! I think I may have to rethink my party affiliation!

Copyright Jan. 30th, 2008

RUN, RUN, RUDY!

This is another column that I have to get in before it's too late. Rudolph Giuliani, America's Mayor, and presidential candidate. A tough prosecutor, a miracle-working mayor, successful businessman and a lawman's lawman, there is a lot to like about Rudy.

Leaving the Democratic Party after the 1970's Rudy began his journey to the Right -- some might say he was maturing -- as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, eventually becoming a US attorney.

New York City, in the '70's and '80's, had become increasingly dysfunctional. Crime and police corruption kept getting worse, taxes were increasing at ever higher rates, race riots were a common summer pastime, "the Bronx was burning", businesses and the middle class were leaving in droves. By the late 1980's, New York was considered, by the smart money, at least, ungovernable. One mayor after another had left New York worse or, at best, the same as when they got there.

In 1989, Rudy Giuliani narrowly lost the mayoralty to David Dinkins in a hotly contested race. David Dinkins then went on to turn a dire situation into an abyss. Dinkins presided over one of the worst periods in New York History. Racial tensions hit a new low, riots were allowed to "run their course", drug dealers slain in police shootouts were given City-funded funerals, police were treated worse than the thugs, businesses were left to the tender mercies of protesting mobs, and the taxes just kept getting higher and higher.

Giuliani finally won the election in 1993, despite being branded as a "fascist" by the Left in New York. Almost overnight, Rudy turned the City around. His approach to crime was known as "the broken window theory". If a building has a broken window, and no one fixes it, it is only a matter of time before more of the windows are broken. Same as with crime. If we let the little pathologies go unpunished, bigger pathologies would soon follow.

Rudy began with the infamous New York "squeegee" men, panhandlers who would "wash" your car's windows with questionable water and demand payment. These he summarily banned from the streets. Next were the turnstile jumpers in the subways. Of complete surprise to Liberals all across the nation, these turnstile jumpers were also carrying guns, knives, drugs, and outstanding arrest warrants. Then there were Gotti fireworks shows, the loud radios and public drinking, clearing the parks of drug dealers and users, cracking down on public nuisances, and a total restructuring of the police department. Suddenly, crime dropped. It kept on dropping. In fact it is still dropping, more than a decade after his election.

Racial tensions soon became more a matter of partisan politics than a boiling over of the streets. His crime reductions meant that fewer blacks and minorities were killed by the criminals, and his riding herd on the police reduced the number of people killed by police in the line of duty. Riots suddenly stopped. Folks started to actually walk around their neighborhoods at all hours of the day and night, getting to know their neighbors.

On economics, Rudy cut the the City taxes for the first time in decades. More importantly, he froze or cut the budgets of every department but the police. Unions screamed, the police (who got no pay raises) cried foul, and welfare clients got jobs. For that was something else that Rudy did that was unthinkable: Rudy demanded and got fingerprint identification for all welfare clients. Suddenly, the enrollment in welfare programs dropped to half of what it was.

The defining moment for Rudy Giuliani was the attack on 9/11. Rudy's performance in the days following the attack cemented his reputation as "America's Mayor". His leadership brought us through the worst disaster in history.

Indeed, there is much to admire about Rudy Giuliani. He is a strong leader who can get Conservative things done, even with a Liberal legislature. He is phenomenal on issues of crime. And he has a clear vision of America and her enemies that, frankly, all the Democrats sorely lack.

And yet... you know you smell a "but"!

Yes, I know that Rudy cleaned up Times Square. The "Crossroads of the World" had seen better days by 1993. The great theaters and movie houses had given way to X-rated movies, peepshows, porn shops, prostitution, and drugs. It was rapidly plunging deeper into squalor as each day passed. Times Square today is bright and cheerful. Gone are all but vestiges of the sociopathology that made Times Square a dangerous, at best, place. In its place are fine family- oriented attractions, huge, brilliantly lit displays, and throngs of happy (not wary) visitors.

The downside is how this was all accomplished. Giuliani, first of all, rezoned much of the area, making it difficult for the adult entertainment industry (that doesn't sound right!) to take root. With existing establishments, he used the practice of eminent domain to seize properties, which were then handed over to entities such as Disney and the Hard Rock Cafe. This practice gained notoriety in 2005 with the Kelo decision of the Supreme Court, which narrowly held that property owned by one individual can be confiscated by local government and handed over to another private entity if it would "further the common good" of the community.

My Libertarian streak just spasms when I hear about such practices. Sure, eminent domain is a useful tool. But it should never be used to aquire property from one private entity and give it to another. There lies far too many opportunities for mischief by our government officials.

Social issues, too, are an Achilles' Heel for Rudy Giuliani. Whatever his virtues, he is simply wrong on far too many matters important to most Conservatives. He is extremely Pro-Choice, even advocating government funding for abortions. For all intents and purposes, he turned New York City into a "sanctuary city", ordering City officials to no cooperate with the INS. And he was far too comfortable with the Gay Rights crowd. His social Liberalism, in my mind, would have made his fiscal conservatism rather suspect, since I find it hard to square the one with the other.

To be fair, let's stipulate that Rudy has campaigned on appointing strict originalist judges in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia. After all, the president is far more removed from social issues than governors or mayors. It is the courts, in fact, where the real battles in the Culture Wars are to be fought and won. Originalist judges are the weapon of choice.

Outside of the Tri-state Area, all these negatives would have made Rudy problematic for the Conservative base, although his successes garnered him much praise. And, all his negatives aside, he would still be a far better president than either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton. Still, his name recognition and his fame for "governing the ungovernable City" makes him a much more known quantity than any of his Republican opponents.

Unfortunately, the Giuliani campaign never seemed to connect with the voters. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina -- all have failed to see Rudy garner more than single digits in the polls. Now, as the candidates are starting to drop out, he has put all his chips on Florida.

Florida should have been a good state for Giuliani. It's reasonably Conservative, although his social Liberalism wouldn't raise too many eyebrows. It is very rich in delegates, having a large population. And it is populated by many, many New Yorkers who've moved there to retire. But it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Recent polls show that Rudy is dropping into an ever more distant third place in Florida.

As if that weren't enough, should Giuliani get the Republican nomination, it looks like he would lose New Jersey, of all places. All the smart money would have sworn that New Jersey, being New York City's bedroom, so to speak, would be a lock for Rudy. But then, maybe that money isn't so smart after all.

Slipping and fading, Rudy looks to join the ranks of the also-rans. But he might still pull a rabbit out of his hat. He still might get the nomination, although that is looking increasingly unlikely. Still, the Conservative faithful wonder, how glorious would a death match between Hillary and Rudy be? It would be, for political junkies such as myself, a battle royale! The Mother of All Elections.

I doubt it, but it still might happen. Stranger things than that have happened in presidential politics. Perhaps, in an alternate universe...

Copyright Jan. 24th, 2008

THE RACE THUS FAR

The 2008 presidential race seems far more bizarre than those in past election cycles. For one thing, it seems like it's been going on for a year. Actually, it has been going on for year. And for some, like Hillary Clinton, it's been going on since at least 2000.

On the other hand, if the Hillary camp's opposition research is to be believed, Barak Mohammed Hussein Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in kindergarten. This must be something of a record, although a record of what, precisely, isn't all too clear.

However, there are certain gleanings to be made from the rhetoric of the Democrats and the Republicans. In this first article about the race, I'd like to posit some observations about the overall party differences between the two fields in this primary season.

On the Democrat side, we can be fairly certain that taxes will go up. None of the two and half leading candidates (Edwards' quixotic run only merits the half) make no bones about what they want to do. Hillary wants to "take those excessive profits from the oil companies" to fund research into alternative energy sources. Obama (all two and a half, for that matter) wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, which means that sooner than you think, a $20K annual income will be considered rich. And Edwards, when he is not combing his silky locks, wants to "bridge the gap between the two Americas" -- code speak for wealth redistribution with the resultant higher taxes to pay for it.

Obama and Hillary are claiming that the election has nothing to do with gender or race, while constantly injecting both every chance they get. The accusations flying back and forth between the two camps is stunning. Yet no one calls them on their misanthropy because, let's face it: to the Politically Correct, only white Conservative males discriminate on the basis of gender and race, not us Liberals!

All two and a half of the Democratic leaders will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, differing only in how fast and how thorough their retreats from the war zone will be. Obama, to his credit, will attack another country for terrorism. Unfortunately, that country is Pakistan, one of our allies in the region. The sense I get from them all is that they'd like to see the War on Terror turned back into a law enforcement matter, rather than the all out war it really is.

The one overarching theme of all the Democrats is this: America is filled with victims and victimizers. Americans, of either status, are children who need these enlightened Liberals to tame their excesses and protect the victims from those excesses. Hillary had the famous ad wherein she was wrapping all her socialist programs up as Christmas presents to be placed under the tree for us. Obama keeps talking about hope, even invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, while offering little by way of substance. And Edwards flips his hair, bats his eyelashes, and talks about the one time the insurance companies fell down on the job, allowing a young girl to die before they would cover her liver transplant.

Speaking of health insurance, all two and a half candidates promise to nationalize our healthcare industry, turning America into an eleventh province of Canada. This will, needless to say, mean even more tax hikes, cutting down the profits of the drug companies, rationing healthcare, and even, in the case of Edwards, mandates on individuals to undergo certain tests and procedures.

No one of them is saying much about immigration, although they seem to be supported strongly by those who oppose enforcing our borders or ending the practice of sanctuary cities. Hillary was laughable when confronted with her own words regarding New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. And then Obama, not learning from her mistake, fell for the same question in a later debate. The reason they aren't saying too much, when they aren't sticking their feet in their mouths that is, is that they know that open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities are losing political stands to take. Hey! They can read polls better than the Bush Administration and John McCain!

In short, the Democrats are talking about wholesale abrogation of American Liberty.

And what of the Republicans?

John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudi Giulianis all talk about lowering the tax burden on all Americans, regardless of income. They are also standing against the worst of Hillarycare (or any of the other onerous schemes put forth) trying to use the free market to solve issues involving coverage and healthcare. Medical savings accounts are making something of a comeback in Republican circles, but no where near the CATO plan, which would cover everyone with just the money from Medicare taxes while eliminating most of the bureacracy.

All the Republican candidates will stand stronger on terror than any of the Democrats, although Huckabee leaves me a little "underwhelmed". Still, they all want to persue terrorists far more enthusiastically than the Democrats, so I guess we can't complain.

And the transcendent thing about the Republican field? With the notable exceptions of McCain and Huckabee -- more on all the candidates individually in later columns -- the other Republicans do not look at Americans as victims and victimizers. All of them have far more faith in America and its people. At the very worst, none of them will expand government as fast and as intrusively as the Democrats.

Watching the New Hampshire debates, I was struck by the difference between the two fields. The Democrats all wanted to "save Americans from themselves", while the Republicans were more concerned with getting government out of the way domestically while beating back the Islamo-fascists where they live, rather than arresting them here in America.

The difference was stark: on the one hand, we had enlightened, superior Liberals trying to save the children (Americans) from their own inadequacies: on the other, we had a faith in the abilities of free men and women, able to make the world a better place, starting right at home, on their own, without the Nanny State to hold their hands.

Where do you stand?

Copyright Jan. 18th 2008