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

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