THERE WILL BE BLOOD!

So what is the political landscape after Tuesday's voting in states all across the nation? Actually, pretty much the same as last week.

First off, John McCain is now the official and legitimate nominee for the Republican Party. Having won enough delegates to clinch said nomination, he also received the endorsement of President George "Dubya" Bush. I now await Senator McCain's rebuke for having used the president's middle initial, as he has done to Billy Cunningham. For the remainder of the Spring and Summer, McCain has to knit his support into a cohesive force, although how he hopes to do that while attacking his base, I have no idea.

But there is a ray of sunshine here, and it comes from the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has made something of a comeback. We know this because the Legacy Media keeps telling us. My friend, Vox Day on his blog Vox Popoli, points out that this is the exact same narrative that they force fed the audience in the 1992 election cycle, albeit about Bill, not Hillary. Regardless of who the Legacy Media is talking about, the story line is getting a bit tired.

But this can be good news for McCain, since the Democrats are in for a long and bloody campaign. While he is shoring up his base (allegedly, that is) the Democrats will be tearing new orifices in each other.

In other words, Hillary will live to fight on, attacking and discrediting Saint Obama, something to which both the McCain campaign and the RNC say they will not stoop. They need Hillary in the race because the Republican leadership just doesn't have the stomach to go after the sacrosanct Saint Obama.

The political landscape remains unchanged, since Saint Obama ended Tuesday with the same delegate lead over Hillary as he began. All that Hillary succeeded in doing was to keep in the race a few more weeks.

But, as I already said, this is a good thing. The Clintonistas are masters of the scorched earth style of politics. They've already said they were going to throw the kitchen sink at the Annointed One. For example, does anyone really doubt that it was Hillary's people who disseminated that photo of Saint Obama looking like Gunga Din?

While that bad photo won't make or break Obama, at least not in my book, it is all part of a piece with the Clintonistas. Recall how they smeared Ken Starr, the Travel Office employees, the abused women, etc. The Clintonistas will stop at nothing -- NOTHING! -- in the pursuit of power. How much do you want to bet that the Clintonistas were doing some rather snarky push polls in southern Ohio, emphasizing Obama's melanin surfeit?

On more substantive matters, it was to the Clintonistas that an unnamed Canadian official leaked a memo, describing Saint Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric as just campaign pap. Despite claims to the contrary, the memo does exist and Canada is investigating possible criminal charges in the matter.

Hillary's weekend appearances on national TV, most notably Saturday Night Live, probably helped her showing on Tuesday, as it spurred the Legacy Media to look a little more sharply at Saint Obama. On Monday, Obama was left sputtering as he was peppered with questions of his long time pal, Antoin "Tony" Rezco. (Ooops! I want to apologize to Sen. McCain for referring to Mr. Rezco's middle name. I'll try not to do it again!) Rezco, you might recall, has begun his trial for illegal campaign solicitations and kickbacks, to little Legacy Media attention. An example of Obama's aversion to questioning regarding Rezco can be seen here.

But what, do you think, was the biggest reason for Hillary's surprise uptick in the primaries? The Los Angeles Times got a hint of the reason Sunday. Exit polls show that one in ten voters in Texas for the Democratic primary were Republican. This is merely just desserts, since McCain won his primaries with mainly Democrat and Independent voters in open primaries. Hey, if the Democrats can pick our candidate, why can't we pick theirs?

The bottom line is that McCain can now coast into the convention in August. The Democrats, meanwhile, are in for a bruising and bloody war. Make no mistake about it. Hillary will stop at nothing to secure her nomination. If, in the process, she destroys the Democratic Party, then so be it!

As I have frequently remarked, I love when Political Correctness runs into itself. We are now faced with the spectacle of two radical Leftists, each playing on his/her own Politically Correct identity group. Whoever actually gets the nomination will alienate some, if not most, of the natural constituency, the identity group, of the other.

Obama is from the streets of Chicago. He is a Daly machine politician. For them, politics is hardball and they don't give up easily. Hillary, on the other hand, views power as her sole reason for life itself. No pesky rules, customs, niceties, or etiquette for her, not when her power is at stake! Liberal women are upset that Oprah has endorsed Obama. Black activists are worried that Hillary will try to steal the nomination from a black man. The enmity is palpable and the knives are being sharpened as we speak.

The only hope for McCain in November is if the scenarios I described in Let's Get Dirty! come to pass. That is when the real fun begins!

Yes, my friends! There will be blood!

Copyright March 5th, 2008

MORE CHILLY WINDS FROM SOUTH AMERICA

More news about the ever-brewing Cold War. One theater of this looming threat is in South America, where Hugo Chavez has brought unapologetic Stalinism back to the region that Ronald Reagan liberated from tyranny. Consider this to be an expansion of Cold War? I Blame Global Warming!

Unfortunately, that liberation occurred two decades ago. The Clinton administration, with the usual Democrat/Liberal liking for Marxist dictators, allowed Chavez to ascend to power in Venezuela. Matters were made worse due to the War on Terror, which took American attention off the threat to our South. Soon, the assets of American corporations were nationalized, media outlets critical of this pint-sized thug were closed, sometimes violently.

Chavez has succeeded in getting the Kennedy clan, in the person of Joseph Kennedy, to gain popular support in the US, using oil from the state owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PDVSA. With smarmy adds, Joe Kennedy uses that tried and true Liberal vision of soup kitchen America, and gives away heating oil to "the poor", all thanks to the "people of Venezuela".

Of course, "the poor" here in America are far better off than the middle class in almost every other nation in the world, but why let mere facts get in the way of a good shibboleth? And does anyone think that giving oil away in America does the actual people of Venezuela any good? Let's go further, are the people any better off if the government sells the oil, let alone gives it away?

From my observations of Marxist "paradises" of the past, I think not!

Venezuela has deepening ties with such lovely nations as Communist China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba. Indeed, Venezuela has teamed up with China and Cuba to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, a rich oil field that our Democrat friends, along with John McCain, have placed off limits for American oil companies.

To give you an idea of just how out of touch with reality our Friends on the Left are, let's look at their alleged "Energy" Bill, which recently passed the House of Representatives. Michelle Malkin points out that this travesty of legislation would produce no new energy, yet would raise taxes on American oil companies and give breaks and subsidies to PDVSA. In other words, we would make hamstring the development of domestic oil supplies even further than the enviro-weenies have done already, while giving a competitive advantage to a state-owned Communist front company.

But that's not the really bad news yet. Let's look to Venezuela's neighbor, Columbia.

Colombia has had a hard time of it in the past. They are the world's leading source of cocaine and other drugs. Despite their best efforts, and the help of the United States, they have had little success weaning their peasants from the relatively lucrative crop of coca, in favor of more conventional crops. To make matters worse, they have their own Marxist insurgency, an insurgency that has taken over much of the cocaine production from the cartels and is funding its revolution against the Colombian government with profits from the sale of the drug. They supplement their income and their revolution with kidnappings and murder.

These murderous little darlings call themselves the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, or FARC, and have been supported by the Soviet Union, the Chinese, the Cubans and other Stalinist states for over four decades. Now, they are supported by Venezuela.

On March 1st, 2008, Colombian forces staged a raid against a FARC camp just over the border in Ecuador. Killed in the attack was FARC leader, Raul Reyes and sixteen other of his terrorist "soldiers". This did not sit very well with neither Mr. Chavez nor Ecuador.

Chavez is now amassing troops and armor on the Colombian border, as is Ecuador, another relatively Marxist state. They are now threatening one of our allies in South America. Outright war has become a distinct possibility in South America. This would be the sort of entree that Russia and China would love to exploit. And Chavez, with his decidedly anti-American worldview, would absolutely welcome their support.

What is needed now is to revisit the policies of Ronald Reagan, which had rolled back the Marxist threat in South America, giving nations like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras a chance to be free. Currently, the trend in the region is toward Stalinism, which must be stopped with great alacrity.

John McCain might be a good president for these uncertain times. However, as I have exhaustively outlined in Montag's World, he just ain't gonna win the election.

So how would Hillary or Saint Obama fair? Think Carter. Think Soviet expansionism. Think of Iran. If they play to type, we will see a Marxist Columbia, with all efforts to curb the growing and exporting of cocaine ended.

Why would I say that? Let's consider each of the leading Democratic candidates.

Hillary's signature campaign issue is nationalized health care. Her biggest supporters have long sung the praises of Cuba's health care system. Michael Moore, for instance, made a movie extolling the benefits of Castro's top-down, government run system. And I guarantee that, when the vote comes up in the Senate, Hillary will vote to give Citgo the breaks that will be denied to American oil companies. The Democrats, especially the modern Liberal Democrats, are historically incapable of defining, let alone defending, America's interests. Hillary will be just another in a long line of Democratic appeasers.

But what about Saint Obama? After all, hasn't he promised to get tough with Pakistan? Yes, he has. But Pakistan is an American ally, and he's already promised to surrender in Iraq and meet with all our enemies for unconditional talks. This will do ... what? How will diplomatic talks keep Columbia from succumbing to a Marxist assault both from within and from their neighbors?

Again, the policies of the Reagan era are what's needed today. We need to confront these Marxist thugs diplomatically, as well as covertly from within. We need to identify groups whose interests correspond with ours and give them all the aide they need to bring their nations back into the democratic mold. Neither Hillary nor Saint Obama are capable, or even willing, to do what is necessary to stop this cancer from spreading.

That being said, let us also remember what old Jimmy Carter made possible: a quarter of a century of Conservative leadership in America. A Democratic win in November will unite and energize Conservatives, while the Democrats will self-destruct, just like Carter. The damage done by the Left to America and her interests will almost guarantee such a Conservative Renaissance.

This is not at all the future that I would prefer, but we got stuck with Juan Pablo McCain, as Billy Cunningham has taken to calling him. Therefore, we Conservatives are left with the Conservatives-in-the-wilderness gambit.

I am always an optimist. For all the trouble I have with McCain, the glass is still half full!

Copyright March 2nd, 2008

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

REALITY CHECK

Many of my friends on the Left believe (rather, they claim to believe) that every single recommendation of the 9/11 Report should have immediately become law and/or official United States policy. Had President Bush, immediately upon entering the White House, presciently knew what those recommendations would be and enacted them in the first months of his presidency, 9/11 would never have happened.


Perhaps. But then, had Bill Clinton not had Jamie Gorelick build that wall between the CIA and the FBI, perhaps something could have been done earlier. Or, as demonstrated by Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his book Dereliction of Duty, if Bill actually took time out from Monica Lewinsky to take Osama bin Ladin down, perhaps this column might not be necessary.


Be that as it may, there are problems looming for the United States, problems that none of the current Big Three candidates for president seem likely to address. These problems all stem from one major issue: illegal immigration.


By way of disclaimer, let it be known that my position on illegal immigration has evolved somewhat. Now, being a radical free market social Conservative with major Libertarian tendencies, and all things being equal, I am generally an open borders kind of guy. Put the government back into its Constitutional bottle (end all social spending, cut taxes as low as possible, radically simplify the tax code, make English the official language, etc.) and no one would really care how many people came from what countries to make a life as an American. Should our economy have a downturn and we aren't able to absorb all those immigrants, well, the market would settle that: news of hard times would get back to the homeland and the flow of immigrants will slow, perhaps even stop.


Nowadays, however, all things are not equal at all. We were attacked on 9/11. Most of the nineteen hijackers were not only in the country illegally, they had multiple drivers' licenses and identities. It has become painfully obvious that open border policies have failed to prevent this act of war.


And what do our leaders, of both political parties, have to offer for solutions? Sadly, only more open borders.


Today's immigration mess didn't just appear out of thin air. The problem goes back at least forty years. Ted Kennedy, back then, decided that our old system of immigration wasn't fair enough. Twenty years later, immigrants from Europe, who by and large share our values, were discouraged in favor of Latin Americans. Not only that, enforcement of our borders was given short shrift.


Of course, twenty years later, there was a public outcry about the burgeoning illegal immigration problem. Ronald Reagan, facing a Democratically controlled Congress, made a deal. The idea was that the border would be closed but, in the meantime, illegal aliens already here were granted a one time amnesty. So what happened?


Well, the Democrats got their amnesty, but blocked all attempts to close our borders, despite their solemn promise. News of the amnesty went South, and still more desperate people went North. Today, we are given estimates of between twelve and twenty-two million illegal immigrants in America.


First of all, there is no way to enforce a serious legal code, not if almost anyone can enter the country at will. And then, how do they get around pesky identifications and taxes and such? No problema! That's what they have identity theft for!


Of course, absent the terrorist threat and absent a government actually following the Constitution, this situation is untenable. Consider how the federal government, either through acts of Congress or the courts, has mandated that these illegal aliens are eligible to all the rights and protections that citizens or legal immigrants are entitled. Consider also, the poor folks whose identities have been stolen for the illegals' benefit. You see, of course, that one broken law begets another, and another...


Now, let's throw in Islamo-fascism and the terrorist threat. The way our borders are currently enforced, does anyone really doubt that terrorists can easily get into the country through Mexico? Does anyone doubt that the "coyotes", those who engage in human smuggling, are taking offers from al Qaeda and the like?


If you doubt me on this, consider the 9/11 Report:

• According to the Report, al Qaeda owns, of all things, a travel agency in Mexico!


• The Report notes that the hijackers committed various irregularities regarding their visas, passports and other documents. Some entered the country illegally, some overstayed their visas, most had fraudulent drivers' licenses. All of this to gain access to American airliners to be used as guided missiles.


• Members of the panel asked many questions about the failures of our Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as failures on the part of the FBI and the CIA

There is no doubt that, had our border enforcement been better, the 9/11 hijackers would not have had as easy a job to do.

Now, we have several recent stories, which I've culled from World Net Daily:

• Mexico has just arrested two Iraqis with false Bulgarian passports. They suspect that they are being purchased by jihadists for $10,000 from Mexicans in Greece.


• Quoting WND: "In addition, earlier this month, Norwegian authorities reported that Iraqis affiliated with al-Qaeda and former Baath Party members may have slipped into Kuwait after obtaining $15,000 Norwegian passports. Authorities in Kuwait say they are on the lookout for any Iraqi citizen bearing a Norwegian passport."


• Let's not forget that dozens of Iraqis were arrested entering Monterrey, Mexico, illegally, heading for the United States.


• Joseph Farrah, the editor of WND reported in 2003: "While President Bush considers a broad-based amnesty plan for millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., there is growing evidence the Mexican border continues to be used as a covert entry point for the smuggling of Arabs into the country."

We are facing a very serious threat, my Friends. While Chuck Schumer might holler for stricter security in our ports, he has little positive to say about securing our borders.

President George W. Bush has been strong on the War on Terror (God bless him!) but when it comes to securing the border? Chuck Schumer might as well have been the president, for all the differences (or lack thereof) in their positions regarding "comprehensive immigration reform".

John McCain likes to "reach across the aisle" to the Democrats. In this case, we just dodged a bullet with the McCain-Kennedy Bill, also supported by President Bush, which would totally fail to close our borders, while simultaneously granting amnesty to all those illegal aliens who've broken our laws. Been there, done that in 1986. In this time of war, do we need to repeat the mistake of Ronald Reagan?

Yes, McCain has promised on the campaign trail that he "gets it". He's learned his lesson and that he will shut down our borders but good the first thing when he gets to the White House. Yup! And I can sell you a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn for a measly couple of grand. With McCain in the White House and the Democrats in charge of the Congress, we'll have almost all of Mexico, along with whatever al Qaeda operatives there are, in the US and voting Democrat within ten years.

Hillary and Obama aren't any different either. Both want our borders open. Both favor granting illegals drivers' licenses. Neither of them, in last night's debate in Texas, wantto take a stance on making English our official language. In short, both like the influx of unskilled, under educated, illegal immigrants who have no interest in actually becoming Americans. Of course, that would, presumably, not be an obstacle when registering them as Democrats!

Now don't think that I am anti-immigrant. On the contrary, I love immigrants. I'm the grandson of immigrants. But I want immigrants who come here to become Americans. These are not the sort who become illegal aliens.

Read my opening comments about open borders, all things being equal. The mess we're in today is because my ideas about government and immigration were never implemented. We opened our borders without putting the government back into it's Constitutional bottle.

Then again, when I was an open borders guy, we weren't at war. As many folks have noted, 9/11 changes things. What we found out in the aftermath is that we are far too vulnerable thanks to illegal immigration.

My fear is that too many of our political elites, on both sides of the political divide, just don't see it.

Copyright Feb. 22nd 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

NO COUNTRY FOR CONSERVATIVES?

This is going to be one difficult column to write, since I tend to be rather optimistic. Unfortunately, I try to be honest, and this election cycle's prospects don't look too good.

With the nomination of John McCain all but a done deal, Conservatives are left with a serious dilemma. What are we to do, now that our input into the primary process was ignored yet our support for the obviously flawed McCain is demanded?

Time and again, it seems, Conservatives are told by the Republican establishment "Shut up and vote for our candidate". It's bad enough when we are given inferior choices. George W. Bush might not have been our ideal, but he was still a better choice than McCain. This time, we were denied, by the Party bosses, the superior candidate, Mitt Romney, with the collusion of an also- ran, Mike Huckabee.

We've seen this script before. Goldwater was shut out -- too Conservative. Reagan had to be shunted aside in favor of blueblood pick, Gerald Ford. Bush the Elder had to be the guy, because he'd been Vice President. How many times must we Conservatives hold our noses and choose "the lesser of two evils"?

This time around, I am not all that convinced that McCain is "the lesser of two evils", for the reasons I listed yesterday in No Comparison. When you really examine the issues, we are faced with the choice between full-steam-ahead Socialism or Let's-take-our-time Socialism.

There is one school of thought that says we have to support McCain, since failure to do so would result in a Hillary or Obama victory. Given the current Democrat majority in Congress, they would be up to no end of mishief. Even a flawed RINO in the White House would put the brakes on the worst abuses.

But how can we know? After all, McCain has sided with the Democrats on so many issues. Indeed, he even flirted with leaving the Republicans to become John Kerry's running mate in 2004. What would keep him from showing his true Liberal colors once in office.

At this point, the Establishment types would say "Oh! But the Republicans in Congress would work to minimize that sort of collusion." Really? The way they stopped President Bush from foisting a massive new entitlement on us? The way the Republican leadership stopped the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill? Or the way that, despite their opposition, the McCain-Feingold Bill became law?

The fact of the matter is, members of Congress are beholden to the White House when it is held by a member of their own party. This is why so many Republicans went along with President Bush's Liberal apostacies. Failure to support the Party's President is often met with the punishment of witheld Pary support. With John McCain in the White House, siding with the Democrats on so many issues, they would perforce support his ideas. Conservatism, that ideological bedrock upon which the Republican successes of the last thirty years were built, will be all but abandoned.

So! Do we Conservatives, as Ann Coulter suggested, vote for the Democratic candidate? That is unsatisfactory since it would prove to the Establishment RINO's that there really isn't such a great divide between the Right and the Left. It would also be an exercise in hypocrisy (no offense, Ann!) that I, at least, would prefer not to commit.

Of course, we Conservatives could, in good conscience, sit the election out. This would, of course, guarantee a Democrat victory, but we can at least claim noncooperation. Many Conservatives will probably do just that, as we have seen time and again in the past. Even the RINO's know that they can't win elections without Conservative support. Witness McCain's speech yesterday pleading with the members of C-PAK that he really is a Conservative, despite his abysmal track record. Many Conservatives will simply withold their votes, with the result of a Democrat victory.

Here we have the problem that we aren't driving our agenda forward, letting the Left have full control, once again, of our government. Any gains we have seen regarding the make up of the courts will be undone all at once. The eldest, and the coincidentally the most Liberal, members of the Supreme Court, for instance, are holding on to their seats only in hopes of a Democrat victory in November. Once either Hillary or Obama are in the White House, they are going to retire and we get clones of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.

Perhaps we Conservatives should bolt from the Republican Party all together forming a new Conservative Party and letting the RINO's join the Democrats for real. This would be very satisfying on a personal level, but would leave the Democrats uncontested for a period of years while we build up our party strength. Would the Democrats still allow the New Media its freedom, which we Conservatives have enjoyed for twenty years? That is doubtful, since the Left has been trying to shut down the New Media, calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. That could blow up in the Democrats' collective face, since it might fire up an otherwise disheartened Conservative mainstream.

For myself, I am going to change my party registration to the New York State Conservative Party, not that it has always been a good fit for my own philosophies. It's just that the New York Republicans have left me, becoming "me too" Democrats in the mistaken belief that Liberalism Lite works better than Conservatism. By changing my party affiliation, I intend to send the message that I am not OK with the Leftward tilt of the Republicans.

But what of November? What should I do with my own precious vote. While anything can happen between now and then, and in politics anything usually does, I think I might actually vote for John McCain, as much as it pains me to say it. I doubt that he can win in the general election. After all, "Given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the Democrat always wins." My apologies to the shade of Harry Truman!

However, I still believe in miracles, even if the one I'd hoped for wasn't meant to be. McCain might pull it off. And if he pulls it off, he might even govern as a Conservative. I won't hold my breath on either of these possibilities, though.

If McCain were to succumb to his worst tendencies, perhaps the Conservative faithful could hold his feet to the fire, so to speak, and bring him back around. That's also a longshot, but we're talking about miracles, so please forgive me.

Doubts about McCain's orthodoxy aside, he is still going to be marginally better on judicial picks, although don't expect McCain-Feingold to be overturned in the near future. And he is slightly better on the War on Terror. Just don't pay too close attention to the courts handling the Guantanamo detainees.

All in all, there isn't much to like about the picks for the presidency. But I'm still going to vote and I'm still going to change my party affiliation.

Electile Dysfunction, anyone?

Copyright Feb. 8th, 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

MITT ROMNEY

Well! What can I say about Mitt Romney now that he has lost the Florida primary to John McCain? Until this evening, Romney had a strong lead in the delegate count for the national convention. But with McCain picking up 57 delegates, that puts the pressure on Romney.

Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, who has a track record of taking over failing businesses and turning them around. Like Giuliani and Bill Richardson, he's had executive experience in both the private and the public sector. He was the man who turned the 2002 Summer Olympics in Salt Lake City into a successful venture, although it was on the brink of collapse amid mismanagement and scandal. As governor of Massachusetts, he reversed the state's fiscal decline and created budget surpluses where none had existed before.

If the economy is to be the defining issue of the 2008 presidential race, then Romney is the candidate for the Republicans. His success in business and as governor put him head and shoulders above all the other candidates. On the issues, only Fred Thompson was stronger, although Mitt looks more like a president. Granted, that was superficial, but that is also part of what voters look at.

Romney is the epitome of that old saying, "If at twenty you are not a Liberal, you have no heart -- if at forty you are not a Conservative, you have no brain." Romney's political career has moved him steadily to the Right. In 1994, he was the closest of any Republicans to unseat Ted Kennedy, failing only because he moved to the Left in a misguided effort to "moderate" his tone for Liberal Massachusetts.

As a candidate for governor, he left behind these youthful indiscretions to run as a more mainstream Conservative. True to my observations yesterday, in The McCain Mutiny, Romney won.

Romney's campaign seems to have earned the enmity of the Liberal Legacy Media, despite his past Liberal leanings and his Hollywood-style presidential looks. My suspicion is that he is the one candidate that can actually unite the Republicans and beat either Hillary or Obama. As such, they are shilling for McCain as much as they can, telling us that he is the only candidate worthy of being called a Conservative. As if the Legacy Media has any real idea of what a Conservative is.

In service to this agenda, the Legacy Media has made much of Romney's Mormon faith. There has been a lot of attention given to Mormon history and to alleged mistrust of Mormons by the evangelical Christians who make up such a large part of the Conservative base. Of course, the simple fact that Mormonism is, in essence, a Christian faith gets left out of these examinations.

Questions have arisen about the Mormon practice, abandoned a century ago by mainstream Mormons, of polygamy. But that doesn't wash since, of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney is the only one who is still married to his first --and only -- wife!

Curiously, none of these issues were raised when Harry Reid, the "Dingy One" from Nevada who is currently the Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats, was opining as to how "the war is lost" and calling President Bush "a loser". For some reason, the Legacy Media doesn't see the Mormon faith as problematic for a Democrat.

The religion question became so extreme that Romney had to blunt the attacks. On Dec. 6th, 2007, he gave a speech (you can see it here) about his Mormon faith and his ideals as a presidential candidate. Entitled Faith in America, he answered and shut down all his critics, and did so in a way that enhanced his stature as a man and as a prospective president.

Romney, as noted above, has grown into his Conservative principles. Hence, he is tagged by McCain and the Legacy Media as a "flip-flopper". Well, Paul Compos of the Scripps Howard New Service has already demonstrated that it is McCain, not Romney, who is positionally challenged.

The stands Romney has taken in this campaign are the tried and true Conservative views. He seeks an overturn of Roe v. Wade, turning the issue of abortion back to the states and the people, where it belongs. He has vowed tax cuts and private sector solutions to various social problems, rather than the Nanny State of the Democrats. And he has stood solidly for America in the War on Terror, supporting President Bush and our troops.

Indeed, Romney and Fred Thompson are the only candidates I've heard actually defend American businesses, rightfully praising them for our unprecedented standard of living. All the other candidates, and especially John McCain, have criticized and belittled our corporations, threatening them with ever more onerous taxes and regulations.

So here is what we have with Mitt Romney:

• An impeccable and successful resume of executive experience both in the private and the public spheres.


• A genuinely decent man, without the personal baggage of most of the other candidates.


• A man who has grown into his Conservatism, learning from the past and applying it to the present, while not pandering to the base.


• And a man who, when unjustly maligned for his faith, stood up to the bigots without demeaning either them or himself.

Mitt Romney is my candidate of choice for the Republican nomination. A perfect candidate? No, and never has a perfect candidate ever existed. Yet Romney is the man who most epitomizes the ideals of Conservatism. He has the fewest skeletons of all the other candidates. He has the most experience.

Mitt Romney is the man for the White House, hands down, out of all the candidates that we have examined here in these columns. He has a tough battle ahead of him. But there is the one thing the philosopher got right out all he got wrong: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

Romney is the man!

Copyright Jan. 29th, 2008

THE McCAIN MUTINY

I know, it's an overworked, unoriginal title. But I just like the phrase. Today, we examine John McCain, the one Republican who is actually liked in the mainstream Legacy Media.

John McCain has the kind of story that John Kerry wishes he had. Yes, Kerry was in Viet Nam, and yes, he received several Purple Heart awards. But John McCain actually served some real time there. In fact, he was a guest at the infamous Hanoi Hilton, beaten and tortured on a regular basis by the North Viet Namese. While Kerry supporters try to claim he was a war hero, McCain is the real deal.

But that is only one of the reasons the Legacy Media are so enamoured with John McCain. For the Legacy Media know a simple fact that many Republicans fail to remember: Conservatism wins every time you run on it. For all of McCain's excellent pedigree and proven courage in Viet Nam, he is far, far from Conservative. Furthermore, McCain seems to have a thin skin and an uneven temperament. And he can hold a grudge on a scale worthy of either Bill or Hillary.

Why is McCain not a Conservative? A simple look at his record should suffice. He has been a staunch opponent of tax cuts, garnering the sobriquet of "fiscal conservative", among the media elites, but leaving the true Conservative activists a bit cold. Indeed, when asked why he opposed the Bush tax cuts, he used rhetoric right out of the Democratic Party handbook, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".

Then there was McCain-Feingold. This atrocious assault on the First Amendment criminalizes certain examples of political speech at certain times of the election cycle. It empowers the Legacy Media and labor unions, while emasculating private citizens and their organizations. Should John McCain become president, it is very doubtful that he would appoint any Supreme Court justices who would overturn his pet project.

And he seems to have bought into the Left's shibboleth of man made Global Warmism, while using the debates to attack America's pharmaceutical companies. If the conventional wisdom that we are headed into a recession is correct -- an opinion that I, for one, do not share -- then this is the last guy we want in the White House.

McCain gets a lot of high marks for his Pro-Life positions. But is this warranted? Paul F. Campos, of the Scripps-Howard News Service, last week noted his shifting stances regarding abortions. In fact, it was only until the past year, running for the presidency, that John McCain became reliably Pro-Life. He now wants to outlaw almost all abortions and he claims he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. But can he be relied on?

Let's get back to the issue of judges. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade would be to appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court. Yet, when the Democrat minority in Congress used the fillerbuster to block such appointments, John McCain organized the so-called "Gang of 14" to prevent the Republican majority from exercising their Constitutional duty to stop these unconstitutional fillerbusters. How can we be sure he won't side with the Democrats and appoint more Liberal, "living document" judges to the Bench? Simply put, we can't.

McCain gets praise for being tough on the War on Terror. But just how tough is he? He's already proposed closing down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorist suspects to American soil where they would presumably get rights to attorneys and appeals that no enemy combatants in the past ever had. He has used his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton to oppose enhanced interrogation techniques that have made America safer, as if waterboarding and loud music were real torture.

Let me take a moment to discuss waterboarding. This is a technique in which a suspect is laid on his back, his face covered with a towel. Water is then poured onto the towel so as to make the suspect think he is drowning. Many folks think this is torture, with Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy being one of the most outspoken critics. The fact of the matter is, waterboarding is used on our own soldiers and pilots as part of their training. Anti-war protesters routinely volunteer to be waterboarded at protests, as have several journalists. In fact, when I had researched waterboarding through Google, I stumbled on a pornography site that featured folks being waterboarded for recreational purposes! I humbly submit that, given the above fact, coupled with the fact that it works, waterboarding is not torture!

Then there is the matter of the Geneva Conventions. John McCain favors an expansive reading of the articles so that even enemy combatants -- a group that the Conventions specifically single out for exclusion -- should be treated the exact same way that criminals or POW's are treated. Again, this is something that America has never done in the past. We are faced with an enemy that doesn't even pay lip service to the Geneva Conventions. It's as if McCain wants to get tough with an asymmetrical enemy with one hand tied behind our back.

Speaking of national security, McCain has made a mockery of our borders and our concern for illegal immigration. The McCain-Kennedy Bill, which thankfully failed due to an overwhelming public outcry, would, despite McCain's preposterous claims to the contrary, have granted amnesty to 12 to 22 million folks who have violated our borders, stolen identities, and continue to flout our immigration laws. Of course, he had a lot of help from President Bush, but that is yet another reason why the Democrats are in the majority in Congress, along with big spending and failure to make the tax cuts permanent. Conservatives just stayed home in 2006, rather than vote for folks who failed to live up to their ideals.

And what about a consistent political philosophy? Isn't it important that a prospective president be absolutely clear on his positions and be firm in his resolve to govern by them? Well, McCain seems to think that his opponent, Mitt Romney doesn't measure up in this respect. Paul F. Campos's clearly lays out the inconsistencies in McCain's record. Of course, Mr. Campos was arguing from a Liberal perspective, but the fact remains: John McCain is the flip flopper, not Mitt Romney.

Let's not forget, either, that in the 2000 primaries, McCain described Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" yet spoke at his university last year, and is actively courting evangelicals in this election. So what does he really think? Who knows? He's certainly not telling!

We Conservatives are constantly being told that we must support John McCain, that he is the only candidate that could defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. We are told that examining McCain's actual record, rather than parroting what he says is his record, would lead to the destruction of the Republican Party. But there's a problem with this. Historically, we need only look back to the Truman administration, which tired of Democrats siding with Republicans too often in Congress. President Truman once famously remarked, "Given a choice between a 'Republican' and a Republican, the voters would take the Republican every time."

Change the party name, and the same could be said about "moderate" Republicans like John McCain: Given a choice between a "Democrat" and a Democrat, the Democrat wins every time. Dennis Vacco, once New York State's attorney general, learned that the hard way when he refused the Right to Life Party's endorsement in protest of an abortion doctor's murder. Al Damato, once holding Chuck Schumer's New York Senate seat, also lost after moving to the Left on Life issues and letting Clinton slide in his Senate Banking Committee investigations. Even Mitt Romney learned after he lost to Ted Kennedy, after swinging to the Left to "moderate" his tone for Massachusetts's voters. Recall also that the Republicans who lost their congressional seats in 2006 did so against Democrats that ran as Conservatives, although those Democrats swung to the Left once in office.

There are two reasons why Republican candidates who run as Democrat-lite fail to win. First, is Truman's maxim: why vote for the pseudo Democrat when you can vote for the real thing. The second is that Conservative voters will not get excited about a RINO (Republican In Name Only)candidate. They see no reason to vote for said RINO since, win or lose, the RINO will vote just like a Democrat.

This is precisely why John McCain's candidacy is doomed to failure. The only states that McCain has won were states that allowed Democrats and Independents vote in Republican primaries. Conservatives have very good reasons not to like or trust John McCain. And one of the best reasons is that the Legacy Media likes him so much.

Or, at least, until or if he gets the Republican nomination. Then the Legacy Media will revert to form and trash John McCain like any other Republican nominee. They only want McCain because he would stand no chance at all against any Democratic candidate. The Legacy Media is trying to pick our nominee to blunt our drive to keep the White House.

The question then is, who will I support in November? Obviously, the Republican candidate, since, even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice. But then I think of the joke that's been going around the Internet lately, the one about "Electile Dysfunction": the inability to get excited about any of the candidates in the presidential race.

But fear not, folks! I haven't talked about Mitt Romney yet!

Copyright Jan. 28th, 2008