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

FIRST, THE ALSO-RANS

My look at the candidates for the 2008 presidential race will start with those who are least likely to win their nominations. Let's just get the also-rans out of the way and get to main players. In particular let's examine Ron Paul and John Edwards.

First, let's look at Ron Paul. OK! Who's next? Just kidding!

Ron Paul is a long time Libertarian who was elected to Congress in the party that is most closely aligned with Libertarian ideology, the GOP. On economics, I have to like the guy. He's in favor of lower taxes, fewer regulations etc. But on foreign policy, he will ruin us. Paul is an isolationist. He, like many on the Left, thinks that if we just get out of the Middle East, the Islamo-fascists will suddenly like us again. He confuses military bases in countries such as Saudi Arabia with military occupation. This, in my mind, is not just silly, but is in complete denial of simple facts. Furthermore, it will only embolden our enemies. After all, Ossama bin Ladin himself said that our retreat from Somalia (Thanks, Bill!) was a sign that we can be beaten.

Other than his harebrained foreign policy ideas, he just comes across as a grouchy old man. Worse, he looks like he might be insane. This, of course, is purely superficial, but we are looking for the next president of the United States. Is this what we want? Then again, do we want a president who was endorsed by transvestites and strippers?

Ah! John Edwards! He of the silky locks and $1500 haircuts. What a piece of work this guy is!

John Edwards is campaigning on behalf of that other America. Not those in the neighborhood he lives in, although he did succeed in ridding himself of a poor Republican, gun-toting neighbor who couldn't afford to fix up his property. No, he's out to help the poor, not with his own money but with yours. He gets credit from many on the Left for not being beholden to any special interests. As if trial lawyers weren't one of the most expensive special interests burdening America.

Yes, folks! Trial Lawyers, Those same happy people who brought us the $4 million cup of coffee and the idea that a dry cleaner can be sued out of business for ruining a pair of pants. What has John Edwards done to further the cause? Well, he "worked" his way out of the America he wants to represent into the ranks of the rich America by suing obstetricians for failing to perform C-sections. This was despite the fact that there was no proof that C-sections would prevent cerebral palsy. If that weren't loopy enough, he did it by "channeling" the spirits of these poor kids, in utero no less, giving them "voice" in the court rooms. Not only was he responsible for reducing the number of obstetricians available to pregnant women around the country, he also put those women's lives at risk because those obstetricians still in business performed more C-sections than necessary, all to avoid a lawsuit from the likes of John Edwards.

John Edwards wants, along with the other two Democratic candidates, to nationalize healthcare. Imagine: all the efficiency of the DMV with all the compassion of the IRS. I feel healthier already! If that weren't enough, he has also proposed that folks be mandated for certain tests and procedures. I wonder if that means C-sections for all, whether they need them or not?

Don't forget higher taxes! Not to be out taxed by Obama and Hillary, Edwards is right out there with taxes on anything he can imagine. Naturally, he couches it in the class warfare rhetoric of his "Two Americas". But never doubt that both Americas are going to get C-sections on their wallets. It's the way it's always done by the Left.

Let's recall why, in yesterday's column, I considered him to be one half a candidate: in the 2004 election, he couldn't even carry his own state. Obviously, if the people who know him best don't want him, then he is needed in the White House!

Also from 2004, remember when, in his finest preacher's voice, he declared that Christopher Reeves will walk again if he and Kerry were elected? Who writes his stuff? He could get a job writing for Saturday Night Live -- at least whenever the writers' strike ends.

Not to leave Edwards out of the gratuitous criticism leveled at Ron Paul, let's also mention that, besides his silky hair and his womanly virtues ( Remember when his wife tried to make the case that he was more of a woman than Hillary?) he also blinks continuously. It's annoying. Most people who blink like that are pegged as liars.

Again, purely superficial, I know. But many vote on appearances alone, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Essentially, I believe, Edwards is vying for the position of king maker. He's going to drop out sooner or later and see what kind of a deal he can get from either Obama or Hillary. Who ever gives him the most, in policy perks and the vice presidency candidacy, will get John Edwards' pitiful number of supporters.

Honorable mentions also go out to Bill Richardson, for best supporting role to the Hillary campaign; Dennis Kucinich, for representing the terrorists and the UFO community; Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, for pushing the immigration issue; and a very special mention of Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes deserves a few words more than the other honorable mentions. He is a man of undeniable faith, both in God and in Constitutional governance. What he brings to the table is profound respect for life, finding in the Constitution one of the most perfect arguments against abortion and euthanasia. I like his stances and his take-no-prisoners style. Had he more time to run a better campaign for the Illinois Senate seat, Barak Obama would have been in this column as an also ran. Unfortunately, he does not resonate with the majority of voters and does not get anywhere near the media attention he deserves. So it is with deep regret that I grant Alan Keyes this place, however special the mention, in this list of the runners up.

We'll talk more about the leading candidates tomorrow.

Copyright January 19th, 2008