Obama in Richmond

In this speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond, Virginia, Barack Obama mentioned several things that he wants to accomplish as President. This is disturbing material for someone who believes in free markets and in the freedom of the individual. It is undisguised, big-government socialism all wrapped up in liberal, feel-good language.

Listen for yourself and be afraid...be very afraid. All the more reason to get behind our nominee, John McCain.



-- Submitted by B. Bryant

The Perfect Storm

It was not supposed to happen this way for the Democrats. This was supposed to be a coronation, not a contest. Clintonista Terry McAuliffe, as Democrat Party chair, engineered the front-loading of the primary system that was supposed to deliver the nomination to Senator Clinton and then give her ample time to mount an early Presidential campaign against the Republicans. What is it they say about the plans of mice and men?

The Democrats have a contest on their hands and a perfect storm brewing. Their practice of proportional delegate distribution coupled with the closeness of the race between Obama and Clinton virtually ensures that neither candidate will have a majority of the elected delegates by the time of their convention in late August. This would lead to two things, a fight over the discounted Michigan and Florida delegates and a possible nomination decision by a set of unelected political delegates (super-delegates), over seven hundred of them in all.

This potentially puts the Democrats in the place that they decidedly do not want to be, fighting one another on the eve of beginning a campaign against a somewhat united Republican party. The options are numerous and none of them are good…for the Dems, that is. If the nomination is decided by a cadre of political hacks, there will certainly be anger and frustration on the losing side. If the losing side happens to have gone into the convention with the most elected delegates, that anger will turn to a white-hot fury that will doom the Dems election chances in November.

If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, no one expects her to take the Mitt Romney high road. Such a classy move is not in the Clinton playbook. The Clintons will likely initiate legal action to have the Michigan and Florida delegates included. They will not go quietly into the night but will risk burning the whole house down rather than admitting defeat. As was said, all the available options spell trouble for the Dems in November.

As a Republican, I am, of course, delighted by this turn of events. I also want to speak to my fellow conservative Republicans. Let us come together behind our eventual nominee, Sen. John McCain. I have disagreed with him on several issues but he is infinitely preferable to the Democrat alternative. Let the Dems fight it out in August and go into November divided. Let us, as Republicans, as believers in free markets and of the freedom of the individual, go into November united, determined to keep this great nation going in the direction of freedom and prosperity.

It is our choice. Let us choose rightly.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

On To Victory

The mainstream media have apparently held a coronation for Senator John McCain, telling us that he's wrapped up the nomination (albeit 400+ delegates short of officially wrapping up the nomination). Let's play along, congratulate Senator McCain, and start rallying the troops to what our mission really is all about: Keep a Republican in the White House.

I personally don't subscribe to the theory that we should let either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton win the White House in 2008. "Let them flounder for four years, and then the Republicans will take over both houses and the White House in 2012."

First, let's get this straight, using some math. 4 years is approximately 5% of my life expectancy. I wouldn't accept an additional 5% tax on my wages or purchases, why would I want an additional 5% Idiot Tax placed on my life? (And if I want to use chaos theory, I'm pretty sure that 4 years of Democrat rule will shorten my life by more than 4 years, so the effect is compounded, much like the Democratic spending policy on National Debt.)

Second, a Congress and White House controlled by the Democrats means: higher taxes; liberal Supreme Court Justices (anywhere from 2-4, based on ages/health of judges); amnesty for illegal immigrants (along with open borders for more to join the Welfare State); and more and more entitlement programs (including health care - universal or mandated with federal support).

Third, obliteration of the USA's international standing of economic and social leadership, partially through the weakening of the military.

There's a lot of damage that can be inflicted within 4 years. All we need to do is look to the unfortunate citizens of Tennessee to see how quickly damage can be inflicted, and how much longer it takes to clean up after a catastrophe. 4 years of Democrat-controlled Washington is 4 years too many, regardless of what may happen in 2012.

Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. The results will be ugly if we do.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Message to Mitt

Dear Mitt:

I want to take this opportunity to say "thank you" for your effort and hard work over the past year. Your efforts have not been in vain. You were able to accomplish many things while you toiled on the campaign trail, and while you didn't get to where you ultimately wanted to (the White House), here's what you've done for us:

1. You made sure that true Conservative principles were brought to the table in every debate, forum, and discussion.
2. Your activities helped veer McCain (ever so slightly) to the right.
3. You alone provided the pathway towards what our country needs to do during challenging (not recessive) economic times. You "got it" when the country shifted focus from Iraq and security to economic troubles. Hopefully your opponents won't drop the ball.
4. Your participation ensured that the anti-McCain vote didn't all end up with Huckabee, who I believe would be a bigger disaster for the Republicans than any other candidate running.

Again, Thank You.

Now, let us give you something in return. Your candidacy lacked something in 2008. We want you to come back stronger in 2012, so please heed the following advice (or, take it for what it's worth - you know economics).

1. Your conservative positions appeared to be too "pure" for someone who was previously on record for being a moderate (see: Massachusetts Senate Campaign, circa 1994; Massachusetts Governatorial Campaign, circa 2002). There just wasn't enough history to demonstrate such a turnaround on some positions. Recommendation: Stay involved, and stay true to your message. Alternatively, make sure your message supports your actions.

2. You were victimized by your own political naivite. In the business world, you rightfully attack the market leaders until you become the leader (then protect against attacks). In politics, you attacked whomever was deemed to be the leader at the time...which meant that you were making multiple enemies. They banded together, fought against you, and ultimately brought you down in WV. Recommendation: Reach out to the remaining candidates and try to mend fences. In the next election, thou shalt remember the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

3. You're able to find the problems that concern America quickly (re: economic situation), and quickly wax poetic about solid potential solutions to those problems. Recommendation: Please stay active within the Republican Party. Help everyone focus on solutions, rather than division. Continue to reinforce your famous "Mormon Speech", so that it becomes a non-issue. Be ready for 2012. At current course and speed, you'll be needed.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

McCain's Big Test: CPAC

Today's the first (and potentially biggest) day in "The Rest of McCain's Campaign"... the speech he delivers at CPAC today could help soothe some (emphasis on some) of the conservatives who are not supportive of his candidacy. If McCain sticks to his guns, the alienation will be complete, and we'll see many conservatives simply sit out the election. Might as well start getting the guest rooms ready for Soros, moveon.org, and other extremists.

However, and here's where I'm hoping that McCain acts presidential... if McCain reaches out, clarifies his true intentions for the next four years, and - let me be clear here - panders to the conservatives a little, he'll quell some of the anti-McCain tactics and possibly (hopefully) pave the way to the White House in 2009.

A couple other suggestions for Senator McCain:
1. Reach out to your friend, Fred Thompson, for his assistance with the conservatives;
2. Don't go negative on W; and
3. Talk to your economic advisors now. Talk about your economic policies now. In case you've missed it, the economy has moved to the front of the line for the American public. I don't want to hear "It's the economy, stupid" ever again in a Presidential election.

-- Submitted (with fingers crossed) by R Wellesley

Super Muddled Tuesday

Early Observations from Super Tuesday
1. It would appear that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are suffering through the same problem: there is no clear-cut leader in the Presidential primaries. Clinton and Obama are virtually tied in delegates after Super Tuesday, so we look forward to even more lavish praise from the press on how one or the other is overcoming odds to stay afloat, grab victory from the jaws of defeat, etc (three cheers for whomever invented the Mute button). The Republicans appear to have a front-runner (at last) in McCain, but it's not an insurmountable lead by any stretch of the imagination. And McCain is winning many states with a minority of the votes being cast (33-38%).

2. Mike Huckabee shocked many pundits with his victories yesterday. Given up for dead due to limited appeal and funding problems, he managed to eek out victories in the South. Although, even though he gets credit for winning WV, the real victor in that caucus was "Not Romney".

3. Mitt Romney's machine works wonders in caucus states, but the man hasn't been able to move the needle with the electorate. Whether it's his apparent policy swings (moderate in '94 to conservative in '08), his religion, or his personal fortune, the populace isn't connecting with him.

4. (Caution: Forward-looking statement follows!) Huckabee's victories last night will ultimately spell victory for McCain. The Anti-McCain vote will still be split between Huckabee and Romney, allowing McCain to win additional states with only 35-38% of the votes cast.

5. If McCain wants to win this quickly, he needs to make a beeline to the right to start smoothing over all the ruffled feathers he's left behind. I do believe that he'll hold out an olive branch over the next few days, but I don't expect that McCain will go far enough to appease the Conservative establishment. I don't feel as if the Conservatives will be able to gather enough strength to stop McCain now (with Huckabee continuing on), but the longer the diviseness goes on, the less likely we'll see another 4 years of a Republican in the White House.

6. There's a major, palpable difference in the two races. The Democratic race, in part due to the favorable press (and, let's be honest, the amount of time the Press spends drooling over Obama and Clinton has gone from ridiculous to downright insane), has galvanized millions across the country, and has attracted record turnout in the primaries. Apparently, a choice between "the devil you know" and "the devil you don't" is too alluring for the masochistic leftists, but that's a topic for another day.

The Republican races, though, seem to be sapped from electricity. It's been the most divisive Republican election than I've seen in a long time (much moreso than Bush-McCain '00), and the electorate just doesn't seem to embrace any of the Republican candidates so far.

7. With the Democratically-controlled Congress already in place, are the Republicans getting comfortable with Democrats controlling Congress and the White House as we start to see Supreme Court justice appointments over the next 4 years?

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Is Rush a Democrat?

Before I'm vilified for heresy, tarred and feathered for lunacy, and burnt at the stake for witchcraft, let me say: No, Rush is not a Democrat. However, he and his conservative compatriots have done the unthinkable - they're acting like Democrats. (OK, let the tomatoes fly. I can take it.)

We all know that the Republicans have been unable to motivate a true, unifying, universally accepted candidate to seek office in the 2008 Presidential elections. Super Tuesday is upon us, the electorate is fractured, and not many people are enthusiastically supportive of either the front-runner (McCain) or alternatives (Romney, Huckabee, or Paul). Each candidate has their warts, that's a fact. But when Rush and the Dittos (the press dittos included) continue to lambaste McCain and Huckabee over the air, in print, and/or in the blogosphere, don't they understand that they're actually playing into Liberal hands? It's typically the Democrats that eat their own during the primaries, and the Republicans are thankful that they can walk through the remnants of whatever paper-thin candidate has been elevated to contender status.

Civility has been abandoned. Threats of sitting out the election hang stale in the air.
This is America, ladies and gentlemen. Vote your conscience, and stress the positives of your candidate. If the majority of votes in the Republican primary go towards a candidate you don't like, rally behind the candidate that America chooses and vote. (Although, if you prefer Obama or Clinton, feel free to stay at home while the rest of America votes. I'm ok with that. Really.)

I'm the first to admit that I'm not "wow"ed by any candidate out there, but I'd rather not resort to acting like a Democrat and tear down any candidate that provides a better option than the alternative!

It's Super Tuesday. Vote American. Vote Right.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

More Liberal Than a Clinton!

I can't say that I was totally shocked by this news, but if you had asked me to name Senators more liberal than Hillary Clinton back in 2007, I would have been stumped (outside of Ted Kennedy, that is). Lucky for people like me, the National Journal has the facts:

"Overall in NJ's 2007 ratings, Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted; Clinton voted the liberal position 77 of 82 times. Obama garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories. His score in the foreign-policy category was nearly perfect, pulled down a notch by the only conservative vote that he cast in the ratings, on a Republican-sponsored resolution expressing the sense of Congress that funding should not be cut off for U.S. troops in harm's way. The Senate passed the resolution 82-16 with the support of both Obama and Clinton. The 16 opponents included mostly liberals, such as Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Sanders. "

Obama's "composite liberal score" was 95.5, compared to Clinton's 82.8. That seems like a pretty sizeable difference to me. So I wanted to compare it to a few Republicans - unfortunately, data was limited (either the candidate wasn't in the Congress - such as Romney - or wasn't present for enough votes to qualify for the composite score - such as McCain). So I was able to look over the "lifetime" scores for McCain (71.8), Chuck Hagel (71.5), and Ron Paul (51.7)... although, truth be told, over the last 5 years McCain is 57.9 and Paul is 41.9, which are solid Conservative figures.

Obama's score indicated that he was the most liberal Congressman in 2007. Anybody remember that embarrasment of a Presidential candidate named John Kerry? He was the most liberal Congressman in 2003 - apparently, in order to run for President as a Democrat, you have to run hard to the left before the primaries. Good thing they don't cater to extremists over there.

What did I conclude? First, that Obama scares the living heck out of me with his liberal voting record. Second, why wasn't McCain around to cast enough votes to qualify for the ranking? Third (and finally), I am praying for a repeat of 2004, when America stiff-armed the most liberal Congressman and forced him to retreat home (to his multi-millionaire wife, cushy Senate job, and all of the other liberal "thought leaders").

To think that Hillary was only the 16th most liberal person in Congress in 2007... wow.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

I Miss Him Already

I recorded President Bush's last State of the Union address last night. I transferred it to a DVD, labeled it "George W. Bush, POTUS, State of the Union, January 28, 2008, " and put it in a safe place. This will provide comfort to me in the event that a President Obama or a President Clinton is giving the State of the Union in two years.

I have liked George W. Bush since I first encountered, observed and heard him. He was my candidate since 1999, long before he won South Carolina in 2000. And his seven years of presidency has not changed my opinion.

While, I am familiar with his shortcomings - his accomplishments and his character have more than outweighed all of them.

He recognized the true nature of the threat of Islamic Terrorism, while others were trying to justify the 9/11 attacks as isolated events. While this threat has been with us since Jimmy Carter watched the hostile takeover of Iran and the year-long hostage crisis, the attempt to kill fifty thousand people was taking terrorism to a new level - and the president needed to respond.

President Bush responded with changes to our government agencies and their rules of engagement, laws regarding financial transactions and, most importantly, he sent the military after the two most dangerous exporters of terror...Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a fledgling democracy in both of these countries today.

Since 9/11/2001, the country has not been attacked once...despite the regular cadence of terrorist attacks under the presidency of Bill Clinton.

President Bush presided over an economy which has been a job growth engine, outpacing by orders of magnitude anything in the European Union. The stock market rise and the economic growth numbers of the past seven years would be the envy of any president. Had he been a Democrat, the New York Times would have gushed each time the quarterly numbers were reported.

He has appointed conservative justices.

He has nixed human cloning and federal research on human embryos.

He has been a moral leader and, despite a constant barrage of mind-numbing reports, has been the most honest president of the last hundred years.

He has appointed minorities and females to the highest levels of his cabinet including the first black secretary of state and the first black female secretary of state.

He has pushed education funding and reform despite steady criticism from his own party

He was not perfect, no one ever is. He held fast to his beliefs and that alone distinguishes him from 98 out of 100 members of our government. He has treated his friends and his enemies with respect.

While not a good politician nor an eloquent speaker, he can boast that he has never lost an election. In fact, he won four and three of them very tough. He beat a popular Ann Richards, incumbent V.P. Al Gore and the anti-war John Kerry...and he started all of three of these by trailing in the polls by double digits.

Even Dan Rather has to respect that.

What is most appealing about President Bush is that he has never let any of the negative coverage of him and his presidency get him down. He has not changed. He remains upbeat, optimistic and as patriotic as ever. His legacy is intact and he will be remembered as a decisive and moral leader. He will be missed. I miss him already.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Flip Flopping toward Romney

Last week, Hillary looked stoppable. Obama was surging. And Bill Clinton was playing the part he plays so well; a man whose actions and demeanor are beneath that of a president - or ex-president (according to Tom Daschle). There is still turmoil among the Democrats - both Obama and Hillary are stepping all over themselves to outdue each other in redistributing more wealth from those in high-income brackets to those who vote for Hillary and Obama. We'll have to wait this one out.

In the meantime, the Republican turmoil, albeit more civil, has caused me to rethink my first choice and second choice for president. It is not that the candidates are not good. They all have their strengths and experience and all are 'head and shoulders' above the populist ranters on the Democrat ballot. Vote for Race (Obama). Vote for Gender (Hillary). Vote for Class Warfare (Edwards). Vote for good ideas and experience (well, you need to go to the Republican ballot for that).

As of yesterday, I ordered a few dozen Romney Bumper stickers for my truck, my car and for my friends. While Romney faces the real challenge of a general election, especially through the contiguous-red-state coalition in Dixie, his fresh face, his energy, his ideas... coupled with his experience make him the best option for a conservative ticket this year. In fact, they make him a pretty darn good candidate. He is a supply-sider with a moderate to conservative social perspective (and will govern as a conservative). He intends to continue to prosecute the war on terror - as opposed to run from it. And, by all indications, he is a patriotic and moral family man.

He'll have to solve the electibility issue, maybe through his choice for Veep...but in the meantime, I am planning to head to the Fire House down the road on Super Tuesday to help make Mitt the candidate.

As someone told me yesterday..."Mitt, he fits like a glove."

(and, as always, I will support any of these guys from Rudy to Paul, against their "tax and spend" "soft on terror" "soft on crime" "socialist" "citizenize the illegals" challengers)

Submitted by D.B. Jackson.

"Romney's Turn !!!!" The Real Story

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4139301&page=1

The Base turns out for Romney. Economics the issue?

The story in Michigan was a landslide, in favor of Mitt Romney - at least when you look at the core Republican base (especially at the conservative wing). The conservatives don't like McCain (no wonder)

"Sixty-eight percent of voters were Republican regulars, and they supported Romney by 41-27 percent over McCain, with 17 percent for Huckabee. McCain won independents by 6 points, but they accounted for just 25 percent of voters, vs. 35 percent in 2000. He also prevailed by 8 points among Democratic crossover voters. But there were fewer of them, too; suggestions that they'd vote in the Republican race given the lack of a real Democratic contest were not borne out. Just 7 percent of GOP voters were Democrats, down from 17 percent in 2000."

The base comes through for Mitt.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

She's Baaaack !!!

If someone told Obama two weeks ago that he would be within three percentage points of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire...he would have done a happy dance and everyone would be talking about Hillary's vulnerability and spending levels. Instead, the media and the pollsters have given her the exhiliarition of Limbergh landing in France. Damn those Pundits.

If the win wasn't depressing enough, listen to what Clinton flack Terry McAuliffe said about the 'bounce:'

Terry McAuliffe, national campaign chairman for Clinton, said the New Hampshire comeback had spurred nearly $750,000 in donations to her campaign overnight and sparked more than 500 hits per minute on her Web site.

"It was a big, big win for this campaign. I cannot tell you how excited we are as we move forward," he said.

Well...better luck to Mr. Obama in S.C.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Victim of the VRC??

Blaming her husbands problems with Monica, Perjury and Stained Dresses on a 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' that was dogging poor Bill Clinton for his entire presidency was a stretch, to say the least.

She later claimed that the 2002 election was also influenced by the VRC. Accusing the right wing of jamming phones, closing roads and suppressing the black vote, she credited the VRC with the Congressional mid-term pickups. Investigations proved that all the fraud and election tampering was in favor of the Democrats.

I hope Mrs. Clinton blames the VRC one more time. Is it too early to write her off in NH, SC and all the way to Super Tuesday? Probably. But if she blames the VRC this time, she'd still be wrong...but at least there is some evidence to back it up.

Sean Hannity calls his radio show the 'Stop Hillary' express. Mark Levin and Monica Crowley have devoted 80% of their respective radio show to comparing (accurately, I might add) Hillary's policies with that of Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin. (note: she shares clothiers with Mao).

Of course, if the VRC exists, it has had little to do with Hillary's 'New York Mets' style collapse. It is the left wings own doing. The left has created a monster and the monster has turned on it. The electoral process has increasingly favored the extreme ends of both parties, but over the last six years, the democratic base has reinvented itself. Don't think Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy or Joseph Lieberman, think Cindy Sheehan, George Soros and MoveOn.org.

The Democrats have fanned the flames of the wildest theories to hit mainstream politics in a hundred years. They have filled the minds of their new base with ideas about stolen elections, an innocent Iraq minding its own business, U.S. troops committing rape and genocide, the president tapping our phone lines and on and on and on.

Why is Mrs. Clinton surprised to find that this base found her too mainstream to get her vote? Why is she surprised to see them turn to the eloquent newcomer, who more accurately projects their view for change?

As I have always said, the VRC doesn't exist. If it did exist, I'd be the leader...

But if the VRC does exist, they have very little say on how the lunatic fringe in Iowa and New Hampshire vote. I seriously doubt that Sean Hannity sent a single Clinton supporter to Barack Obama.

In the meantime, I am hoping that Mr. Obama helps us rid ourselves of the Clintons forever. I hope Mrs. Clinton hangs in for a long time...and eventually withdraws and blames her favorite scapegoat.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Now the Fun Begins?

As the reverberation of the stunning Iowa results slowly fades and attention turns to the Granite State, we see that the world of politics has changed dramatically over the past few months. The seeming Obama surge and Clinton slide was very real…painfully real for the Clintons. Clinton’s distant third place finish behind Obama (and Edwards though by a small margin) was the worst possible result for her. It totally shatters her already cracked image of “inevitability” and transforms her into a politician desperately in need of a win.

Clinton always had high negatives among the public which put questions in many Democrats minds of whether she could be elected or not. Despite those questions, many Dems supported her because they thought she stood the best chance of delivering the victory in November that they want so badly. Most Dems liked Obama much better but really did not think he could pull it all off. The Iowa debacle was devastating on both fronts for Clinton. First, it exacerbates the latent feelings that she is unelectable. If she could not win in Iowa where she had the organization and had unleashed her secret weapon (the Bill bomb), can she win in the general election. Secondly, Obama’s victory in vanilla-white Iowa demonstrated an across-the-board appeal that many Dems thought he lacked.

All of this translates into New Hampshire being an almost must-win for Clinton. If she loses there, she faces the prospect of going into South Carolina, where the primary electorate is about 50 percent black, with an 0-2 record. In that case, a South Carolina loss to Obama would almost certainly finish her candidacy. Clinton would not drop out and has the money to continue to make a fight of it but Obama should cruise to victory.

The Clinton camp faces a Hobson’s Choice. They can continue to do things as they are doing them and hope that her razor-thin lead in the New Hampshire polls holds out…not a good prospect for victory in view of the momentum that Obama will surely gain with his victory…or they can go negative, hoping to bring down Obama’s favorable ratings by direct challenges to his honestly, electability, and experience. The second route is surely the one the Clintons will take because it holds the best prospects for success though it also risks raising her negatives even higher and giving the nomination to Obama. The Clintons’ have never been the types to leave things to chance so they will definitely roll the dice for the big gains with the hopes that their allies in the media will cover for them. It is a risky option but probably the only one open to them now.

Like Hillary said, “Now the fun begins.”

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The Grand Old Patriots have been pointing out for months now that we don't see any viable Presidential candidates in the Democratic Party, not because we don't think that they're good people (some are, reportedly), but because we don't think that they're good people to be running the most powerful country in the world.

It's nice to see that we're not alone.

From Senator Joe Lieberman, (Ind/Dem - CT, 12/18/07):
''I think (McCain)'s got this extra dimension and proven record of working across party lines to get things done. We're not gonna solve our problems -- healthcare, education, environment, the economy -- unless we start working with one another.'

''You're not even going to have a chance to try to solve domestic problems unless the American people have confidence that you will protect them in a dangerous world. And I worry that the Democratic candidates in the primary have been drawn so far left that in the general election it's going to be hard to convince a lot of people in the middle that they're able to support a strong defense.''

From Massachusetts (Boston Herald, 12/21/07):
"And so this newspaper too will break with its decades-old tradition of endorsing candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. In doing so we also address our words particularly to those millions of independent voters here, in New Hampshire and around the nation who can choose to cast their ballot in either party primary.

The choice this year is indeed clear. John McCain should be the next President of the United States and the Boston Herald is proud to endorse his candidacy."

From the Granite State (New Hampshire Union Leader, 12/31/07):
"IT IS OUR HOPE every four years to recommend a candidate in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. This year, we have opted to endorse only one: Sen. John McCain.
In this race, our most important consideration is electing the candidate most likely to bring American victory in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the greater war on Islamic extremists in general, and keep America's enemies and rivals in check. John McCain is that man. None of the Democrats approaches McCain's experience and vision on that subject."

It's a shame that the Donkey Party is only able to wheel out asses (er, donkeys) for candidates in 2008.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

The Ron Paul Revolution (aka Isolationism)

Happy New Year!

With the new year upon us, I figured it was time to espouse my feelings about the Ron Paul candidacy (the Ron Paul Revolution is upon us!). While I agree with some of his positions, there's just been something about his candidacy that leaves me feeling uneasy. No, not uneasy...queasy. And while I was gathering my thoughts (these days, that takes a lot longer than it used to), I stumbled upon this editorial from October 2007 that I think captures many of my reservations about the Revolutionaries.

From the New Hampshire Union Leader (Oct 5, 2007)
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian darling running for the Republican nomination for President, seems to think that the only national security threat America faces is from a direct military assault on our soil. Nothing else -- Chinese expansion, Iranian nuclear development, Russian imperial ambitions -- is any concern of ours.

In a Wednesday interview, Rep. Paul suggested closing most of our overseas military bases. The military exists to protect our national security, not our economic interests, he said. Asked if the United States did not have national security interests in containing Chinese or Russian or Iranian or North Korean ambitions, he said no. "Nobody would attack us militarily," he said.

Paul offers our victory in the Cold War as an example of how we can win wars by "diplomacy." But our victory in the Cold War was not diplomatic. Ronald Reagan's military buildup topping decades of military interventionism around the globe were critically important components of our defeat of the Soviet Union.

Asked if we should let Iran obtain nuclear weapons, he shrugged and said, "Well, that's not the end of the world." Iran is no threat to us, he said, because it can't invade us. He never acknowledged that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, and a nuclear Iran could one day supply terrorists with nuclear technology or weaponry.

Paul's repeated insistence that "There would be no risk of somebody invading us" is just what the isolationist Republicans of the 1930s believed -- right up until Pearl Harbor. Paul's idea that we can maintain peace by halting our projection of military strength has been proven wrong by history. But Rep. Paul is not about to let historical reality get in the way of his ideologically pure position.

So there you have it, in a verse well better choreographed than this writer could put to paper (or blog). The leader that I support must understand that the world of 2008 requires participation in world affairs, including military participation where the security of US citizens is concerned - threats that are real both today and tomorrow. Reagan understood this, and strengthened both our military and military presence in order to win the Cold War.

Count me out of the Ron Paul Revolution.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Case for McCain

I took a second and third look at John McCain. If I had to vote in the NY Primary today, I would vote for him.

McCain is not without his detriments. My most serious concerns are with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act and with his seemed antagonism of every republican offensive initiative (He calls it being a maverick). In 2006 and 2007, he has taken some questionable positions regarding immigration - though he has backed off of them some as he takes to the campaign trail. These are serious and important concerns.

As serious as they are, McCain has been a loyal Republican and conservative as long as I can remember. A good friend to Ronald Reagan and to the movement that Reagan launched. He has been pro-life and a strong supporter of the judicial nominees of Reagan, Bush and Bush. He believes firmly in the conservative principle that lower taxes and smaller government is the best way to job growth and prosperity.

In addition, he has been a staunch defender of and an excellent communicator on the war on terror. He was an early advocate for the troop surge in Iraq (when the media was carping so aggressively against it) and one of two candidates that truly understands the nature of this battle. Let us not forget his outstanding speech nominating President Bush at the 2004 Republican Convention.

McCain is the most experienced of all the front-runners in both parties. He has been a U.S. Senator since 1983.

He is a veteran and a retired naval aviator...to say the least. He was shot down during his twenty-third bombing mission over Vietnam. He spent five and a half years as a Prisoner of War in the Hanoi Hilton, even being subjected to periods of isolation and torture. McCain even refused special treatment, as his father was an Admiral, and stayed with 'his men' until all were freed. He was released under the Paris Peace Accord in 1973 and retired from the U.S. Navy in 1981.

Most recently, John has been given the endorsement of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (Independent, Democrat) and The Boston Globe (sic).

All of this should compel the Republican primary and caucus goers one more look at John McCain and one more listen to the 'Straight Talk Express.'

As always, I maintain that every Republican running is 'head and shoulders' more qualified and more committed to the security and prosperity of America than any of the Democratic front-runners.

In the mean-time...if McCain wins N.H. - and it is starting to look like he might - we will have a horse race. And McCain will win it !!


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Huck's Mucked

Bob Novak, Ann Coulter, Mike Gallagher and Lorie Byrd have all chosen to dedicate their weekly column to Huckabee and his inexplicable rise in popularity (and it is inexplicable to me because I don't know a single Republican that likes him).

The gist of the columns:

1. Conservatives don't like him, the liberal media likes him. His willingness to compromise key conservative planks with the smallest prodding from Larry King or the NY Times has the liberals loving this former Baptist preacher.

2. He is not a conservative. His record in Arkansas was one of high taxes and big government. His only durable conservative principle appears to Pro-life, but his need to be liked by the N.Y. Times will surely cause this pillar to fall as well.

3. The liberal media likes him because he will be so easy to beat in the general election. His past positions on AIDS, AIDS treatment and homosexuality will be the lead stories in a general election, not his recent Larry King interview positions of 'tolerance.' (Plus, his name is Huckabee).

He appears to have some star appeal. Warm smile, soft spoken, self-deprecating...but he would be fish food in the general election.

My assessment: A vote for Huck is a vote for Hillary.


Submitted by D. B. Jackson

It's all in the O

http://www.wmur.com/politics/14826607/detail.html

Hillary is in a dead heat in NH...and losing Iowa. It is not even Dec 25th and all my hopes and dreams are coming true. Can Hillary really lose both? Can she bounce back? Sure, but not without a heavy dose of SPENDING and NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING. Bring it !!

I would also expect to see more shake up and back stabbing in the Clinton campaign. My ultimate dream is a Hillary tirade...complete with F-bombs...while some young staffer has his iPod on Record. These tirades are colorful, crass and legendary.

Go Oprah !!!

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Sunday Iowa Poll: Hillary #2 (but she still wins nom.)

Hillary is tanking...according to everything I hear and read.

It seems Obama has latched on to a new message, let me paraphrase..."No one likes her, she can't win a general election and even if she wins, she is too polarizing to get anything done."

Her missteps haven't helped: Audience Plants, Fundraising Ethics, More victimhood stuff, Bill's whining, Obama's Kindergartern papers. Oh, The Clintons; not an ethical thread between the two of the them.

Historically, Iowa is important for Democrats (meaningless for Republicans). Democrats really like this electability thing (not your classic principled voters) and if they sense she can lose Iowa, well, she can lose it all.

She will still be hard to beat. She has big bucks and a big 50 state organization in place. She will pick up governors endorsements along the way...in the end, Hillary will prevail. Her money and her org...but mostly because of the Marx Brothers running against her. John 'Two Americas' Edwards and Barack 'Oprah likes me' Obama are just plain hard to vote for.

The good news...Hillary will have to expend that warchest.

If I can use a monopoly example....she has landed on Baltic Ave In Iowa...with a hotel. It will cost her, but in the end, she has two hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place. Jon and Barack can't go around the board too many more times.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2007/12/06/hillary_is_losing_it

Submitted by D. B. Jackson