Obamanation

I have to congratulate Barack Obama on an historic victory.  I must admit that my knee-jerk reaction is anger and profound disappointment (Shannon will tell you that I said a few things that I shouldn't have), but it would be counter-productive to will him to fail as our next President.  I have daughters to worry about just like he does.  I disagree with him on just about every major issue of our time, and it scares me to death that he has free reign and a blank check to do whatever he, Reid and Pelosi want to do for the next four years.  I can only hope that Obama makes good on his acceptance speech tonight when he promised to be "my president too".

Tonight's sweeping Democrat party victory does have a few positives:

1.  It can no longer legitimately be accepted as an excuse by any minority that success can be hampered by the color of someone's skin.  That ship has finally sailed.

2.  I saw Jesse Jackson crying in the audience tonight.  Couldn't tell if it was because he was happy for Obama, or if it just struck him that he's out of a job.  Haven't heard from Al Sharpton yet.

3.  This is a much needed wake up call for the Republican party.  We will be able to compare and contrast what totalitarian Democratic rule will yield.  (disclaimer:  I know that I told you that I wouldn't root against Obama here.  I won't, but along with my hopes is a healthy dose of pragmatism).  The Republican party needs to do more to entice youth to the GOP and give them something to cheer about.  There is an incredible message in Conservatism, and too often it gets overshadowed by pompous old white guys.  We're more than that.

4.  Political ads are off the air.  I think we can all agree here!

5.  Hillary Clinton has a new theme song:  "Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!  Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead..."  

6.  Sarah Palin is going back to Alaska.  Please stay there.  I'm tired of Hockey Moms, lipstick and the inability to pronounce the letter "g" (I think you know what I'm sayin').

7.  We don't have to hear John McCain say "My Friends" anymore.

That's enough for tonight.  Onward an upward...  

Obama Should Put His Money Where His Mouth Is...

Obama is has assumed the Robin Hood role in the 2008 election.  Here's a thread you may not be aware of.  How much money is the Obama/Biden ticket giving to charity out of their own back pockets?  Aren't we our brother's keeper?

It is easy to talk a good game, but you need to look at a person's actions.  Obama talks about providing for the needs of the poor, but his own charitable donations don't support that.  During his years as a community organizer - when he and his wife were attorneys and both making good money, how much of his own cash did he dno'ate to the poor and under-priveleged in South Chicago?   

Here is a spreadsheet I found that shows Obama's adjusted gross income since 2000 along with the corresponding year's charitable gifting.  As you can see, from 2000-2004 his donations average around 1% of his income.  Only since 2005 has he given more, maxing out at between 4.7% and 6.1%.  Granted, he made more money during those years due to book deals, but those dates also correspond to his more visible years in the Senate where those figures are tracked a little more closely through his tax returns.  

As you know, I'm no McCain fan, but  in 2006 and 2007, John McCain gave 28% and 27% of his personal income (not Cindy's- they file separately) to charity.  Obama says he is all about spreading the wealth- as long as it isn't his.

If you think Obama is bad, Joe Biden made almost $320k last year.  (his spreadsheet is on the left)  He gave $995 to charity during the same period.  Talk about intellecutal dishonesty!  I do have a bit of a disclaimer here- anyone refuting this could say that Obama and Biden COULD HAVE given more and just not claimed it on their tax returns.  May I just say BS to this.  If that were the case, why would they worry about deducting ANY of their donations?  Another argument could be that their donations were given in time and not in money.  That may very well be true, but given the sweeping redistribution of wealth they are seeking to impose, this answer seems to be all too convenient.  What hypocrisy.

I Voted.

I just voted- Yes, I voted for John McCain (hold on a second while I go barf... thanks, I'm back now). I wasn't entirely sure I was going to do so. The Libertarian candidate (Bob Barr) was still a toss-up in the back of my mind. It became clear that this would have been a throw away vote once I pulled into the parking lot. Obama REALLY is winning on the get out the vote front. There was a chalk line drawn in a semi-circle from the front door of the library where I cast my ballot. I was told that this was a buffer zone where no campaigning could take place. Pacing the outside of the line were people dressed in Obama-logoed garb handing out tracts for him.

To be fair, there was one gentleman who was a Republican candidate for the county commission (not affiliated with the McCain campaign), so it wasn't only a pro-Obama effort. The poor guy did have a McCain/Palin pin on his hat, and it looked like he had taken a fair amount of grief from the Obama crowd. I spoke to him for a minute about his campaign, and as I was taking a leaflet from him, an Obama worker rudely stuffed a stack of papers in my hand on top of his leaflet. I told her that I didn't appreciate her forcefulness, and handed it back to her. She left without a word. Disclaimer: This is not to say that all people who work the precincts for Obama are rude. This just happened to be my experience today.

Once inside, the voting line snaked in and out of rows of books. It was interesting to stand there and people-watch. The two ladies in front of me were very much into Obama. They were talking to other people they knew in line about the calling they were doing on behalf of the campaign. From what I could overhear (yes I was being intentionally nosy), they were going to be in high gear until November 4th. They mentioned that they were working on putting together a call bank at a local strip mall, and would be manning it 12 hours a day until the election.

It is no secret that Obama has got a better ground game than McCain, and I witnessed it first hand today. Oh the times, they are a-changin’. God help us all…

Obama vs. Joe the Plumber

Well?  What did you think?  I think McCain won this debate- in substance at least. Here's a list of the stronger points:

1.  He did a better job tonight of picking apart Obama's plans- especially the semantical "get out of jail free" card on nuclear energy- the one where Obama supports nuclear energy as long as it is "safe".

  

2.  The "I'm not George Bush" line was also very effective.  Wish McCain would have been more assertive in this regard in earlier debates.

  

3.  McCain could have spent more time on the "present" votes that Obama used so often in the past.  He could have mad a valid argument here, driving home the point that Obama refuses to take stances on substantive issues.

4.  The abortion issue was handled better by McCain, but there was blood in the water when Obama brought up his vote concerning the treatment of babies that survived an abortion.  Obama lawyered around the issue about how and why he voted the way he did (esentially infanticide in my view) and McCain just let it drop.  This could have been a much more powerful blow.

5.  "Joe the Plumber" was an effective tool for McCain tonight.  I think Obama was caught off guard by Joe, and had no effective means by which to counter in tonight's debate.  This should be a red flag to other "Joe's" out there, and it put a face on all the people in the country who will be affected by either candidate's presidency.  McCain came off as being more in touch with the issues that mattered to Joe.

In terms of delivery, I think Obama wins.  I learned something tonight b sheer accident.  I spent half of the debate listening from the kitchen while cleaning up a spill in the refrigerator.  The parts of the debate I thought McCain won were the parts where I didn't see the him talking.  McCain (as always) looked twitchy and agitated.  Obama (as always) was cool as a cucumber.  McCain's eye rolling isn't going to play well in the morning.  Why can't the Republicans find a guy who is at least SOMEWHAT charismatic???

My opinion:  Net effect zero.  Had McCain been this tough in the first two debates, he may have increased his chances.  Every post-debate show I've seen so far says the same thing, but I think that their motivations are different than mine.  I see it as a series of missed opportunities while the network news teams try to run out the clock for Obama.  I've never been a huge media conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but see it in this instance.

Not even the Funny Pages are sacred anymore...

I don't know about you, but I love to read the funnies in the daily newspaper.  Between the economy, politics and the stresses of everyday life, it can be good to unwind with a little humor.  The packaging is great too- three or four frames, a pun or two and a 10 second investment of time.  A good comic strip can uplift your whole day.  

That is, until the line is blurred between escapism and politics.  Granted, you can argue that comics have been used as political tools since Methuselah was an kid, but political cartoons are generally (as they should be) confined to pages dedicated to editorials and politics.  Now that it is en vogue for celebrities to spout their idiotic political views, ie. Sean Penn (Jeff Spicoli from “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”), I guess comic strip geniuses feel like they have artistic license to do the same.

Just check out these three comics strips from today’s Charlotte Observer.  That's right, 3 pro-Obama cartoons in the same newspaper on the same day.  Can you guess how many comics were pro-McCain?  That's right, kids.  Zero.  Nada. Zilch.  As you know, I'm no McCain cheerleader, but the lack of equal coverage is blatant.  And it's the DEMOCRATS who want "the Fairness Doctrine" passed!  For those of you who don't know what the Fairness Doctrine is, it is basically a left wing idea designed to bring down conservative talk radio and other such media outlets under the guise of equalizing time for political speech.  Bottom line, if Liberal talk radio had a market, it wouldn't be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.  Google "Air America Radio" for more details...

Back to the topic at hand...

Let’s take a look at “Get Fuzzy” first.  This is one of my fav strips.  The interchange between the guy (Rob) and the cat (Bucky Katt) is usually hilarious.  Note the shirt on Rob this morning.  He’s been wearing an Obama T-shirt all week.  Many of the recent strips have been about lambasting Bucky’s “uber-conservative nut-job ideals”.  Feel free to look it up.  I have to admit that they’re funny.

Next, let’s examine “Jump Start”.  This is not a comic that I read very often.  Happened to check it out today and lookie what I found.  I’ll have to monitor this one a little more closely to see if all the strips are as worshipful to the Obamessiah as this one.

 

Last is “Doonesbury”.  Admittedly, Doonesbury has always been a leftist political cartoon.  The past two day’s strips have featured a Barbie-like Sarah Palin doll, complete with a push-button nose that squeaks out supposed GOP talking points.  A little trivia for you here- the artist of the Doonesbury comic strip is Garry Trudeau.  His wife?  Television journalist Jane Pauley, formerly of NBC’s “Today” show and “Dateline NBC”.  So much for preserving journalistic integrity, huh?

Again, I have no problem with satirical political cartoons.  They are as much a part of the fabric of Americana as apple pie.  I just wish that they’d stick to the editorial pages, regardless of political affiliation.

Deviation from the norm...

All three of you who read my blog know that it has morphed into a protracted political diatribe.  I'm going to take a little break from that tonight.  First of all, you will notice from the time stamp on this post that it is about 2:30 in the morning.  I've got this weird ear infection/vertigo thing that is extremely painful and gives me the bedspins (See end of post for a definition of "the bedspins").  So, for the past three or four nights, I have been unable to sleep.  What have I been doing with this blessed nocturnal time you ask?  I have discovered Facebook.  I initially went to the site just to poke around and see what it was all about, having heard many of my blogger friends mention their "Facebook Pages" with an air of cyber-superiority.  What a wonderful resource it has turned out to be!  I feel like a kid in a candy store.  I have been able to track down long lost high school and mission friends that I thought I'd never hear from again.  It's fun to see all the receding hairlines and paunches that have developed, as well as the beautiful faces of little ones that have come to people that I befriended years ago.  

It is interesting to me to see how the lives of the people I knew in high school have evolved.  You can find Facebook groups that pertain to your school for a specific class- in most cases, my former high school classmates are doing well.  Some have gone on to do tremendous things (surprisingly so for some- I knew these people when they were teenagers).  

I have also reconnected with some old missionary companions, and this has been especially precious to me.  I find it amazing that while my missionary experience was only a short two year period, I am connected to them in a way that is indescribable.  There are bonds created through service that can be as deep as blood and as profound as scripture.  I can imagine that it is similar to the bond between war buddies.  The mission experience is really a microcosm of life.  You are "born" as a new missionary- thrust into a new world to which you are inevitably ill-prepared.  You learn and grow, forgetting yourself and relying on a higher power and your companion to serve those over whom you are called to labor.  As time goes (flies) by, you train other missionaries and watch them progress and mature as they serve.  Pretty soon, you're at the end of your two years and your missionary life-cycle ends.  All you take home are the friendships you cultivated when you were there.  It's a shared event that can't be duplicated anywhere else.  One of my favorite movies is Stand By Me, based upon a Stephen King novella.  At the end of the movie, the writer says, "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve."  Well, that guy never served a mission.

Sorry to wax nostalgic like that.  It's gotta be the insomnia talking.  I'm going to try and get some sleep now since the girls are going to be up in a few hours.  Before I go, I promised you a definition of "the bedspins".  For the uninitiated, bedspins occur when you lie face-up in bed and you feel that the room is rotating around your stationary bed.  It is an unpleasant sensation that leads to a feeling of nausea.  For most, this phenomenon is brought upon them through the over-indulgence of certain beverages.  Not so in my case.

Game Changer

I gotta say that I was NOT PLEASED to hear that McCain chose a complete unknown in Sarah Palin for the VP slot. After cooling off a little and listening to her last night, I feel much better about it. She had some great one-liners, and since politics today seems to orbit around sound bites, I'll give you a few. You'll find that most of these revolve around Barack Obama. Some will make better sense if you actually heard the speech. If not, it's worth the forty minutes.

"A Mayor is a community organizer but with actual responsibilities"
"I put the jet on eBay"
"Obama has penned two memoirs, but never a major piece of legislation"
"After the styrofoam greek columns have been returned, after he has turned back the waters and saved the planet..." THIS LINE ALONE WAS WORTH STAYING UP PAST MY BEDTIME
"The American Presidency is not a journey of self discovery"

My initial reaction to her selection was that she took away McCain's best argument against Obama- the one about experience. Having heard Palin last night, that debate is back in play. We'll have to see how she does against Biden (I can't wait) and in a one-on-one situation when she has to defend her record.

It is a shame that her family life has taken center stage in the case against her. I don't think that her daughter's pregnancy has any bearing on her ability to lead. Hopefully we can have a substantive debate on the issues moving forward...

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's uhh... Obama?

We all know that Barry came out with a book called, The Audacity of Hope. Given what we know of him now, it would have been more aptly titled, The Gall of Hubris. Case in point - this article from today's Washington Post Blog site:

By Jonathan Weisman: "In his closed door meeting with House Democrats Tuesday night, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama delivered a real zinger, according to a witness, suggesting that he was beginning to believe his own hype.

Obama was waxing lyrical about last week's trip to Europe, when he concluded, according to the meeting attendee, "this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for."
The 200,000 souls who thronged to his speech in Berlin came not just for him, he told the enthralled audience of congressional representatives. "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," he said, according to the source." End quote here.

Great. The Germans love him. Maybe we can convince him to go after Angela Merkel's job. Ich wollt zu sein Kanzler! Hoffe und sich umziehen als jedermann! (translation: I want to be Chancellor! Hope and Change for everyone!)

Obama and Academia

Been a while, huh? I'll spare you the excuses (which are many- some valid, some not). Here's an article in today's New York Times that took a peek into the academic life of Barack Obama. I was flabbergasted that it's not all praise and worship to the "Chosen One." For my post to make any sense, you've got to read the article first, so check it out here

A few things that stick out to me. The lines in red are from the article followed by my points:

“Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?” This is code speak for "reparations"

"When two fellow faculty members asked him to support a controversial antigang measure, allowing the Chicago police to disperse and eventually arrest loiterers who had no clear reason to gather, Mr. Obama discussed the issue with unusual thoughtfulness, they say, but gave little sign of who should prevail — the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the measure, or the community groups that supported it out of concern about crime. 'He just observed it with a kind of interest,' said Daniel Kahan, now a professor at Yale. Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any. He was too busy, but also, Mr. Epstein believes, he was unwilling to put his name to anything that could haunt him politically... 'He figured out, you lay low,' Mr. Epstein said." Seems like he honed his senate voting record in the classroom. Hillary Clinton famously cited this in the primary election, "In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present.' That's not yes, that's not no. That's maybe."

"In his voting rights course, Mr. Obama taught Lani Guinier’s proposals for structuring elections differently to increase minority representation." Apparently Obama used the classroom to "test run" the gerrymandering of his voting districts. There's an interesting article From the July 14th 2008 National Review addressing Obama's uneven stance on voting district redrawing. Read it here and see some of the juicier parts below:

Obama's answers on redistricting, to the Midwest Democracy Network, back in November 2007:

As President, would you support federal legislation prohibiting states from redrawing valid congressional district lines more than once a decade?

OBAMA: I opposed the partisan mid-decade gerrymandering that Tom Delay engineered in Texas. I believe that mid-decade redistricting is rarely justified. There may be some exceptional cases, such as a natural disaster, that create population shifts that may warrant mid-decade redistricting. But I do not support state efforts to redraw otherwise valid congressional district lines more than once a decade.

Issue: Independent Redistricting Commissions
As President, would you support federal legislation requiring states to form diverse, transparent, and independent redistricting commissions to redraw congressional district lines?

OBAMA: I would encourage states to form such commissions.
But earlier in his career, according to the Ryan Lizza profile in The New Yorker:
One day in the spring of 2001, about a year after the loss to Rush, Obama walked into the Stratton Office Building, in Springfield, a shabby nineteen-fifties government workspace for state officials next to the regal state capitol. He went upstairs to a room that Democrats in Springfield called “the inner sanctum.” Only about ten Democratic staffers had access; entry required an elaborate ritual—fingerprint scanners and codes punched into a keypad. The room was large, and unremarkable except for an enormous printer and an array of computers with big double monitors. On the screens that spring day were detailed maps of Chicago, and Obama and a Democratic consultant named John Corrigan sat in front of a terminal to draw Obama a new district. Corrigan was the Democrat in charge of drawing all Chicago districts, and he also happened to have volunteered for Obama in the campaign against Rush...

Obama’s former district had been drawn by Republicans after the 1990 census. But, after 2000, Illinois Democrats won the right to redistrict the state. Partisan redistricting remains common in American politics, and, while it outrages a losing party, it has so far survived every legal challenge. In the new century, mapping technology has become so precise and the available demographic data so rich that politicians are able to choose the kinds of voter they want to represent, right down to individual homes...

Like every other Democratic legislator who entered the inner sanctum, Obama began working on his “ideal map.”

So, states should form diverse, transparent, and independent redistricting commissions to redraw congressional district lines. But if there's an opportunity to design an ideal district, Obama's not going to pass that up...

"Because he never fully engaged, Mr. Obama “doesn’t have the slightest sense of where folks like me are coming from,” Mr. Epstein said. “He was a successful teacher and an absentee tenant on the other issues.” Obama has proven to be yet another politician that has come to appreciate the sound of his own voice rather than those he wants to represent. In my opinion, bad form from The Chosen One.

Of Derbies and Brackets...

Ok, all three of my loyal readers are probably wondering how I did in our Extreme Pinewood Derby. Drum roll please... I lost. Horribly. I was in three races total. The first one I lost because the string (see pictures from previous post) attached to the rear axle broke at the starting line, so my "4 mousepower" engine ran down the track in neutral. I lost.

The second race wasn't much better. The trap went off too early and the car just spun its wheels at the starting gate. By the time the race began, my car (again) hobbled down the track with no go-power. I lost again. Very frustrating.

The third race was much better. The string held as it should and the trap released at precisely the right moment. Unfortunately, by this time most of the slower cars had been weeded out, and I was racing against cars powered by rocket fuel or nuclear fusion. Yet again, I lost.

The winning car this year was basically a slingshot design. The designer cut a 6" PVC pipe in half lengthwise, and attached surgical tubing to it for elasticity. This launching device propelled a simple block-design car down the track at an amazing speed. Very clever. Every year there's always a new rule added banning some sort of "innovation". The rule is typically named after the designer, which is almost a badge of honor per se. I have a feeling a rule will be added so that the cars must be self-contained with no launching devices. I have already begun planning my car for next year now that I know that a mere mousetrap will not suffice. My goal is to be the guy next year who has a rule named after him...

If there is any consolation, I am winning in all three of my NCAA bracket pools. Historically, I'm awful at bracket picks, but this year I'm doing pretty well. My objective was to beat Shannon this year. She has beaten me the past two years, and my ego can't take another loss to a person who chooses teams according to Jersey color. If I can claim victory here, everything else is a bonus. I have Memphis and Kansas going to the final game, with Kansas winning 70 to 68. In retrospect, my margin of victory may be about right, but both of these teams are runners, so the scores may be higher. We'll see.

Extreme Pinewood Derby

Tomorrow the Elder’s Quorum of our Ward is hosting an Extreme Pinewood Derby- a modification of the popular Cub Scout activity. It’s an opportunity for (not so) grown men to tap into their childhood and play with little cars. Hey, do you ever TRULY grow out of that?

Anyway, what makes this fun is that that there are very few rules. Here they are:

1. You must use official BSA (Boy Scouts of America) wheels and axles.
2. Your car cannot touch another car on the track
3. Your car cannot extend beyond the starting mark
4. You cannot damage the track with your car
5. No open flame
6. “The Fox Rule” aka- no CO2 cartridges

We had this activity last year, and most of the rules stem from last years entrants. For instance, “The Fox Rule” was adopted on behalf of Bill Fox. When the CO2 cartridge that propelled his car came loose and flew across the gym, it almost decapitated his eldest daughter.

This year’s race is going to be a lot of fun. In true NASCAR style, we’re tailgating in the parking lot beforehand. I’m sure the root beer will flow like a river. You know how those crazy Mormons are! The part that I like most about the activity is seeing the imagination that goes into creating the perfect car. We have many men of intellect from our ward, so it’ll be fun to match wits with them. My car is called the Rat Racer. I chose that title because it’s “powerplant” is a mouse trap. This baby cranks out a MASSIVE 4 mousepower. Not really sure about that figure, but when I bought the mousetrap, it came in a pack of four, so it seems logical.


As you can see, I took the “Use BSA wheels and axles” rule a little liberally. The rule doesn’t say how MANY wheels and axles to use, so I used them on the front end of the car. On the back, I made wheels from an old radio I cannibalized. They were part of the mechanism that operated the tape deck. They are made of a heavier metal material, which turned out to be necessary with this type of car. I learned the hard way that using a mouse trap to move a small car generates problems. Here they are along with my solutions:

1. The mouse trap makes the car jump when it goes off. Hence the use of the heavier wheels. It helps to keep the car on the track.
2. The spring action of the car is so strong, it either bent or snapped my axles. I was using thin aluminum tubing at first, but I had to re-mount the axles using pieces of heavy gauge wire and parts of a coat hanger clip.
3. Spooling the pull string. The mouse trap pulls so hard that it would break or fray the pull string. I finally was able to use a woven type of dental floss and make it work for repeat races.
4. Leverage. You get a very short burst of speed from the trap since the spring mechanism only has a travel range of about 4 inches. I was able to multiply this by adding a pulley-like extension on the back of the car using a twisted up piece of coat hanger.
5. "Spin outs". The pull of the trap is so sudden that the wheels would just spin the car in place, giving it no forward propulsion. I had to wrap the rear wheels in double-sided tape in order to give it a little grip. You can see that they are tow-tone in appearance. I had fun with a black Sharpie.


Don’t know if I’ll win or not- after all they are predicting 36 cars this year, but it will be fun. I learned last year that it’s not necessarily the FASTEST car that wins, but the one who can handle the most races. We’ll see what happens. Wish me luck.

Mitt Romney Back in Business?

I don't know if it has anything to do with Romney's recent interview with Sean Hannity, But Mitt's website is up and running again. Shortly after his concession at CPAC, www.mittromney.com was reduced to a single page expressing thanks. Now it has various links to the issues he espoused during the campaign, speeches from the trail and even a contact link. Weird.

As you may know, Hannity and Karl Rove have been pushing a so-called "M&M" ticket. I don't know what to think about that, and I am highly doubtful that it will happen. Romney stated several times in the Hannity interview that there are no hard feelings between he and McCain since the primaries. Maybe this is true. After all, McCain was quick to support George W. Bush after a dirty and humiliating defeat in the 2000 primary.

Is it a good idea for him to consider Romney? Possibly. There are at least four things McCain and his advisors are asking themselves right now. ALL of these take a back seat to #1 listed below.

1. Who is best going to help me to beat my opponent in November?
2. Who is going to align with me on policy issues?
3. Who is going to fill in the gaps where I need additional strength?
4. With whom do I feel comfortable entrusting the Presidency if I cannot serve?

Maybe Romney is the guy to answer these questions, maybe not. If I were McCain, here would be my pro and con list about selecting Romney:

Pro:
-Romney has economics in his bloodstream. This is an admitted McCain weak spot.
-Romney has a solid conservative following, and it would help draw in voters that rejected McCain previously.
-Name recognition. The primaries have given Romney a lot of street cred
-He’s young. There has been nervousness within the party about McCain’s ability to serve long term.
-He’s good looking. This is probably the silliest reason, but hey, all those women who were “sMITTen” have votes too.
-Solid supporter of Iraq war and the surge. The two men favor staying in Iraq until victory is achieved.
-He is known for offering market-based solutions for the healthcare crisis, and could be a foil for a key Democrat issue.

Cons:
-Well known perception that the two men don’t like each other. May appear to voters as a union of expediency.
-Mitt’s “flip-flopper” tag. There’s some cannon fodder for the Dems.
-Even though Romney has a lot of conservative support, he does not have concrete backing by the southern evangelical voter, a must-have for the Republican nominee. If McCain wants to repair the damage in this voting bloc, Mitt’s probably the wrong guy.
-Mormonism. See previous bullet point.
-“Mr. Perfect” persona. Romney failed to connect with some voters because of this.

On a purely selfish level, I don’t want to see Romney hitch his wagon to McCain. No matter who the VP is, at the end of the day, you’re still voting for the guy at the top of the ticket, and I still see McCain losing this year. If McCain is going to go down in flames, I don’t want to see Romney attached to the fallout and thereby weakened for 2012. You don’t have to look any farther than John Edwards to realize that voters don’t like a loser.

However, I have cooled down enough from February 5th to admit that I will probably vote for McCain in November. I will do it while stifling a gag reflex and telling myself that I’m not so much voting FOR him as AGAINST the Dems. In the unlikely event that Mitt is chosen as McCain’s #2, It’ll take out some of the sting, but I still don’t know if I’d be happy about it. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...

New Addition to the Blog

You may notice that I took down the link to http://www.mittromney.com/. This was done with tremendous sadness. I quickly noticed that without a picture there, the blog looked a little sparse. To remedy this, I'm adding a "Photo of the Week" in its place. This week's lucky winner is Hillary and her finger pistol. Enjoy.

Hillary's Last Stand?

Now that the magic number of 1191 has been surpassed by John McCain, it’s all about the Dems. Last night was very exciting. Along with everybody else, I was expecting to hear the Clinton death rattle last night. Boy was I wrong! I have to admit, I was pulling like crazy for Hillary. The more turmoil in the Democrat party the better! TX, OH and RI were largely symbolic victories for her since she didn’t chip away at Obama’s delegate lead. Even with her three to one victory, she remains more than one hundred delegates back- a fact that did not escape Obama in his concession speech last night.

Clinton did say something in her “Thank You Ohio” speech that may be “THE story” as the nomination unfolds. Amid the many thank yous and platitudes, she rattled off the states where she has been victorious- Florida and Michigan included. Everybody knows that there has been behind the scenes work by Hillary’s camp to have these delegates here reinstated. Surely, if talk becomes serious, the Obama camp will protest. The compromise may be a “do-over” in these states. If so, Hillary will have a built-in advantage in both. Michigan is enduring a similar economic crisis to that in Ohio, and Florida should play well for her with its large Hispanic and New York snowbird population. Whether or not we do see a redux in FL and MI, it should be fun to watch the cat fighting over the possibility.

All I know for sure is that I don’t want to be Howard Dean (DNC Chair) right now. I wonder if he got a call at 3:00 this morning…

Ugh.

Just when Shannon and I were starting to crack on our “I will not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” position, he gives me yet another reason to distrust him. I’m sure you’ve heard the buzz about his supposed inappropriate relationship with a certain female telecom lobbyist (see inset). Let me start off by saying that nothing has been proven, and all the sources have not been vetted, but it does look awfully salacious. Even if the allegations prove to be false, his responses in the Toledo press conference this morning were parsed and evasive. When asked specifically if there was an inappropriate relationship between he and Ms. Iseman, he said, “"At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization." Very Clintonian indeed. As he said repeatedly to Mitt Romney when prodding him about his supposed Iraq withdrawal timetables, McCain said of Romney, “The response should have been simple. No.”

His close ties to this lobbyist also speak to the heart of the leading problem in Washington- too many people with their hands in the cookie jar. McCain has run a campaign based upon cutting pork barrel spending and turning deaf ears toward lobbyists. More do as I say and not as I do politics. This will undoubtedly be cannon fodder for the Democrats in November.

What bothers me more about McCain is a different story that is getting only moderate airplay. It’s a little nerdy, and there’s no sex appeal to it, but I believe that it has far weightier implications. We all know that in the summer of 2007, McCain’s campaign was hemorrhaging badly. In order to keep the campaign afloat, he took out a loan against his list of contributors, and even backed it up with a life insurance policy. Here’s where it gets tricky- the FEC could view this as an illegal move since the contributor list is bound by privacy laws. What would’ve happened if the loan was actually called and his collateral- the list, was turned over? Nobody knows. There would have been a lengthy court battle over the use of the list, and McCain likely wouldn’t have cared since his failed Presidential candidacy would have been a doomsday scenario anyway. My point? It shows a flagrant disregard for law and the names of the people who support him.

I want so badly to be able to support this guy, but he’s making it very difficult.

1960 All Over Again...

Ok. After a self-imposed exile from the blog for a few days, I’m back in the saddle. Same as you, I’ve been watching the race, and it is becoming evident that we’re going to have a McCain/Obama matchup in November. I can’t imagine a scenario more tempting to the Democrat party. In March, the press will begin the comparisons to the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy- Nixon: the VP and "Old Establishment" candidate, and Kennedy: the “Fresh Faced Golden Boy” of politics. We all know how that ended up. Below is a transcript from Erika Tyner Allen of the Museum of Broadcast Communications recounting the aftermath of the debate between the two.

“Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.”

This was the first televised debate between Presidential candidates. It was one of a series of four, which have come to be known as “The Great Debates”.


Why do I bring this up? This is one of the first documented cases of style winning over substance. I can’t stand either candidate, but McCain wins in the resume department. In terms of sheer magnetism, Obama has the same je ne sais quois that drew people to JFK. I have to admit, he is a very charismatic guy. If I didn’t have strong convictions for conservative values, I would be drawn to him myself.

Most of the people I know who like Obama can’t tell me the specific reasons why. I have yet to hear a substantive defense of his stance on the issues. As the debates between McCain and Obama unfold, McCain will charge hard with policy driven rhetoric. Obama will parry with nebulous comments of change and will preach of Bush’s third term in the personage of John McCain. It’s not even going to be close- 1960 all over again…

The Difference between Men and Women

A brief respite between political diatribes- We all know that there are vast differences between men and women. I was reminded of this yesterday. Last night, we got a new laptop computer. My employment requires the strenuous use of a computer, so I burn through them pretty quickly. My plan was to give the new computer to Shannon and to use her old laptop for work. Luckily, we had a warranty on it so it was replaced free of charge. I went to Best Buy and selected a replacement. Upon bringing it home, I said to my beloved, "Shannon, you're gonna love this! It's got an Intel Core Duo processor, 3Gb of RAM, a 250 Gb hard drive, HDMI ports and an HD monitor!" Her response? "Oooh, it's pretty!"

Governor Romney Concedes

You've probably all heard the sad news. If not, here it is. Governor Romney has decided to step aside in his quest to gain the White House in 2008.

Don't Pass Me the Kool Aid

My wife tells me today that Rush came out and asked Republicans to rally around McCain if he receives the nod. He says to hold your nose and call it an “Anti-Hillary vote”. Hugh Hewitt says that regardless of the nominee, we should jump in with the nominee because there are 6 Supreme Court Justices over the age of 68. Otherwise stalwart bastions of conservatism are cracking under the trite phrase “Party Unity”. I don’t buy it.

Yes, I am a fervent Romney backer, and no, I don’t think he will receive the Republican nomination. I know that this will be viewed by some as a sour grapes defeatist position to take. I will be called “a wasted vote” or worse- a “Republican Saboteur”. Do I take this position out of spite and hatred for the party? No, quite the contrary. I will not vote for John McCain in November because he is the living, breathing archetype of what is wrong with the Republican party. I love the ideals behind conservatism- free market economics, strong national defense, small government, low taxes, etc. John McCain has proven through his voting record that while he does share some of these ideals, he differs on enough of them that he has earned my vehement mistrust.

In my view, a vote for McCain does nothing to solidify the party. It further fractures what is already broken. McCain’s mantra is that he will work across party lines for the common good. In his own words, “I am a proud conservative, but I will put my country over my party every time.” On the surface, this sounds magnanimous and appealing. However, implicit in his statement is that Conservatism does not have the answers. This is unequivocally false. Every time McCain reaches across the aisle, he does it at the direct expense of conservative principles. Case in point- the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance bill. Clearly this flew in the face of the First Amendment and Conservatism. The Democrats worked with McCain because it suited their goals. If McCain were to go to Russ Feingold today and ask him to support a Republican bill promising tax cuts, what would Feingold do? He would vote lockstep with the Democrat party. Yes, Reagan worked with Democrats, but he convinced them that his way was correct, not by compromising core principles. A vote for McCain is adding gasoline to the fire devouring your home. The bottom line is that any movement left toward the Democrat party is not rewarded with consensus. They just ask for more compromise. What you get is a blurring of the party lines, and the left wing of the Democrat party edges ever closer to Socialism.

The blame for this lay squarely at our own doorstep. We Republicans did not band together and tell Washington what we expected out of Congress and the Presidency when we maintained majorities. We allowed them to placate us with platitudes on Iraq and they accomplished nothing with the mandate. Spending skyrocketed, government grew and we lost faith. Yes, Iraq and the war against radical jihadism is vitally important, but we have to keep our financial house in order as well. We cannot be lulled into complacency because an elected official has an “R” beside his name. True conservatives must be ever vigilant.

That is why I can’t vote for John McCain. How can I look my three children in the face and know that I voted for a man in whom I have no respect? If I do that, how can I teach them to stand for what they believe? Should I tell them to follow their beliefs only to the point where it is easier “to go along to get along”? I was taught long ago that the only person who can sell your integrity is you.

Back to the practical side of the points raised by Limbaugh and Hewitt in the first paragraph. Rush says that I should cast my vote to stop Hillary Clinton. This is a faulty argument. It is becoming increasingly evident to me that Obama will be the man to beat. McCain is a supremely poor match-up against him. Obama can easily cast him as the old Washington guard- the very reason change is needed. The independent vote on which McCain has so heavily leaned will not support him against Obama. Hewitt says that Supreme Court Justices slots are what matter most. I can’t trust McCain to nominate constructionist judges. He openly criticized Justice Alito for “wearing his conservatism on his sleeve”, and now that it is politically expedient to do so, McCain praises Alito for his performance. And he calls Mitt the flip-flopper!

Also, consider this, Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hewitt. Let's assume that McCain does win the Presidency. He will likely push for a slightly revised version of the McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill. If he does, rather than push against their (Liberal) Republican President and commit political suicide, a Republican congress will go with the tide. The end result is horrible legislation with Republican names all over it. However, if a Democrat is elected President, it is much easier to rally the troops in a fight.

The Republican Party will very likely lose in November. This may not be a bad thing. For four years we will be subjected to Democrat majorities in congress and the Presidency. My only hope is that someone emerges in 2012 to help to give the Republican Party and Conservatism a clarion call. Sometimes we must taste the bitter to truly appreciate the sweet. I am waiting for that knight in shining armor. I am a member of the Party of Lincoln. The Party of Ronald Reagan. I will not vote for a candidate who cannot legitimately claim the same.

HuckaVeep

Matt Lauer asked Huckabee directly this morning if he would take a VP slot behind McCain. Buried between platitudes and characteristic one-liners he said, "Nobody wants the Vice President job, but nobody turns it down either."

Ouch

Another not-so-good night for my guy. I have to admit that I’m flummoxed by the way this race is unfolding. I knew that McCain would take a commanding lead after Super Tuesday, but I had expected at least a winnowing out of Spoiler Huck. Unfortunately, because of a little back-alley gerrymandering and some southern sweet talk, it looks like Huckabee is going to stick around long enough to ensure a McCain victory for the nomination.

He came out last night quoting scripture (he wonders why he keeps getting questions about religion) and telling his supporters that it truly is a two man race between he and McCain. I look for his campaign to formally ask Mitt to concede in the next few days. I agree with Huckabee on one count. It is a two man race. McHuckabee and Romney.

Should Romney bow out now? I don’t know. There’s a part of me that says he should bow out gracefully and begin making an “I told you so” case for 2012 in opposition to the Democrat President. I say this because there is no way McCain closes the deal in November. There is also a more visceral part of me that wants to see Mitt plow on through the convention. At this point, I think it is a matter of curbing the political damage that may occur if he keeps going. I think that he will employ a “wait and see” approach through the Potomac Primary coming up to see if there is enough momentum to warrant a run through Texas and Ohio.

Regardless of my humble opinion, look for a major media backlash against Romney. They’ll start the clock ticking on his campaign while Huckabee will continue to spout more of his populist “I’m a Wal-Mart Republican” garbage.

Huckabee has proven that he can win the south. It will most likely continue his defense campaign for McCain and earn him a VP slot. Lindsey Graham will not be pleased. Just to show what the “Huckabee Effect” is doing to the race, I’ve taken a little liberty with the numbers last night to show mathematically how things would have been different without the Gov. of Arkansas. I took Huckabee’s winning vote percentages and re-distributed them among McCain and Romney. Since the prevailing evidence shows that Huck and Mitt are splitting the conservative vote, I weighted the percentages 40% to McCain and 60% to Romney. I tried to balance the anti-Mormon sentiment of the South along with the anti-McCain sentiment of Southern conservatives. This is especially generous to McCain, as you’ll see in WVa. In the calculations below, “Hv” stands for Huckabee votes that would be re-distributed. Again, this is in no way scientific, just thoughts from my noggin.

Tennessee:
Romney: 24 + 20 Hv = 44%
McCain: 32 + 14 Hv = 46% McCain wins

Georgia:
Romney: 30 +20 Hv = 50% Romney wins
McCain: 32 + 14 Hv = 46%

Alabama:
Romney: 18 + 25 Hv = 43%
McCain: 37 + 16 Hv = 53% McCain wins

Arkansas:
Romney: 14 + 36 Hv = 50% Romney wins
McCain: 20 + 24 Hv = 44%

West Virginia:
Romney: 47 + 31 Hv = 77% Romney wins
McCain: 1 + 21 Hv = 23%

I only considered the states that Huckabee won, although you could track similar trends in states that McCain won closely over Huckabee, or in previous states where the "Huckabee Effect" has already taken place. I don’t have the time to do all the math, but it is obvious that if Mike was not running defense for McCain, we’d have a whole different ballgame. McCain owes Huck bigtime.

Another Reason to Pick on West Virginia

Anybody see what just happened in WVa?? If you doubted the validity of the Huckabee-McCain tag team, there should no longer be any doubt. Here’s the proof- As you may or may not know, the WVa caucuses must come to a 50% winner before the state can be declared for one candidate. The procedure is to take a vote and see where the chips fall. If one candidate does not receive the required 50% threshold, then the candidate receiving the lowest vote total is cut, and the voting is re-cast among the remaining candidates. This “cut” system is repeated until 50% is reached.

Here’s where it gets interesting! These are the results from the first vote:

Romney = 41%
Huckabee = 33%
McCain = 16%
Paul = 10%

Ron Paul was cut as the lowest vote getter with 10%, and a re-vote was taken. Now LOGICALLY, those 10% should have been re-distributed among the other candidates, bolstering support by just a few points to one candidate or another. Is that what happened? Not exactly. Here are the results from the final re-vote count:

Huckabee = 52%
Romney = 47%
McCain = 1%

So, you see that the McCain crowd didn’t have enough votes to get the job done to beat Romney. They saw this clearly. They CHANGED their vote and threw in with Huckabee to spoil the Romney vote. That’s why you see McCain’s vote dwindle from healthy support down to 1%. I guess those 12 people who kept on voting for McCain the second time didn’t get the memo.

Evidence? FoxNews says:

"But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround in the second round, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.
McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state."

Upon hearing what happened, the Romney Campaign issued this press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President Campaign Manager Beth Myers issued the following statement regarding the outcome of West Virginia's Republican Party convention:

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change. "Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

Can anyone now deny the dirty politics afoot against Romney? Huckabee should be taking to the airwaves any minute asking Romney to drop out. Hopefully this will be seen for the dirty political trick that it is before California voters get to the polls.

I Just Beat Up Chuck Norris...

Not really, but that was fun to say. Walker Texas Ranger posted an article on Townhall.com crying about Mitt Romney's bank account. It's truly a hilarious article Read it here. It is yet another reminder why Hollywood (even the B-listers like Chuck) have no business telling us who to vote for. I understand that they are private citizens and have the right to their opinions, but they would be best suited to leave the intellectual heavy lifting to others. I responded back to Chuck with this...

Sour grapes. Chuck, you can’t on one hand talk about how McCain-Feingold trampled the first amendment and then on the other ask legislators to come in and change disclosure laws. Yes, Mitt Romney has vastly outspent your candidate's campaign in terms of spending his own personal wealth. He has also greatly out-fundraised your candidate- and everybody else for that matter. If the shoe was on the other foot and Mike Huckabee had the large bank account, you would not be spouting this drivel. You talk about 527 groups and the $2,300 limitation on direct campaign contributions. If you are so convinced that your candidate is the man for the job, I suggest that you find a 527 group for Huckabee and contribute. Again, we have Senator McCain and Russ Feingold to thank for our current campaign contribution policy, not Mitt Romney. If it turns out that Huckabee’s spoiler campaign for John McCain works out, Maybe Mike can ask John to change the law.

In any case, Mitt Romney is setting himself apart on the issues. His successful experience in the business world is an indicator that he will be an excellent President. As you know, Huckabee has come out with the trite slogan, “I want to be the President who reminds you of the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off.” This populist, class warfare idiocy sounds like it came straight from the mouth of any of the Democrat candidates. The American people are realizing that a Huckabee presidency would be like electing a pro-life Jimmy Carter. Huckabee is political cotton candy. It may taste good, but it does nothing for you. We need a man in office who has been in the private sector and knows how to get the economy working for us again. Huckabee is sorely lacking in this department.

Mitt Romney has made a successful career of turning businesses around and helping companies succeed. That’s why the business world is so solidly behind his candidacy. With the establishment of the office supply store, Staples, Romney helped to create over 80,000 jobs. He brought Domino’s pizza back from bankruptcy. Let’s ask these people if they’d rather have a candidate who reminded them of who they work with…

With regard to the repeated references to layoffs by Mitt Romney, Huckabee has said in no uncertain terms that Romney himself has benefitted by laying off employees of the companies he represents. I have an experiment for you Chuck. You’re a successful guy and you have the resources to try it out. Go out and start a company today. Hire a bunch of people to work for you, and then lay every one of them off tomorrow. Let’s see how rich you get. Of course, this is an oversimplification, but it goes to highlight that Mike Huckabee does not understand business. If a company has 100 employees and is failing, does it make sense to let the company die, or to cut back on SOME of the labor so that everyone doesn’t lose their jobs? Personally, I like option two. At least the company would have the potential to re-hire if the business turned around.

Mike’s class warfare argument will hold no water with true conservatives. Huckabee's campaign is flagging badly under the weight of a message that is ill-suited to the Republican party. This is not the fault of Mitt Romney. To put it in terms Huckabee will understand, Luke 6: 41-42 says, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”

Mike Huckabee would be a disaster as President. The American people see it and are beginning to coalesce around the true conservative, Mitt Romney.

All's Fair...

I've been saying forever now that the race for the Republican nomination is between Mitt Romney and everybody else. For simplicity’s sake, I’ll no longer refer to McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani in individual terms. They’re all pulling in the same direction, so lumping them together isn’t that big of a sin. Loyal readers (all three of you), I dub the Anti-Romney candidate(s) “McHuckabiani”. Cheesy? Yes. But hey, it worked for Brangelina.

Lest you be deceived by the media in thinking my premise is incorrect, here are excerpts from Time magazine's Ana Marie Cox that came out yesterday. The article, entitled “The I Hate Romney Club” highlights the personal vendetta of the other candidates against Governor Romney. Not to say that it isn’t their prerogative- after all, it’s a free country. However, for purposes of full disclosure, I think that the people who dedicate their hard-earned money and time to these campaigns should know that their funds may be treated as “Spoiler money” and nothing else. Anybody donating to Huckabee right now has got to realize this. Anyway, this is a fantastic article. Read on…

“…this week it was Giuliani who dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, praising him as an "American hero."

The endorsement was a reflection of the authentic respect McCain and Giuliani have for each other. But that's not all the two candidates share. The endorsement deal was solidifed when both campaigns stayed at the Deerfield Hilton in Florida, following the Republican debate in Boca Raton on January 24. The two campaigns' staff mingled easily over drinks. Acknowledging that his candidate was not likely to survive a defeat in Florida, a Giuliani aide approached one of the McCain senior staffers. Come Wednesday, he said, "Just tell us what want us to do — we've got to stop him."

"Him," of course, is Mitt Romney, the candidate who seems to be uniting his Republican rivals almost as much as Hillary Clinton. "The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns.

…At times, this apparent rancor among the other candidates toward Romney has seemed like a schoolyard pact — for example, in the many snarky comments aimed at Romney during the Republican debate on Jan. 5, just before the New Hampshire primary. The campaigns have denied there's any political collusion going on; they insist all of them simply feel the same way about Romney.

To be sure, the candidates' staffs do seem to have bonded in their dislike of Romney. "It was very common for e-mails to be flying around between the Thompson, McCain and Giuliani campaigns," says the former Thompson staffer, "Saying, 'No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it's not him.'" The staffer says that campaigns would share opposition research on Romney and offer each other tips on how best to undermine him: "Like, 'Hey, I saw you hit Mitt on immigration — have you thought about going after him on this issue?" In some cases, the attitude even extends to the top of the campaigns. The night of the Iowa caucuses, after getting a congratulatory call from McCain, Huckabee told the candidate, according to aides: "Now it's your turn to kick his butt."

Wasn’t that fascinating? Is their now any doubt about what the Romney campaign is up against? McHuckabiani is going to be tough to beat tomorrow.

Upsets and Huckabee's Conspiracy Theory

I don't know about you, but I THOROUGHLY enjoyed watching the Patriots get beat last night by teh underdog Giants. I guess the old adage is right, "Cheaters never win". I thought Bill Belichick's early sprint out of the stadium with one second on the clock was the height of poor sportsmanship. The fact that he left his team on the field to lose without him was an affront to the spectacular (although in my eyes, tainted) season that his players bled sweat and tears to assemble.

In the vein of upsets, I look for Tuesday to be a night of upsets as well. Polls are showing Romney pulling closer (and some ahead- Zogby shows Romney by 8) of McCain in California. Also, while McCain is expected to win Arizona, Romney will keep the margin much tighter there than in Massachusetts where Romney is expected to win big. The polls in Arizona show a consistent decline in support for McCain as Tuesday draws closer. From a 23 point margin on 1/17-1/20 to a 9% margin recorded on January 31st. Reliable data? Not entirely, but trends are trends. I don't think there's any way Romney takes AZ from McCain, but if he can at least keep it close and at the same time win MA in a landslide, that gives conservatives a clear message. In the last debate, McCain took great pleasure in noting that the Boston Globe had endorsed him over Romney. If AZ doesn't give McCain a decisive victory, a liberal newspaper's endorsement will mean nothing. RealClearPolitics is also showing a one point advantage in Georgia, where just last week he was getting creamed by both Huckabee and McCain. It is evident that Romney is surging.

Huckabee also continues his rant against Romney, without nary a word against the "frontrunner". Huckabee, now a conspiracy theorist apparently, says that the talk show gurus have been bought and paid for by Romney- Hannity in particular. Mark Levin came out with this:

"Huck Looks for Black Helicopters [Mark R. Levin]

This is incredible. Mike Huckabee accuses Sean Hannity, who has announced he will vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday, of being influenced by Bain Capital, which Huckabee says owns Sean's network — Clear Channel.

First, the facts. Bain is trying to buy Clear Channel, or parts of it. Clear Channel does own many radio stations. Sean appears on many of their stations, as do many of us. But Sean's syndication partner is ABC Radio Networks, which was recently acquired by Citadel Broadcasting.

So, not only does Huckabee get his facts wrong, like most conspiracy kooks, he makes a scurrilous charge — in his usual matter-of-fact way — and then admits he really doesn't know. Here's the video.

Not enough attention is given this tendency we've seen from Huckabee. In South Carolina, where the Confederate flag issue was largely settled, he brought up during campaign stops to agitate for support. It was utterly irresponsible act. And then there was his devil-worship line about the Mormon faith, which was intended to raise questions about Romney's religion.

This is disgraceful stuff."

Huckabee's flippant remarks and blatant disregard for truth have been humorous at best. Romney, in response to similar diatribes from Huckabee recently said the following, "Gov. Huckabee is always good for a good chuckle... I think the presidency is about something very serious."