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."

The Reign in Maine Didn't Fall To McCain...

How's THAT for a blog title! Did you know that Maine had a caucus yesterday? No? Neither did most people. Do you know who won? No? Neither do most people. It was Romney. Quite handily, I might add. Of course, it was buried deep below the fold of all the liberal newspapers who are all but rabid in their desire to coronate McCain. Wanna read about it? Check out the story here from the AP.

I Told You So...

Let the "I told you so's" begin! I've been saying now for quite a while (and so have conservative hawks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Hewitt and even Coulter) that the MSM has been propping up a paper candidate in John McCain. We are already starting to see that the "Footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution" may have no clothes. Yesterday, the AP came out with an article about the Obama campaign just SALIVATING for the chance to run against McCain. Obama’s been hoping for months that McCain would be the nominee for the Republicans. He's even using the same argument that the conservative wing of the Republican party has been using- that Hillary and McCain aren't that far apart politically. Read on...

"LOS ANGELES (AP) - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama sees one of the best arguments for his presidential candidacy in the rise of Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain has become Obama's favorite punching bag, an easier mark in front of partisan audiences than the rival Obama will have to beat first to get to the general election—Hillary Rodham Clinton. But he also likes to lump the two of them together as co-supporters of the war in Iraq.

Obama advisers have said privately for months that McCain would be their preferred opponent among all those who sought the GOP nomination. They said a race between Obama, 46, and McCain, 71, would provide the starkest contrast between old vs. new, the future versus the past. It's an argument that Obama also has been using against Clinton, but his campaign feels it would be even stronger against McCain.

Clinton and McCain have worked closely together—one source of their shared reputation for working across party lines on common interests. The two serve on the Armed Services Committee and were drinking buddies at least for a night. The New York Times reported that Clinton challenged McCain to a vodka drinking contest during a congressional trip to Estonia in 2004.

Repeatedly during a debate with Clinton Thursday night, Obama brought up McCain as if he were the presumptive GOP nominee. McCain has yet to lock up the race, but a recent win in Florida has made him the front- runner.
He also argued that he would be more electable in a general election matchup against McCain than Clinton.
"I am attracting new voters and independent voters into the process in a way Clinton cannot do," Obama said at his news conference. "I think that'll be particularly important if Senator McCain is the nominee on the Republican side."

There you have it, folks. Straight from Barack Hussein Obama’s mouth. Remember how the McCain camp has been saying that they have the ability to win over Democrats and Independents? Not against Obama. In this race, the conservatives stay home, the independents previously claimed by McCain vote for Obama, and the Democrats stay true to their party. The end result is an Obama landslide, and a Republican party sitting on the sidelines wondering how they were so easily duped. Need I remind you that even Bill Clinton said Hillary’s potential run against McCain would be civil one since they are old friends?

Also propping up McCain, although not for the same reason, is the Huckabee camp. What a sad candidacy his has become. He knows that victory is beyond his reach, so he continues to rail away against Romney and use the money of his contributors in a selfish vie for VP. If I had contributed to Huck, I’d be demanding a refund right about now.

Republicans, you have a clear choice here. It is not too late. You can select the Democrat’s choice for the Republican nominee in John McCain (Hillary’s drinkin’ buddy). You can vote for an “also ran” in Huckabee, who is staying in the race to siphon off votes for McCain as well. Option three is the best. Mitt Romney.

Mitt and McCain in a One-on-One Debate

We've all heard that Mitt Romney has challenged John McCain to a one-on-one debate a few times. Up until this point, McCain has declined- until now. I have in my possession an exclusive transcript of a recent debate between the two. It has been buried by the media long enough. Here it is...

MR: I believe that our next commander in chief should have a solid understanding of the American economy. I have 25 years experience in the private sector building business, fixing companies that were broken and creating jobs. I helped to start Staples Corporation, and created 80,000 jobs with that company alone. Senator McCain, what economic expertise do you have?

JM: Governor, my record speaks for itself.

MR: Concerning the issue of illegal immigration, I believe that we must secure our borders, create tamper-proof biometric identification and a database to identify and track aliens in the country. We should penalize businesses who hire illegal aliens, and start the process of deporting illegals from the country. Amnesty is out of the question. What are your plans, Senator?

JM: I have learned my lesson. The American people say we must secure the borders first.

MR: What do you do after you have secured the borders?

JM: I just told you. I have learned my lesson. The American people say we must secure the borders first. We will secure the borders.

MR: What about the illegal immigrants that are here now?

JM: We will secure the borders first. Let's not deal in hypotheticals. We're not debating the Immigration Reform Bill again here. It's not on the table. We will secure the borders first.

MR: With regard to Iraq, we will not leave until we are victorious and Iraq can stand as a sovereign nation. We will not give our enemy a timetable for withdrawal.

JM: You just said "timetable". You're a Democrat.

MR: I said we WON'T give the enemy a timetable for withdrawal.

JM: There you go. You said it again. Timetable. My friends, Mitt Romney is a Democrat. I was endorsed by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

MR: On the abortion issue, I was governor in one of the most liberal states in the union, and I have a 100% pro-life voting record. It is not easy to have this kind of political position in Massachusetts, but I did it. I came down on the side of life every time. Senator, you voted in favor of embryonic stem cell research. This is not a pro-life stance to take. What is your answer to this?

JM: My friend, I was a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution, and a prisoner of war.

MR: Also as Governor, I favored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. You don't endorse this same approach. As a matter of fact, in 2000, you received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, a national gay and lesbian Republican grassroots organization. What is your stance on this issue?

JM: My friend, I was a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution, and a prisoner of war.

MR: I believe that the McCain/Feingold bill flies in the face of the first amendment.

JM: I was a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution, and a prisoner of war. I was a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution. A footsoldier!

MR: Senator, You were one of only two Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts, and now you want to make them permanent. Why the change of stance?

JM: My record speaks for itself. You can spend all your millions and it won't change that fact. I was also a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution. Did I tell you that?

MR: Senator, you're not answering any of my questions.

JM: You said "timetable.”

As you can see, it was quite a lively debate. I look forward to the next one.

Mitt Asks for Your Vote

This is the ad that Gov. Romney is going to run in California. You will notice that it is a positive message that highlights his strengths. I applaud him for not getting into the character aspersions that are becoming commonplace from McCain and Huckabee. I hope that the American people are smart enough to have a solid debate on policy.

Click here to see it for yourself.

By the way, McCain is big on the endorsement game. Romney picked up a few himself today. One is US Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, one of 21 states with Republican contests on Tuesday. "A Georgia GOP primary works as a filter -- only a true conservative can get through one," he said in a statement issued by the Romney campaign. "It appears that we are now down to a two-person race and Georgians can help winnow the field and protect our party's conservative values and principles."

The other endorsement is from former US Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, which doesn't vote until April 22. McCain hopes to have the nomination wrapped up by then.
Santorum, however, appealed to Republicans voting on Super Tuesday. "In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party's nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear," Santorum said in a statement. "Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party."

McCain Doesn't Have My Vote.

Hey! What happened! The blog is blue now! I got some constructive criticism about a black background with white lettering. Apparently it can give you a headache. At this point, I'm not sure if it's the lettering or the content. If you find that you're still having headaches while reading this, it may be better for you to stick to the NY times. Anyway, on to the important stuff and the reason for today's rant.

I keep hearing the MSM say the only viable Republican candidate is John McCain. Their reasoning is that he has the (perceived) ability to win over independents and Democrats. That very well may be the case. However, McCain would also LOSE a huge voting bloc of his party's base, ie. the "true" conservative. We conservatives are not willing to forget the liberal legislation carrying his nameplate beside liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. We are also not willing to forget the Keating Five or the Gang of 14. Mr. McCain says that he is "Proud to be a Conservative, but will put his country ahead of his party every time." This is code-speak for being a turncoat.

If McCain wins the nomination, it is true that it will be on the back of independent and moderate Republican voters. This will cause a de facto shift to the left for the Republican party, and further fracture a group that is searching for its soul. McCain constantly refers to being a "footsoldier in the Reagan revolution", and repeats the tired old mantra that Reagan reached across the aisle to work with both parties. McCain has that partially correct. Yes, Reagan did work with Democrats. The difference is that he brought Democrats over to HIS way of thinking, not the other way around. You are no Ronald Reagan, Mr. McCain. You may claim to be a footsoldier in the revolution, but your positions have been treasonous. To keep up the military analogy, I believe that if Reagan were alive, he'd be recommending you for court martial.

I will not vote for John McCain if he receives the nomination. Sour grapes? Hardly. I am a proud Mitt Romney supporter as you have seen, but I would happily vote for a candidate other than Mitt if I felt that conservatives would be well represented. Case in point- During the Reagan Library debate, Anderson Cooper asked if John McCain would vote for his own immigration bill if it was re-introduced. John McCain sidestepped the question, stating in essence that he would not deal in hypotheticals. He then said that he’d secure the border first. That’s all fine, but what does he do next? I wish either the moderators or another candidate would have asked, “After you have secured the border, are you going to keep Z-Visa legislation? How will you deal with the millions of illegal immigrants that are in the country right now? Will you allow them to stay?” He owes the American people this answer. If he answers honestly, you will see that McCain has not learned as much as he claims. His presidency would yield another amnesty bill, and I’m afraid this time it will pass since the Republicans are sure to lose more seats in the house and senate. That’s the “Straight Talk” he’s trying to avoid giving. Why isn’t the MSM asking this question specifically? Simple. They are dying for a McCain nomination. You will find that as soon as he has the nomination wrapped up, the MSM support will evaporate like fog on a sunny day.

Sen. McCain says the reason that the immigration bill was rejected is because the American people had lost trust in Washington- that much is true. McCain has been in Washington for 25 years, and I do not trust him. Equally true is that the bill itself is fundamentally flawed. It is estimated that the cost of amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants will cost 2.6 trillion dollars over 20 years. This research can be found on the Heritage foundations’s website here. Personally, I think that figure is low. The numbers are based upon 12 million illegals, and doesn’t take into account that there may be as many as 25 million here. It also does not allow for the mass exodus that would occur as soon as the bill is passed.

With the reasons mentioned above and the personal experiences I had in Florida, I cannot and will not vote for John McCain if he receives the nomination. I refuse to sell out my party to a Democrat in Republican clothing. It may be that America needs four years of Hillary Clinton so that they can appreciate the real contrast between conservative and liberal ideas. Sometimes you have to taste the bitter to appreciate the sweet. I still hold our hope that lightning will strike and my man will get enough delegates to pull through- I'm going to continue to work for him until he throws in the towel. If Mitt concedes, for the first time since I was old enough to pull a lever, I will stay at home. As with other true conservatives, I hope that our silence will be deafening.