Condi and the Queen

Condi Rice exhibited her pianistic abilities in a private performance for Queen Elizabeth II. She played Brahms.

Here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081201224605.z1mwenki&show_article=1

George W. Bush Is A Hero Day

Taking off from an idea for a Victory In Iraq Day (nov. 22), I officially dub today, the 26th of November, to be "George Bush Is A Hero" Day.

Hey guys, It's OK to be pro-War now

Ok, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, and Maureen Dowd. You can all go home and rest easy. Obama is at the helm, and the way things are looking Guantanomo will NOT be closed, the Iraq mission (the war is over) will be completed and we will not pre-emptively leave before that country's security is in plave. Afghanistan war will continue and will in fact be scaled up. Obama will likely get credit for Iraq's success.

Are you happy? Will you suddenly accept that torturing terrorists for information might be a really good idea? Will you suddenly see the light on Iraq and surmise that in the long run being rid of Saddam and having a democracy in his place was a positive thing and worth fighting for? Will our troops suddenly be heroes to you rather than demented monsters who enjoy killing?

Of course you will, is the answer to all the above questions. But it's not because you ever held clear convictions on those issues, but that you merely hated George Bush.

Palin-Romney-Huckabee 2012

Let's just say this up front: it is WAAAAAY too early to say who will be a frontrunner in 2012. But it isn't such a stretch as it was this last time around, when the GOP had no clear heir-apparent. This cycle had several strong contenders rallying support to them. And the top three are who you would expect.

Here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/112252/GOP-Faithful-Like-Palin-Romney-Huckabee-2012.aspx

Batman---The Dark Knight---as you've never seen him before

Youtube is a wonder. Yeah, there's a lot of trash and the commenters almost always use at least one expletive (even on kid videos)...but the good stuff available makes it all worthwhile.

I recently read an editorial by John Podhoretz where he opined that 'The Dark Knight' was just another superhero movies. Ok, his opinion. Fine. But regular superhero movies don't inspire as much fan-spoofing (admiring fan spoofing, I should add) as did this last Batman movie. Spoofs of the trailer are most common, though there are some recreated movie scenes as well.

Here are some of the best The Dark Knight spoofs on YouTube:

1. First, a kiddie-version of the trailer. This both genuinely funny and weird. Pure enjoyment.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy673zWHUOw&feature=related

2. Next, a lego-version of the trailer. Quite well-done indeed. Also a second version was made, and the link for that is in the feature box next to the video.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StWZDqqBfJo

3. And this is one of the BEST. A Toy Story version!

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QFWBFIEuig

4. A pretty good spoof by high-school kids, with a slightly different twist on the trailer here and there.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sYBqhOEdRQ&feature=related

5. Perhaps funniest of all this Interrogation Scene re-do, in which Batman's breathy/raspy way of saying things leads to some confusion...

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc&feature=related

Mitt News Nov.23rd, 2008

A website promoting Romney for a 2012 Presidential run:

1. Here: http://mittromneyrevolution.com/
-----------------------
If you didn't already catch the news, Mitt was in Georgia (the US state) campaigning for Senator Saxby Chambliss.

2. Here: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/mitt_romney_campaigning_in_geo.html
------------------------
I'll bet you didn't know Mitt Romney had a flickr page...

3. Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mittromney
------------------------
Romney was on CCN's Late Edition with Jennifer Granholm, Carl Levin, and some other dude to discuss the Auto bailout package that congress is considering.

4. Here: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002990434
------------------------
General Motors responds (quite well, in my opinion) to Romney's NYT editorial some days ago...

5. Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/l21gm.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
-------------------------
This story highlights part of an interview with Romney by Wolf Blitzer in which Romney refuses to go back into the muddy waters of primary fighting. The real amusing part however is reading the comments which follow the article. I won't say, "not since Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton have two men hated each other so much in American history!"....but boy, I sure is tempted :p

6. Here: http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/11/mitt_takes_the_high_road.aspx

My Top Ten LEAST Favorite Conservatives/Republicans

First let me say that I do not dislike any of these people purely on a personal basis. All of them are disliked by me because they have either a) not been real conservatives/Republicans, b) given in too often to the left or c) hurt the party more than helped it by their tactics.

10. Mike Huckabee---Why? Because he has spent more time bashing Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, the Club for Growth, and Libertarians than he has defining his credentials. And his credentials are quite stellar, if you really look at them. A full 3-term Governor, a good on-the-stump speaker, has visited many countries, and has a background as a Baptist minister which is a POSITIVE thing, not a negative one. The negative stuff is the fact that he is often mean-spirited, even in his jokes. Anybody remember the "Mitt Romney doesn't know how to eat fried chicken" remark? Or the time in Iowa where he invited the press to see his new ad against Romney, then told them, "nah, I not going to show this SUPER NEGATIVE ad, because I'm a nice guy." Or worse of all the Mormon-bashing that came specifically from his campaign
One of things about good Republican candidates is that they should be able to sell their credentials well, and store away the slashing remarks for their true opponents: Democrats. Mike Huckabee has failed at both, and continues to fail.

9. Peggy and (K.) Parker, the Palin-Bashing Sisters---and Christopher Buckley too!
There's nothing more aggravating than "conservatives" who jump ship, and when the liberal media sings hallelujah. As you may know, Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker didn't start out as Palin-bashers. In fact, they wrote very nice things about her. But there was a problem: they didn't know what they were really talking about. Then the liberal firestorm hit, and in the aftermath Peggy and Parker found themselves weeping over John McCain's pick. How could he do this to them?! How could he pick a dummy lady who speaks different from Harvard and Yale graduates?! How DARE he pick someone just because he is a woman! We were supposed to WAIT for that, until we felt SINCERE about it! That does it! I'm voting for quasi-socialism! This is no longer the big-tent Republicanism I once knew! There aren't enough media-worshipers like me!
The problem is that Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker didn't know what they were talking about when they praised Palin. Neither did they know of which they spake when they started bashing her.

8. Colin Powell---The prize for the most inarticulate ship-jumper goes to Colin Powell, who said that people who were against Obama thought Obama was a Muslim. This is insanity. The "Obama is a closet Muslim" people are very fringe, and even living here in TN, I swear I've never met one who believed that. Too bad Colin Powell couldn't vote for his old friend John McCain because a few fringe-believers on the left thought McCain was secretly one of the "Lizard People."

7. Chuck Hagel---In some ways I can understand why leftists hate Joe Lieberman so much. He defects from his party on the issue they love the most: giving up in Iraq. Lieberman is the liberal counterpart to Hagel. He has defected from the Republican party as regards to Iraq. Nevermind that we've now won the war, essentially. The difference between Lieberman and Hagel is that Lieberman has guts. That's what it takes to side with George Bush on Iraq, to support the surge and to support John McCain specifically to ensure America wins that war. Hagel on the other hand, is merely impatient with having to defend Bush, the war. He longs to be loved.

6. Ted Stevens---we all knew Uncle Ted was corrupt a long time ago. I knew in 2004 when I was 17 years old. But nobody did anything about it. Ted Stevens is not a bad person on the whole, but very morally weak. The real villain here is the GOP senate leadership, who looked away rather than call out one of their own. That's what kills a party.

5. Ill-informed Radio Talk Show Host who blathers---there are a lot of good conservative radio talk show hosts. Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz,, Phil Valentine, Laura Ingraham...and for the most part they all fight against the Left in a decent way, and don't indulge in hyperventilating dooms-day talk. Others, especially those who host shows on local levels, are the very kind who give talk radio a bad name. The sad thing is that many people take them seriously, and the result is a very embarrassing slew of sentiments from a certain segment of the GOP bloc. The sunny side is that none of the Air America hosts match even these conservative blatherers.

4. Scott McClellan---President Bush's former Press Secretary is the slimiest character on this list. I percieve part of it to be his shallow political bearings. The other part was greed. He sold his former boss down the river for a sack of gold. It's one thing to tell "the whole story" once a person is out of office or is about to be prosecuted. Neither of those was the case with George Bush.

3. Ron Paul---I like SOME of Ron Paul's ideas. That is, I think he was made for the 1880s. To be perfecty honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the Federal Reserve. Nor do I know whether the Gold Standard is a good or bad idea. But one thing I can tell you is: eliminating the Federal Reserve, at least within one presidency, is a BAD and dangerous move. In addition to that, congressman Paul has been against the Iraq war. OK, fine. But what about winning the Iraq war? He's against that too. Just like a Democrat. Unrealistic.

2. Michael Bloomberg---Granted he may never have been "on the right," but time was once when he was Republican. So he qualifies for the list. In a frighteningly FDR-esque move, Bloomberg has made it possible for himself to run yet again for the NYC mayoralty. Good politicians would respect the limits of power, or they would seek to run honestly for another position. But Bloomberg decided he wants to be Dictator of New York, mandating that restaurants not use certain types of cooking oil (while he eats Cheez-its in the office), and then decides about term-limits "what the heck, these legal boundaries didn't anticipate that I was going to be such an awesome guy. I'll just chunk 'em."

1. The Unrealistic Voters of 2008---I know I know, everyone has the perfect right to vote however they want. However more than ANYONE else on the conservative side, voters who a) hated McCain b) hated Palin c) loved Obama and drank of his chalice of kool-aid, or d) voted Libertarian....are the cause of the GOP's troubles. Sometimes political pundits think too much about the ideas-campaign, or the get-out-the-vote campaign etc. The fact is, certain voters are just plain gullible and vote for the guy who is "nice," or are just plain stubborn, and will write in their own name as a "protest vote." Thanks a bunch guys. Iraqi children may die because of you.

0. David Brooks---David Brooks is not really a conservative. Thus, he gets mentioned only as my #0 on this list. Everyone acts like Brooks is a conservative though. NPR pairs him with EJ Dionne, and slaps down the label of "conservative," despite the fact that Brooks is only a conservative about 12% of the time. When are those times? Only when times are looking up for Republicans. When Palin was riding the crest of post-convention popularity, the sky was blue and sunny, David Brooks was galloping along with the rest of the gang. When the liberals struck, Brooks jumped back onto his old home wagon. Ah, political chameleons...

My Top Ten Favorite Conservatives/Republicans

There seem to be a lot of Top Ten thingamabobbers floating around the blogosphere. I've posted a few of my favorite names already as well, but not a complete TOP TEN. So, here it is:

10. Dinesh D'Souza----Why? Because as a conservative/Republican Mr. D'Souza has done more than anyone to re-ignite the debate between atheists and theists. Not only that, but he's been kicking butt! In addition to that, I admire Mr. D'Souza's independent thinking when it comes to the issue of why Muslims dislike western culture. In the war between D'Souza and Victor Davis Hanson, I agree with many points of Hanson's, but find many others to be naive and wishful thinking. I'm in D'Souza's camp.

9. Haley Barbour---Why? If anyone has bothered to track Mr. Barbour's comments this election cycle there is a consistency of focus from the Mississippi guv. He has consistently dismissed questions about speculation about running for president or VP. He has demanded focus from the GOP for the here and now. I always admire that.

8. Tim Pawlenty---Why? Well here's my favorite kind of Republican. Someone who tries to expand the Republican base to regular folks who might otherwise vote Democrat on impulse. He's the originator of the phrase "Sam's Club Republican."

7. John McCain---Why? Why did I choose John McCain?! Fact is, I used to strongly dislike this guy. I guess you might say he is the only one of this list who is on here for something besides his conservative credentials. What I like about John McCain is his story. The guy has spent his entire life in public service: the navy, as a POW, and in congress. Yes, I strongly disliked his various sins against the GOP, and his oft-time leftist positionings. But there is no denying: John McCain is an American hero.

6. Sarah Palin---Why? Everybody concentrates on her mostly as a social conservative. The media denounced and attacked for it. Ironically, when she was first picked they were questioning her credentials in that area. But hey, she's the Repub Veep, so what's to like? I mean it's not like she ran against the GOP good ole' boys in Alaska, right? It's not like she resigned her post on a committee in protest of ethics violations, right? It's not like she had executive experience from being a mayor and governor right? It's not like she gained an inside view into fiscal and environmental issues from serving on various boards and committees or by having to balance a state budget right? I mean this lady is evil!

5. Mike Pence---Why? Because Mike Pence has stood against the tidal wave of me-too-ism in the House. Even when stalwarts Coburn in the senate and Cantor in the house were for the bailout, Pence stood against it.

4. Michael Steele---Why? Well, I like Steele for his contributions. He donated the phrase, "drill, baby, drill." But also his senate candidacy in 2006 represented the hideous tactics of leftism. When Democrat Harold Ford jr. ran against Republican Bob Corker in my home state of Tennessee, the liberal media was all over the race and ready to label TN voters as racist if they did not shoo-in their candidate. Sure enough, when the election was over, accusations of racism were front and center. Mr. Ford graciously pooh pooh-ed those accusations and graciously accepted his defeat. Meanwhile, nobody was crying racism over the losses of Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell, or Michael Steele. In addition to this, I think Mr. Steele's personality will help the GOP, especially as head of the RNC. (Plus: he guest-hosted for Hugh Hewitt, and you can't help but like him).

3. Mitt Romney---Why? Because Romney represents the best parts of conservatism: leadership, innovation, and self-sufficiency. He led the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics out of a debt-hole and did the same with Massachussetts in later years. A lot of people disliked his healthcare plan in MA, but what they don't realize is that his mandate did not require state government to pay for people's healthcare. Only that they were required to obtain it. This SAVED the state's healthcare program a lot of money. Just in case nobody realized this, there was been a different governor of the state since then, named Deval Patrick. Did you guess? He's a Democrat.

2. Hugh Hewitt---Why? Because Hugh Hewitt presents not just his views, but those of REAL experts. A lot of talk show hosts hire their uncle's counsin to come on the show and opine on the war on terror. But Hugh Hewitt gets only the best, even when he disagrees with them on the subject discussed, as in the case of Robin Wright. Hugh realizes that not all the experts are conservatives. In addition to that, his callers tend to be sane and are, as the late Dean Barnett said, "high-end news gatherers." Also notable is Hugh's diverse lineup of subjects: small businesses, music, movies, Shakespeare and literature, religion---and of course politics. How can you go wrong with Hugh Hewitt?

1. George Bush---Simple. Iraq sucess. My #1 issue.

GOP lineup

I don't want to do the silly pre-2012 analysis about who will and who will not run for the GOP in 2012. But it is interesting to consider which GOP names are strongest after this election cycle. I think we all agree that Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin are future candidates. But some of my other favorites are:

1. Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi. This guy has had a very successful governorship, and his comments on keeping your eye on the present and 2010 are very telling, I think.

2. Tim Pawlenty. Yes, he was a big player this past year, mostly because his name was bandied as a possible VP choice. He is also a voice that wants to spread conservatism beyond "the base." What he calls "Sam's Club Republicanism," he said on Hugh Hewitt's show, was essentially a different term for "Reagan Democrats."

3. Eric Cantor. He's the most interesting congressman to watch on the GOP House leadership.

UPDATED THOUGHT

Is Romney vying to be tapped as manager of one of the Big 3?

Mitt says NO to the big 3

The New York Times has published an op-ed by Mitt Romney in which he opines that a governmental bailout for General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler would destroy the auto industry (not right away, he notes).

Here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2

I have not opined about the Big 3's problems on this blog, though I have elsewhere. Suffice it to say, I agreed with Governor Romney before I even knew he held this position. In fact, when he campaigned in Michigan, it seemed he would have been pro-bailout. Is there an irreconcilable disconnect between his position then and his position now? I'll investigate more later...

Next time: things NOT to do

Now that the election is over, the dust is settling, and people are rejoicing, complaining, or looking ahead...it is time to look back at some of our (GOP) mistakes during this cycle.

1) Nominated a legislator instead of an executive.

2) Had a long primary that created unnecessary factions within the GOP voting bloc.

3) Our campaign message was always on the defensive about our platform, with too much explaining. We were also too offensive towards the opposition, with too much explanation. History shows (for better or worse) that the person who wins is always the optimistic candidate. Obama ignored most of the jabs taken against him, and he spent zero time denouncing people on his side who did/said stupid stuff. Why? Because doing so only helps connect the dots from candidate to badstuff. McCain on the other hand spent a good deal of time discussing/worrying about his image as a good guy, and the more he denounced John Hagee, Bill Cunningham, et al, the less it helped him. Why? Because nobody believes a politician trying to distance himself from things percieved as slimy. It's easier often to just ignore it, as Obama did.

4) Allowed Obama to steal the "middle" position. Obama is the most left-wing senator in the senate. That's a record. So was McCain's record of being a REAL centrist. But nobody cares about all that "complicated" stuff if it doesn't jive with what they hear the candidate saying. Obama's phony tax-cut promises made McCain look weak and lukewarm.

5) NEVER NEVER NEVER underestimate your opponent's debating skills. A few bad stump speeches, a couple thousands ums and uhs? All that can change when the debates commence. The Republicans and commentators and John McCain were fooled, which was exactly what the Dems needed us to be as they prepped Obama for some of the most skillful, calm, and level-headed (not to mention disingenuous and dishonest) debate performances ever.

6) Sarah Palin was great, and she helped the ticket with voters who might otherwise have stayed home. In many ways the attacks against her were predictable, but sometimes we gave in to the attacks by responding in the wrong way. 1. Don't mess around with accusing your opponents of sexism. It doesn't work on the Dems. 2. Don't jump at every opportunity to "expose" the meanness of the other side. It might have done more damage to Obama with his "lipstick on a pig" comment if the McCain campaign had ignored it, or laughed at it.

Sarah Palin Facts

NOTE TO PALINFACTS.COM: please feel free to post these if you find them!!!


1) When Chris Matthews hears Obama speak, he feels a tingle going up his leg. When Chris Matthews hears Sarah Palin speak, he feels a tinkle going down his leg.

2) That man on MSNBC is not the real Keith Olbermann. The real Keith Olbermann shriveled up and died the moment Sarah Palin came into being.

3) Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Sarah Palin.

4) The Catholic Church was right. The earth is the center of the universe. But only because Sarah Palin is on it.

5) Joan of Arc, Mary Queen of Scots, and Mother Teresa are fictional characters based on Sarah Palin.

6) Princess Leia and Sarah Palin are one and the same.

7) Calling Sarah Palin a "hockey mom" is putting it lightly. She invented hockey.

8) The caribou in Alaska are voting for McCain-Palin. Their lives depend on her being out of Alaska.

9) Chuck Norris is afraid of Sarah Palin.

Jonah Goldberg's great line

Over at National Review's The Corner blog, Jonah Goldberg has a simply hilarious line:

"She was put on this earth to do two things: kill caribou and kick butt. She's all out of caribou." ( ...http://corner.nationalreview.com/...)

Another great Sarah Palin Fact! ... http://www.palinfacts.com/

Gerard Baker: Palin vs. Obama

A great column by Gerard Baker (of The Times of London), contrasting Sarah Palin's achievments to Barack Obama's.


[-------""Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama
By Gerard Baker
Democrats, between sniggers of derision and snorts of disgust, contend that Sarah Palin, John McCain's vice-presidential pick is ridiculously unqualified to be president.

It's a reasonable objection on its face except for this small objection: it surely needs to be weighed against the Democrats' claim that their own candidate for president is self-evidently ready to assume the role of most powerful person on the planet.

At first blush, here's what we know about the relative experience of the two candidates. Both are in their mid-forties and have held statewide elective office for less than four years. Both have admitted to taking illegal drugs in their youth.


So much for the similarities. How about the differences?

Political experience

Obama: Worked his way to the top by cultivating, pandering to and stroking the most powerful interest groups in the all-pervasive Chicago political machine, ensuring his views were aligned with the power brokers there.

Palin: Worked her way to the top by challenging, attacking and actively undermining the Republican party establishment in her native Alaska. She ran against incumbent Republicans as a candidate willing and able to clean the Augean Stables of her state's government.

Political Biography

Obama: A classic, if unusually talented, greasy-pole climber. Held a succession of jobs that constitute the standard route to the top in his party's internal politics: "community organizer", law professor, state senator.

Palin:A woman with a wide range of interests in a well-variegated life. Held a succession of jobs - sports journalist, commercial fisherwoman, state oil and gas commissioner, before entering local politics. A resume that suggests something other than burning political ambition from the cradle but rather the sort of experience that enables her to understand the concerns of most Americans..


Political history

Obama: Elected to statewide office only after a disastrous first run for a congressional seat and after his Republican opponent was exposed in a sexual scandal. Won seat eventually in contest against a candidate who didn't even live in the state.


Palin: Elected to statewide office by challenging a long-serving Republican incumbent governor despite intense opposition from the party.


Appeal


Obama: A very attractive speaker whose celebrity has been compared to that of Britney Spears and who sends thrills up Chris Matthews' leg

Palin: A very attractive woman, much better-looking than Britney Spears who speaks rather well too. She sends thrills up the leg of Rush Limbaugh (and me).


Executive experience

Obama: Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of his campaign staff and a vast crowd of traveling journalists

Palin:Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of 500,000 people in her state, and that impact crucial issues of national economic interest such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States.

Religious influences

Obama: Regards people who "cling" to religion and guns as "bitter" . Spent 20 years being mentored and led spiritually by a man who proclaimed "God damn America" from his pulpit. Mysteriously, this mentor completely disappeared from public sight about four months ago.

Palin: Head of her high school Fellowship of Christian Athletes and for many years a member of the Assemblies of God congregation whose preachers have never been known to accuse the United States of deliberately spreading the AIDS virus. They remain in full public sight and can be seen every Sunday in churches across Alaska. A proud gun owner who has been known to cling only to the carcasses of dead caribou felled by her own aim.


Record of bipartisan achievement

Obama: Speaks movingly of the bipartisanship needed to end the destructive politics of "Red America" and "Blue America", but votes in the Senate as a down-the-line Democrat, with one of the most liberal voting records in congress.


Palin: Ridiculed by liberals such as John Kerry as a crazed, barely human, Dick Cheney-type conservative but worked wit Democrats in the state legislature to secure landmark anti-corruption legislation.

Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz - a Democrat - said. "Gov. Palin has made her name fighting corruption within her own party, and I was honored when she stepped across party lines and asked me to co-author her ethics white paper."


On Human Life

Obama: Devoutly pro-choice. Voted against a bill in the Illinois state senate that would have required doctors to save the lives of babies who survived abortion procedures. The implication of this position is that babies born prematurely during abortions would be left alone, unnourished and unmedicated, until they died.

Palin: Devoutly pro-life. Exercised the choice proclaimed by liberals to bring to full term a baby that had been diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome.

Now it's true there are other crucial differences. Sen Obama has appeared on Meet The Press every other week for the last four years. He has been the subject of hundreds of adoring articles in papers and newsweeklies and TV shows and has written two Emmy-award winning books.

Gov Palin has never appeared on Meet the Press, never been on the cover of Newsweek. She presumably feels that, as a mother of five children married to a snowmobile champion, who also happens to be the first woman and the youngest person ever to be elected governor of her state, she has not really done enough yet to merit an autobiography.

Then again, I'm willing to bet that if she had authored The Grapes of Wrath, sung like Edith Piaf and composed La Traviata , she still wouldn't have won an Emmy.

Fortunately, it will be up to the American people and not their self-appointed leaders in Hollywood and New York to determine who really has the better experience to be president.""------]

THE LINKS IS AFTER THE JUMP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/sarah_palin_vs_barack_obama.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/sarah_palin_vs_barack_obama.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/sarah_palin_vs_barack_obama.html

Coming post on pros and cons of Sarah Palin

Needless to say, I am pumped by the pick of AK Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. And there are a lot of good things she brings, which I will explore. But there are also some issues--legitimate ones--that the Dems have already brought up. The same ones that concerned many of us when her name was mentioned.

More on this later, folks...

Confirmed

Sarah Palin IS McCain's running-mate, the AP says.

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/08/29/mccain_said_to_choose_alaska_gov_as_running_mate

Sarah Palin!!!

Wow. Just wow.

I'm quite stunned. This is quite unexpected. I know her name was brought up last December. I remember hearing it brought up by a caller on The Hugh Hewitt Show. This is a good pick, but not without it's problems. But I'll leave those alone for right now.

Bill Kristol is the one who confirmed Joe Biden was Obama's pick, so we have no reason yet to doubt this source:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/

Prediction: Romney

My prediction is that by tomorrow morning, or even later this evening, Romney will be revealed as the Veep choice for John McCain. It just makes too much sense for him to br the VP. And the fact that a "unity" tour is planned, which will include McCain with Huckabee and Romney making up?

Of course we could be very surprised....

No Contest

So far my poll for McCain's Secretary of State has been a near no-contest win for John Bolton. I think he's great, but I'm surprised there were no votes at all for John Ashcroft!

Though undoubtedly I need to expand my poll-viewership...

Sarah Palin

Four Possibilities for McCain

I've broken this down real simple.

1] Lieberman/Ridge. If chosen, will be meant to showcase his maverick streak. He'll be making Obama look like a wimp, though a moderate. If Lieberman is chosen, it will signal McCain's dedication to "bipartisanship." This is a dangerous game to play. McCain DOES NOT want his ticket to be "more or less" the same as Obama's on being moderate. Obama/Biden is of course VERY left-wing, but there's only so much the media is going to admit and therefore only so much that swing voters will know about them. If the media picked up the tack that "Well, both tickets are moderate...But Obama is the better of them." Like I said, dangerous to play that game.

2) Romney/Pawlenty. By choosing either of these guys, McCain is playing the swing-state game. Romney carries a lot of positives. Mid-west voters love Romney, and Michigan also goes into play. I'd also submit that Minnesota is in play with Romney. Afterall, he won the state in the primaries. But the negative is that Evangelical christians, who largely supported Huckabee in the primaries, will be turned off by his selection. The upside of Romney is that he's vetted, he can debate the hell out of Biden, he has money for campaigning (it may not look good, but what the heck?), and he was the runner-up in primary votes. Pawlenty is safer choice. Despite his more left-leaning views on Global Warming ("cimate change"), and few lesser things, he has the charm to lull swing voters to like him. He's young, down-to-earth, and is sufficiently a good debater.

Romney Downside: Huckabee supporters/evangelicals. Primary history with McCain, can be used to Democrats advantage.
Pawlenty Downside: Lukewarm-conservative on many issues. Perhaps will not match-up well with Biden's mouth-running-contest.

3) Palin/Hutchison/Fiorina. Choosing a woman VP may steal a very good portion of former Hillary supporters who voted on the grounds that it was time to put a woman in the White House. My feelings on this are mixed. On one hand we Republicans can't wait until we feel sincere enough to choose a woman (or minority) to lead us. Nor should we be afraid of our sincerity being questioned by the Democrats for doing so; after all they do it all the time. On the other hand, we want fully-qualified women and minorities just as we want fully-qualified white males. It's a matter of experience and judgement. Kay Bailey Hutchison is the that woman. But, her downside is that she's a boring person. Very. Sarah Palin has only been governor for about a year or so, and Carly Fiorina has a spotty background in leading Hewlett-Packard. So when considering a woman, we have to take our chances.

4) Jindal/Steele/JC Watts. This boat carries some of the same problems as the one above. There's the "sincerity" problem again, and the experience problem. Jindal has only been governor for a short time. Michael Steele is a GREAT guy and I love him, but he has lost a major election for senate, and his experience as Lt. Governor is not suficient. JC Watts would be a great pick, on the other hand. In many ways, he's the best pick McCain has. But he seems to be totally passed over. Perhaps insiders know something we don't?

Orson Scott Card on Solzhenitsyn, Bush, and America

Some of this may be re-hash of what we already know, but it's great to know that one of my favorite Sci-Fi writers agrees with me on the issue of Foreign Policy and America's liberal elites.

The link is here....

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.cgi?page=/essays/warwatch/2008-08-10-1.html

The best:

["They thrill at causes like saving Darfur, saving the desaparecidos of Argentina, saving just about everybody. The problem is that all this "saving" can only be done by the use of or the threat of America's overwhelming military force. All the "negotiations" they call for to solve such problems are absurd if there is no credible threat of force behind them."]

["The whole world would love to have our prosperity. But the whole world does not admire our moral emptiness, our hedonism, the stupidity with which we destroy our core institutions in the name of transient fads, our undependability, and the cowardice of those who vote for war and then undercut their own troops so they can appear "peace-loving" at election time."]

["Alexandr Solzhenitsyn died last week. For the last thirty years of his life he was almost unheard-of. He was dismissed by our media elite as a has-been, a grumpy old man who dared to criticize them as scathingly as he criticized the Communists. They declared him No Longer Interesting."]

["Just as Americans who speak the truth to the elitists who want to be our overlords are dismissed as cranks, fanatics, madmen. Supposed defenders of liberty want to pass laws that would destroy their opponents on talk radio. Supposed defenders of tolerance seek to silence any who would express their religious views as part of our political conversation. Unsupported assertions are taken as facts by people who claim to be intellectuals. The edicts of judges, unfounded in law, are worshiped, while they treat democratically enacted laws with contempt. They want to have their way without a breath of dissent; they refuse to admit that anyone who disagrees with them might know something useful."]

READ THE WHOLE THING!

Those good 'ole days of atheistic Democrats, gone?

I see that the Democratic Convention has opened with prayer. Congratulations on gettin' relijun, my friends. Question: are you praying to God or Obama?

10 Ways Biden MIGHT Help Obama (aka 10 Ways Obama Hoped Biden Might Help Him)

Ok, so enough of the "Biden won't help Obama" talk. While I largely agree with that, and have stated it myself, it is also true that Obama isn't an idiot. This is a guy who RUNS on political calculation, because that's all he has. So why Biden? There have to be logical, cynical, political reasons.

However, these are merely my intuition based on my observance of Obama's campaign. Thus, the word "might" in title of this post.

In no particular order...

1) Obama is African-American. Biden is White, with a Irish/Welsh-Catholic family background. Obama figures that he needs to go with a white male VP to assure voters (whom he percieves as racist voters, of course) that he isn't going to pull any punches by selecting a minority or a female and turn this country into a minority-presidents-only-bonanza (which is probably what Obama thinks these types of voters think.)

2) Biden knows Washington DC workings. He's been there a long time: 36 years. So while it does run counter to his message of being "new" and his intention to do things differently, he still needs a key to the city. This is a practical consideration. Biden is his key. And to be fair to Obama, Hillary hasn't been there as long. Furthermore, even though Bill Clinton was president and would be extremely helpful, Obama and he do not seem to get along. So Obama goes with a different manifestation of the Clinton Years: Biden.

3) Joe Biden has a son in the military. While it is uncomfortable and often controversial to bring up this sort of thing in politics, it is nevertheless a consideration that voters take into account. John McCain has a son (or sons?) in Iraq, and all of his supporters know it, but keep it to a whisper. What Biden's son does for Obama is neutralize any possibility for a voter to reason, "Hmm. John McCain walks the walk, because he has a son over in Iraq and still believes we need to win the war, while Obama and [VP] don't."

4) Biden is Catholic. This wasn't a very good reason to pick Biden considering that Kerry was such a failure with the Catholic vote, but it's a reason nonetheless. I'm sure it passed through the minds of the Obama staff when considering Biden.

5) Biden voted for the war. Aha! you may say, but doesn't this run counter to his message (again?!) ? It does indeed. But think of it like this: Biden voted for the war, he now opposes the war, and he's not only a talker because he has a son in the military who is going to Iraq*." And this connnects to the following reason...

[ * NOTE: and God Bless Joe Biden's son for his service, and God keep him safe and all the men and women serving there.]

6) Biden is percieved as a foreign policy wonk. Yes, it's true that Biden is a fool on FP, nevertheless he knows the issues involved and has served on senate committees dealing with foreign policy. And most importantly: whoever McCain chooses as his own VP, Obama hopes to catch him weak in discussing foreign policy with Joe Biden.

7) Biden is close to Hillary...close enough. I don't know why this would work, but Obama still wants to reach out to Hillary Supporters who are mad about him trying to (purportedly) sever the Clinton Arm off the Democratic Party. It's not working (duh), but you Biden is what came closest while qualifying with the above reasons, as well as with these last three...

8) Biden is percieved as moderate (enough). While Biden is clearly pro-Abortion, he has not always been. He did however vote to ban partial-birth abortion. Whose vote you can find here....

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

...Also, Biden vote for the Iraq War, and is in many cases hawkish. Enough so that it would comfort moderatet voters who see FP as their prime voting issue.

9) Biden off-sets the "Obama is too young" argument. Now, I don't think there is a problem with Obama's age ( he is 47), I think the problem is with his lack of achievements, lack of good judgement, and the creepy cult of personality he has created. But people who see him on TV (and the same is true of me) are going to see "inexperienced," "too young" written all over his face. With Biden at the one VP depate this Fall, Obama has a chance to show voters that he knows where to look for wisdom: in someone older than he. As Republicans, we understand the comical elements of that reasoning, but nevertheless...

10) Biden is going to be an attack dog against all those Evil Republicans Who Dare Question The Sincerity And Patriotism Of THE ONE. And in Biden, Obama has found someone who is very capable of saying very bluntly foolish things. I'm sure Biden will spare nothing in attacking John McCain and Republicans as racists, homophobes, sexists etc.

And that wraps up my 10 Reasons Biden was picked. However, I do have one runner-up....

11) Biden is a walking commercial for why hair plugs work. And I admit, while the little cow lick at his nape is ridiculous-looking, he looks a heck of a lot better than he was bald.

Also NOTE: Some of the reasons Obama might choose Biden that he percieves as strengths are also weaknesses. For instance: Biden may be a Clinton-Era Democrat, but who is going to notice? What they'll notice is that Biden has said "things" about Obama, and has priased McCain often.

"It IS Biden"

I think I can breathe easier now. John McCormack at The Weekly Standard Blog (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#8198) says a source in the Obama campaign has told him: "IT IS BIDEN."



Phew! As long as it's not Hillary, or Sebelius. Now the trick is: who would go up against Biden well? Why, Romney of course!

Kaine and Bayh out?

As I suspected (not that it's hard to do), there was a headfake towards Bayh and Kaine. Now reports have it that they are out of the game. So he eliminates two of the easy-to-run-against guys for the Republicans. It's down to Sebelius, Biden, Kerry, and worst case scenario for Republicans: Hillary. I have an aching feeling in my stomach. Hillary is a surefire way to win back the people he estranged during the primaries.

Please lord, one of the others....

Head fakes and head shakes

Obama-Bayh: Supposedly there are bumper stickers being printed right at this moment, with the Illinois-Indiana team on it.

This is the worst pick at all for Obama. I get the feeling people will like Bayh in general. He IS more moderate than many other Democrats, bu then, he DOES come from Indiana. Not Deleware.

I get the feeling though that Bayh will be a very boring running mate, which is what Obama wants on a personal level (WHO DARES STEAL HIS SPOTLIGHT!) Also, he won't necessarily provide the assurance to undecided voters that Obama is not going to govern radicaclly.

Obama-Kaine: Pathetic. This is one of the best tickets the Republicans can hope for. How on earth is a man as naive--though older--as Obama going to help him? That's the thing with these Democrat governors. They're the same as Senators in personality.

I still think Obama's BEST pick would have been Phil Bredesen. But I think we're going to see Obama-Sebelius. This Bayh bumper sticker thing could be another head fake. I think the Dems are smart enough to calculate the best way to use the media coverage of a Veep choice is to do something out of the box: thus a woman veep, BUT NOT HILLARY. And Sebelius is the best way to do that.

Veep Watch Dead?

I've noticed that The Club For Growth's VP blog is dead. No updates since July 14th. They went on longer than I did, but still. I'm just an amateur. You'd think that with the rising talk about Lieberman, Pawlenty, Romney, Kain, Biden, and Kerry that ole' Nachama Solevechik would be up and running.

Ah well. That's less competition for me.

REVELATION!

I just had a huge revelation.

You know the theory of a presidential candidate floating a name for VP around, to see if it catches? That's why you're hearing McCain-Lieberman right now. But that's not because McCain has any doubt about choosing a pro-lifer over a pro-choicer. He doesn't. What's happening (my theory only) is that McCain preparing to choose Romney. To put the Evangelicals to rest about Romney's pro-life creds though, he first has to scare the bejesus out of them with Lieberman.

ROMNEY NEWS & I'M BACK!

1. Evangelicals and Romney talk, from The Boston Globe. Here...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/evangelicals_an.html

I don't get it. They say the anti-Romney movement isn't about his mormonism; that it's really about his change of position on abortion. If that's so, then why haven't Evangelical Leaders said anything about Tom Ridge? In any case, Romney is no longer pro-choice. Tom Ridge is. See the difference, folks?

You may have heard Mike Huckabee's recent dagger move at Romney as well, saying in an interview that Romney is unacceptable as VP, BUT NOT BECAUSE HE'S MORMON!

Yeah. Riiiiiight.


Not that anyone really cares, but this is my first blog post here in quite some time. My excuse is that I've been working, trying to get my car in tip-top shape for this coming semester, and quite forgot that my blog even existed. In any case, the VP race is heating back up as each presidential candidate is sizing up his fellow pols for the Veepship. I've noticed that Romney and Pawlenty are back as the most mentioned names for McCain, and Jindal is not. Neither is Palin or Steele, which is a shame. I liked both.

Time Kaine for Obama? That would be GREAT. Time Kaine is well-intentioned Democrat, somewhat moderate whose greatest strength (in Republican terms) is that he would make absolutely no impact on whether Obama got less or more votes. Will he be the Veep? WE WISH!

There's also talk of John Kerry. Frankly, that would be an extremely unsavvy pick for Obama. If he's trying to out-Vietnam Vet McCain, he can do better (though not as well). In any case Kerry is not seen as a Vietnam WAr hero. He's seen as a jerk who slimed American troops, who threw away his medal, and who joined the "we hate America at any cost"/Jane Fonda brigade. And then there's the fact that George Bush (who isn't supposed to be popular) beat John Kerry in 2004 by a nifty margin. So will he be the Veep? WE WISH!

Quote of the Election!

From Jonah Goldberg's column: "July 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, "there's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.""

Quote of the Week

Once again, Ann Coulter's humor:

"Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"! Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: 'As a result of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full.' And then Obama can return and tell Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could repudiate his own white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg tingle. "
~ANN COULTER

Special Mention:

"In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style."
~Michelle Malkin

Hello, brain? You in there?

Liberals love talking about sex-education in schools, as if children weren't already inundated with it from all the television they watch.

I'm not one of those who says a child or teen should know nothing up until the moment they have to get married. I'm pretty sure nobody does. But where exactly do liberals draw the line? Especially as regards the parental notification aspect of sex-ed.

Predictions that the schools would try to teach homosexual-themed aspects in sex-ed sounded alarmist. But it came to pass. And then there were fears that schools would fester the notion among children that they didn't yet know their sexual 'orientation.' Came to pass.

And now this story from Australia:

----""""A JUDGE has allowed a 12-year-old Victorian girl to start a taxpayer-funded sex swap, despite objections from the child's father...

Only her father, who lives interstate, opposed the proposed sex change, though he did not attend the final court hearing and could not afford to send a lawyer on his behalf.

The court was told he could not accept that his daughter had always seen herself as a boy and considered her too young to make such a decision.

The mother expressed sadness and deep concern for her daughter, but said she would stand by the girl.

The child's lawyer told the court she considered the girl capable of making an informed decision...

The court was told early intervention was needed because the child was stressed and anxious at the prospect of starting her period and had threatened self-harm.

Hormones implanted under her skin every three months will stop her menstruating and prevent her hips and breasts growing.""""----

LINK HERE: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23753182-2,00.html

So this is it. Courts in Australia can decide that a confused child has the right to change his/her anatomy. And parents can't do diddly about it.

My English teacher rolled her eyes when I uttered the phrase "building block of society" in reference to the family. She probably thought my fear that gay marriage would destroy family was just reactionary and stupid.

Maybe I should stop worrying about gay marriage. It isn't gays that have ruined the family, it's liberalism in the schools

Memorial Day Post (to be edited in following days

"Be mindful, O Lord, of all civil Authorities, of our Armed Forces, of this city in which we dwell, and of every city and land; grant us peaceful times, that we may lead a calm and tranquil life in all godliness and sanctity." ~from the Orthodox Christian prayer for the world.

"For the President of the United States and all civil authorities, for our Armed Forces everywhere, that He will aid them and grant them victory over every enemy and adversary, let us pray to the Lord." ~from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom

Why the Obama/Clinton ticket is inevitable

These past months have seen Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton go from friendly rivals to bitter ones. And their respective supporters are almost as partisan. Half of Hillary's bloc say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and a good portion of Obama's say the same. Add to that the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton have estranged African-American voters with their various [percieved] insinuations about his race.

What's happened is the near tearing-apart of the Democratic Party's most important voting blocs. This is the fault mostly of the Democrats' political theology. They held that a person's race or sex was a determining factor in that person's political value. Women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Everyone else will vote for her so it can be a symbol for overcoming sexism. People will vote for Barack Obama as a symbol for overcoming racism etc.

Both are noble thoughts, of course. The problem is that it translates very harshly in politics when the "first woman" and "first black" candidates have to endure the same kind of scrutiny that George W. Bush or John Kerry (*cough*) did.

America DOES need to elect a "first" [fill in blank], but American voters should not change the rules when it comes to qualifications for those candidates. The lesson that Democrats need to learn with this year's two Democrat candidates is: race and sex must take a backseat to policy ideas. It is the focus on victimization that is tearing Democrats apart. Finally they've been hoisted on their own petard: Hillary Clinton knows what it is like to be accused of racism when she is clearly not racist. Barack Obama knows the dangers that come with critisizing a female, even if those criticisms are legitimate.

Will they learn? That's the question. My answer is: no, they won't. But what they will realize before November is that they must pull the coalition together to win against John McCain. And to do that, Obama will need Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. The reasons are numerous.

First, no other white candidate --male (Strickland, Warner) or female (Sebelius, Napolitano)--will do. Hillary has legitimized herself. She's winning 48% of the Democratic vote in the primaries. By this time the frontrunner has the nomination wrapped up, yet Obama has weakened not strengthened, over time. His problems with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright have alienated southern white voters, the moderate types who would vote for Bill Clinton or George Bush. Hillary Clinton is Obama's only chance of winning this bloc. Conversely, if Hillary were capable of winning the nomination, she would need Obama because of the alienation that occured between African-American voters and the Clintons.

More importantly, the reason for an Obama/Hillary ticket is to keep all the regular Democrat votes voting Democrat. As I pointed out above, a large section of each candidate's constituency are threatening to jump to McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. If this were to happen, McCain would be riding the train to a more probable victory.

Here's why it won't happen: the Democrats are realizing this as the Denver convention approaches. Obama has recently given a rationale for putting Hillary on the ticket, and there have been rumors that Bill Clinton has been pushing his wife for the VP slot behind the scenes. Whatever water may have passed under the bridge, the idea of possible defeat in November is a stronger drink than personal hatred.

That means McCain needs to gear up. He has to hope that the college vote gets too drunk to vote, he has to hope his hand-extensions to Union workers and African-Americans will add to his constituency. He has to hope, above all, that not a single person who voted for George W. Bush stays home. God Help Us All.

Seems to me...

Here's a few thoughts of mine on the BBQ-Friday that governors Crist, Jindal and Romney (among others such as senators Lieberman, Graham, and Brownback) spent at McCain's place in Sendona, Arizona. First, this article from TIME:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808816,00.html?imw=Y

First, this could indeed be just a BBQ-weekend. But why would that not be McCain's way of looking at his potential veep picks? Indeed, he's been giving these BBQ-weekends for a while now. It's probably his way of finding out the character of his nearest allies. Seem pretty smart to me.

Also Huckabee (hat tip: Nachama Solveichek at Veep Watch) WAS invited to the BBQ but had a more pressing date to keep, his 35th anniversary. Could be that, or it could be that he didn't want to be in the same place as Romney.

One thing about these two other guys though ( Crist and Jindal). I can't imagine McCain seriously considers them. For several reasons. Jindal is just TOO new. I like his resume, but picking him will look really convenient. It'll also amp up the issue of McCain's age. He's admitting defeat on age if he chooses someone that young. It'll also bring up the "inexperience" issue as the Democrats try to make Jindal the Republican double-standard on inexperience.
Charlie Crist is more likely, but not by much. Like McCain, he is known for being very moderate on some things and openly leftist on issues like Global Warming (meaning: government solutions). He's also pro-choice ( but anti-abortion---the Giuliani trick).

Romney News: Money, Change, VeepWatch, and Lunatic

1. This article says wealth will be Romney's strong point in being picked as VP. HERE: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/23/report_romney_wealth_may_help_make_him_vp/6399/
~~~~~
I agree that his checkbook is a big plus, and McCain definitely needs it. But that's not the only thing McCain has to consider. Romney plays strong in Michigan and Minnesota.
~~~~~
2. Another snarky article that spreads the lie that the only thing about Romney is that he "changes...again." If something is repeated enoughj etc...Article HERE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141533544012615.html

Notable quote: "My plans are consistent with being a supporter of the ticket, not a member of it."
~~~~~
3. Lamar Alexander, one of my state's US Senators, has been chosen by the McCain campaign to vet VP candidates. Matt Lewis at TownHall.com is my source, HERE: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/4cb1ccbc-9d90-4974-ba6d-20e344d7a2d6

Lewis notes: "Hopefully, he won't pull a "Cheney" and pick himself..."
~~~~~
4. Romney and President Bush will be in Salt Lake City, Utah to raise money for McCain. HERE: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3375544

Rocky Anderson, the lunatic mayor of SLC will be protesting Bush's visit. Juvenile or what? Full disclosure here, and not without a touch of irony: Romny endorsed Rocky Anderson for mayor. Apparently he knew him from the Salt Lake City Olympics turn-around in 2002. My guess is that Romney knew him as fairly sane person who helped turn the SLC games around and thus thought he'd make a competent mayor. Indeed, Anderson may be a competent mayor. There's nothing in the rule book that says all Bush-hating Democrats are inherently incapable.

Obama's Veep Material

The Obama Veepstakes are heating up, as he struggles to shore up his foreign policy credentials.

Two names popped up on the Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday. Sen. George Mitchell and General Anthony Zinni.

ZINNI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni ---the Wiki on the General. Here's his site: http://www.generalzinni.com/

MITCHELL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell

and the more oft-mentioned names: Rendell, Strickland, Sebelius, Richardson, James Webb, and Hillary herself.

RENDELL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rendell

STRICKLAND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland

SEBELIUS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

RICHARDSON: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson

WEBB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb

HILLARY: wait a sec, who needs to know anymore about her?! ;-)

I'll offer my own smart pick, the genuinely moderate Tenn. Gov. Phil Bredesen.

BREDESEN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen

Time for a new poll...

The question: which potential running mate for Obama poses the most danger to the Republicans?

I'll gather the necessary profiles and so on in just a sec...

Romney News

1. Romney will speak at the Colorado GOP convention. HERE:

http://cbs4denver.com/politics/romney.colorado.convention.2.728544.html

2. RomneyCare's failure in Massachussetts continues to haunt Mitt, as it has turned into a disaster (under Deval Patrick's tinkering I should add). This is probably the biggest obstacle Mitt faces as far as being a VP pick. HERE:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132884197208937.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

3. Romney decries the Calif. Supreme Court's recent decision. HERE:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1094559&srvc=home&position=rated

McCain and Three other sailors

The New York Times reports that McCain will be meeting with Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, and Mitt Romney on friday to talk about Veep stuff. HERE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24762893/

Notice anyone missing?

My question is why McCain thinks Crist will help him. Obviously these weren't my final three (Romney, Pawlenty, Portman), but at least Mitt is there, and that's what counts!

Also, the GC POLITICS match-up has been whittled down to a final two. Surprisingly, those two are Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. As I suspected, it was mostly Huckabee supporters voting in the game (perfectly legal), and Sarah Palin is WAY behind him. Go help her out...HERE: http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

Quote of the Week

You really can't get any better than Ann Coulter:

"Liberals think all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is always different for people who refuse to learn from history. As Air America's Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America's position is that Bush is Hitler.) "

~ANN COULTER

Last chance to help Mitt....

Hey Romney Supporters,

Once again I have to urge you to go to CQ POLITICS' Veep Matchup game, and help Romney out against Mark Sanford! Link is here....

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

If we don't boost Mitt up, he can't make it to the next round of matchups! The last chance we have is today. The next round starts tomorrow.

Article

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez has a nice article on Mitt Romney's recent speech, HERE:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdjY2U4OTUyZTQ0YTA1ODgxNmQ3MGFiODdhMzliMWI=

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdjY2U4OTUyZTQ0YTA1ODgxNmQ3MGFiODdhMzliMWI=

Romney Needs Your Help!!! *bumped*

I want to repost this....

CQ POLITICS has a bracket-style match-up going on between potential veep choices. Condi vs. Huckabee, Jindal vs. Steele etc...and Mitt Romney is up against Mark Sanford. Looks like he's a little behind. Round 2 ends in a few days, so go help Mitt out by choosing him over Sanford, HERE:

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

The terrorist vote vs. the racist vote

When a prominent Obama campaign spokesperson said in essence that racists were all voting for McCain, there was no media firestorm. It is accepted at this point that the Republican Party holds the "racist vote" spellbound. Of course this is supposed to scare us into thinking that the Republican Party is somehow encouraging to racists, or is racist itself. This is the kind of crap that Democraps--er, Democrats--use to try and keep African-American voters voting for them. Everyone believes the slander except for Republicans themselves.

Of course saying that McCain holds the "racist vote" is only talk. Nobody who is a prominent figure who is racist, not anyone, has come out and said, "thanks McCain for being the only white guy to vote for!"

But the Democrats have a problem with their own electorate---or at least, an 'electorate' that would vote in the United States election for President if it could. The Democrats have a strong hold of the terrorist vote. No, I don't mean Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn--those two are actually American citizens. The terrorist force of Hamas has expressed preference for a Barack Obama presidency. When John McCain pointed this out, Obama's campaign responded that it was a smear. As if saying McCain had a hold of the racist vote wasn't a smear.

So instead of assuring the American electorate that Hamas has plenty to fear from him, Obama and his campaign assure us that McCain has a lot to fear--Don't make them call you a racist! Because they will if McCain persists in pointing to Hamas' preference for Obama.

It is fair to ask what McCain is implying when he points out this telling fact: is he saying Obama and Hamas are pals? Well, that's how Democrats would like to paint it; McCain is trying to say Obama is a Hamas-friendly terrorist.

But what McCain is doing is simply pointing to the fact that dictators and terrorists have a preference for Democrat foreign policy ideals. Obama has promised to sit with Ahmadinejahd, Castro (the dead wax figure version) and Raul, Kimmie Jong-Il et al. How could Hamas NOT like Obama? He is the second-coming of the Democrat Messiah: Jimmy Carter!

It is interesting that Obama is so often compared to JFK. As history well knows, JFK wasn't exactly a Castro fan. It is hard to imagine JFK sitting down with Castro. Even to mock a dead, waxed version sitting in a rocking chair.

What McCain wants to point out---and what we should all realize---is that an Obama presidency is more likely to see friendly-relations with terrorist and dictatorial states, thus reversing years of tough-love American rejection. Democrats are big fans of talking and making empty gestures. Somehow talking to Ahmadinejad is supposed to persuade him not to pursue his theologically-driven plan to annihilate Israel. Somehow boycotting the Beijing Olympics will make China rethink their human rights policies...IF ONLY we could insult and abandon all our athletes, China would change! UN resolutions one after the other do nothing to make Iran and other such countries see the light.

This has veered from my original point, so let me wrap it up by relating this to McCain, Obama, the election and the "racist" vote vs, the terrorist vote.

The Democrats take offense when something true is pointed out; namely that their foreign policy ideals are comforting to terrorists and dictators. Meanwhile they feel no remorse in painting the Republican Party as racist--something that is, we can agree, at least debatable, not factual.

One thing for sure, terrorists are a lot more dangerous than racists. While the age of dangerous and violent racism has passed and a strand of silliness remains, the age of terrorism dawned. The Republicans should reject racism of course. How could they not? The Democrats' case for the Republican Party as racist relies on the fact that they reject affirmative action--which is, to paraphrade the great Martin Luther King jr--a policy that judges on the color of skin rather than character. The Democrats also base their reasoning on the fact that African-Americans overwhelmingly support them. Nevermind the fact that Republicans so have very prominent and capable leaders among them that are African-American: Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas in the governmental and judicial sphere and Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Walter Williams in the punditry sphere.

But what the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is this: even if Republicans have a lock on the racist vote, a much dirtier horse than racism resides in their own stable: terrorism. They don't want to address this fact, they just want to paint a picture of Republicans as accusing them of being terrorist-friendly. But that's not the problem. Of course Democrats don't endorse or agree with terrorists. The problem is that terrorists agree with them.

Mitt Romney's Speech

Mitt Romney accepted the Cantebury Medal award from the Becket Fund for defending religious freedom in America. The award was for his "Faith in America" speech in December. The text of the speech can be found at Townhall, but I'm posting it right here after the jump...

"""It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.

Your mission--and my topic this evening—involve the intertwining of religion and government. It’s not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king’s soldiers in his own cathedral.

Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.

The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be. I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.

As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest—unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off—after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers—why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment—and controversy—was this: “[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?

History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people—from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction and can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.

The more controversial claim nowadays is that freedom requires religion.

One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are indeed countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But that underscores my point. I was not speaking about Europe’s recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive--over centuries--if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don’t believe so.

This is hardly a novel view. Nor is it divisive.

It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were the gift of God, not of kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”

John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves.

Nor can we overlook that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.

“We and God have business with each other,” even the father of pragmatism William James once observed. “In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled.” When a people’s “deepest destiny” can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!

We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: “In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” Calling those words “prophetic,” he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington’s Farewell Address, that “religion and morality represent ‘indispensable supports’ of political prosperity.” And then he added his own conviction: “Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”

I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”

I don’t mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that “national morality” as Hamilton put it, “require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion.” I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label “evil good, and good evil;” as it says in Isaiah and “put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”

I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.

There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.

One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, my attention turned to the dollar bill I had for the collection. On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States. What’s that, I asked? My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – “God has favored our undertakings.”

This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation’s founding: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.”

As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: “we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.” And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.

God bless America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!"""""

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MittRomney/2008/05/08/religion_and_freedom?page=full&comments=true

THOUGHTS: First, I'm glad he included a segment about atheists. The quote from John Adams is very interesting since so many people believe that the founders (i.e. Jefferson) saw no place for religion in government and therefore set up a wall to seperate "church and state."

Romney Needs Your Help!!!

CQ POLITICS has a bracket-style match-up going on between potential veep choices. Condi vs. Huckabee, Jindal vs. Steele etc...and Mitt Romney is up against Mark Sanford. Looks like he's a little behind. Round 2 ends in a few days, so go help Mitt out by choosing him over Sanford, HERE:

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

Olympics, Veeps, and Automobiles

1. Mitt talks about the Beijing Olympics issue. Says Beijing should make a symbolic gesture....Here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135932

2. Despite being relegated a few notches down on the Veep list in recent pieces and polls, Mitt continues to work for McCain and the Party, here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/romney_talks_up.html

3. In Massachusetts, automobile insurance issues have become a part of both frmr Gov Romney's agenda as well as now-Gov Deval Patrick. Massachussetts is the only state to regulate insurance rates. Both governors have promised to make the market for auto insurance "more competitive" so as to lower costs. Sounds like a mess....Here:

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=20080414475.1507_b47500872ed1ec8c

My Veep Selection Process, Part 2: Governors

Mark Sanford: OK in my book, but not the best pick. Bob Novak reported a few weeks ago that McCain's inner-circle were not considering Sanford. Also, he has a reputation for being a maverick like McCain. At this point that would not be reassuring.

Tim Pawlenty: I often hear that he isn't as conservative as Minnesotan GOPers would like, thus his waning popularity. Add to the fact that he isn't the most popular governor and was elected on a very slim margin. The concerns about his conservatism are not merited, IMO. He works in a largely Democratic state. As a Romney supporter, that's a familiar subject. I think he'd be a great pick, overall.

Tom Ridge: Pro-Choice. Adios.

Bobby Jindal: Needs to do his good work in Louisiana.

Sarah Palin: Needs to do her good work in Alaska.

Jon Hunstman jr: Not a bad consideration, in the long run. He doesn't carry any state (Utah is Republican through and through), but he does have an appeal. He certainly keeps Mormons at the Republican table.

Caution

I'd like to remind my fellow American conservatives that the "Conservative" Party in Britain is much different from ours and is not necessarily more allied with our ideals as the Blair/Brown Labour Party was. At least not as far as Foreign Policy issues are concerned.

The fact that the a party named "Conservative" overwhelmingly won over the Labour is not a good sign.

My Veep Selection Process, Part 1: Former Rivals

In the footsteps of the Dan McGloughlin Redstate Blog piece, here's my own take on the most mentioned veep names.

My rules are pretty much the same as anyone's...

1. Veep choice must not hurt the ticket

2. Must be seen as "ready" to take over on day one.

3. Must not be TOO connected with Bush or congress.

4. MUST unequivocally be pro-life and socially conservative.

Category 1: Former Rivals:

Let's get Mike Huckabee out of the way first. McCain's campaign has already said Huckabee WILL NOT be a Veep consideration. And I suspect that McCain's people know the rift created by Mike Huckabee with Mormon voters.

While Huckabee has his band of supporters who would no doubt be enthusiastic, he brings as many negatives as he does positives. That defeats the purpose of picking him.

Fred Thompson had some fans as well, and I think picking him might actually be workable. However, the biggest downer is that Fred has been seen as lazy, and when people see two bald-ish guys side-by-side on stage....

Rudy Giuliani has to be ruled out right now. Pro-Choice, and a very weak candidate for president. He consistenly got 4th, 5th and 3rd place. I realize there are a lot of famous Rudy supporters (Hollywood actors like Adam Sandler, Jon Voight). But the fact is that he never got anywhere much.

Mitt Romney....He has a lot of positives, and a few negatives. Of course I fully support Mitt as VP. Let's talk about his negatives. It can't be ignored that a lot of voters, mainly Huckabee supporters, are anti-Mitt. Moreover, it seems Romney did himself no favors in New Hampshire where a new poll has a McCain/Mitt ticket being touted at 41% to a negative 48%. The negative percentage says 48 percent of likely McCain voters are "less likely" to vote for McCain if Mitt is on the ticket. Lastly, there is Mitt's HealthCare legacy in Massachussetts. Now every Mitt supporter knows that current Democrat Governor Deval Patrick is at fault for the failure of the system. But with Michael Medved on his show blaming it on Mitt, that may not be how it is seen.

Now for the positives. 1) Minnesota. A lot of people have been counting on Pawlenty to deliver MN for McCain. However, the Gov's popularity is not exactly through the roof even among MN Republicans. Romney however, solidly won the state. My guess is that while Mitt may not deliver NH, MA for McCain, he might deliver MN. 2) Money, Vetted, Seen As Presidential. McCain needs deniro ahora. Romney has that. Romney and McCain also vetted eachother with their rivalry. Mitt had the largest rockets launmched at him during the primary process, from questions about his religion, doubt about his conservative credentials, and looking at his legacy in Massachussetts. But Mitt came through (for the most part), and had a very solid second place on Super Tuesday. It took Huckabee weeks to catch up with Romney's delegate and popular vote count. And unlike Huckabee, Romney was popular not only with Mormons, but he often halved evangelicals with Huckabee, and seemed to get a large chunk of Catholics as well.

Mitt News Round-Up

It's been a while since I've been able to post, mainly due to school finals. There's a lot of interesting material to catch up with. Most recently and interesting is #1 today...

1. Mitt Romney addresses the State of Maine's Republican Part Convention. Mitt continues his (well-meaning) pursuit of the VP slot.

http://www.wmtw.com/mostpopular/16129888/detail.html

2. An interesting article from Savanna (Georgia) Morning News about the relationship between Mormons and Christianity in the southern part of the country. Mitt's name is mentioned, of course.

http://savannahnow.com/node/491190

3. Dean Barnett's Weekly Standard column shows up at CBS' website. Dean talks mostly about Obama and "judgement". He mentions Mitt Romney in an interesting anecdote in paragraph 7.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/02/opinion/main4065150.shtml

4. Dan McGloughlin's Redstate blog: an interesting piece on how McCain should choose his VP. I agree with pretty much everything he says, though I think he mistakenly excludes some exceptions to the rule. For instance, he rules out "Perennial Short-listers," mentioning frmr congressman John Cox, John Kasich, and JC Watts. I might take JC Watts off that list, and I think he forget the usual perennial mention: Newt Gingrich.

I especially agree with his assessment that no rookies should be considered. Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin are great folks, but they are exactly where they need to be right now. We can wait to run them in the future. Who knows, we might even see a Jindal/Palin ticket.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/the_mccain_veepstakes_rules

5. Two polls. First, a bracket game for picking VPs. Very fun to play.

http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness

AND THEN, a poll at ABC News. Huckabee has the most votes, so all you Mitt supporters need to get over there and vote!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4710917&page=1

People I Hope I Never See Again After This Election

1. Jeremiah Wright.

Unbearable in every way. Obama is a politician, and he's a pastor Wright insists. From his recent talk with the National Press Club however, Wright solidified his political skill credentials. That guy can dodge, duck, and dart more artfully than Dodger in Dickens' "Oliver Twist."

2. John & Elizabeth Edwards.

He's been off the frontpage news for a while now. Let's just hope it stays that way. Almost as unbearable as the man himself is his wife. She has a serious cancer. God keep and bless her. But when she enters the political scene, you KNOW who really controls the vault at the Edwards mansion.

3. Bill Clinton.

Dick Morris has said that he likes Bill but can't stand Hillary. Many others agree. What this election cycle has shown Bill Clinton's nasty side. We all knew he could explode at town hall meetings, but who could have predicted the shameless use of race against Obama by the most prominent Democrat of recent history, former President Bill Clinton?

4. Mike Huckabee.

I WISH he's dissapear, but I get the feeling he'll be around in 2012, pumping up to run yet another jealous anti-Romney run for the presidency. Here's what Huckabee brought, aside from his jokes and gaffes: he brought a flaming anti-Mormon sentiment into the campaign. Partly through his inadvertant or not-so-inadvertant reference to Mormon theology. His use of identity politics to draw in christian voters was also a turn-off to conservative jews, mormons, catholics...and heck, even atheists (but they're always turned off).

5. Fred Thompson.

There were a few moments I admired Thompson. But reflecting back, I can see more clearly now (the rain has gone) that Fred was too lazy. Everything he did reinforced this sentiment about his character. Even the responses to the criticism were lazy. My conclusion is that Thompson is back where he belongs: Hollywood. God Bless You Fred, but heck, that was a yawn of a run for the presidency.

Romney v. Huckabee

The arguments between Huckabee and Romney supporters continues (with myself participating). The issues that continue to be raised are...

1. Romney used his Mormonism to "shield" himself.

2. Huckabee used his evangelicalism to draw in evangelical voters.

Quote of the Week

"If had only said he bombed the building in Oklahoma City to protest American "imperialism," [Timothy] McVeigh, too, could be teaching at Northwestern University, sitting on a board with and holding fundraisers for presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama."

~Ann Coulter

My VP poll

Reasons I chose those folks for the poll.

#1. Level of name relevancy

#2. People who could actually by President on Day One

#3. People whose names have been put forth the most often by pundits

So obviously I put Condi's name on there too soon, considering that she has not publicly said she is not seeking the Veep spot. Romney is on there because...well, besides being the most mentioned name as McCain's running mate, this IS a Romney site. Pawlenty and Steele are two other names that come up quite often. And then there is Rush Limbaugh's suggestion of Bobby Jindal. I happen to think Jindal needs to do his work in Louisiana, but Haley Barbour has been around long enough to be on the list. Mark Sanford, despite the rumors, is still a logical choice that McCain might consider. Kay Bailey Hutchison is was my own personal quirky pick, and Rob Portman's name has been circulated a lot too.

So the people I didn't pick were folks like Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice (as is Condi, but that doesn't come out much), Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin (like Jindal, a premature choice), and Marsha Blackburn, whose name is almost never mentioned.

A few thoughts

If Townhall.com commenters are any indication of the larger electorate (of course they are to some extent), then it would seem that there is no peace to be made with either Mike Huckabee's supporters or Mitt Romney's supporters if either were chosen as John McCain's running mate.

There are a lot of factors swirling in the Townhall comment-o-sphere. There are a few people for whom Romney is a power-hungry man who will stop at nothing to buy the presidency. My opinion is that this stems from a belief that rich people are inherently power-hungry or even evil. Mitt Romney and his appearance provides the perfect opportunity for these people to project their worst fears in one person.

MittWatch for Today

1. A "Mitt For Veep" site is launching later today. One of the folks launching the site emailed me today and said he was linking to my site as well. My deepest gratitude to him!

http://www.mittforveep.com/

2. Slate.com has a snarky article on why McCain Romney is a "dream" ticket for Democrats. Among other such nonsense, the article is written in such a way that portrays Romney as continuously changing his mind. Romney is campaigning for McCain, therefore Romney flip-flopped. In the eyes of some, he can do no right, even if it is campaigning for McCain.

http://www.slate.com/id/2189589/

Going to be better

Ok, so I haven't exactly done the MittWatch like I should be. But after this Friday, I'll be back on track.

This captures it perfectly

"The winner of the Democratic primary is always the candidate who does the best impersonation of an American. "~Ann Coulter

What Obama Deserves

In the beginning, there was Bill and Hillary Clinton. They were all that for the Democratic party, until one day, a youth by the name of Barack Obama came to steal the show.

Many convservative pundits made a big mistake in this year's primaries. They adulated Obama, merely because he was not Hillary Clinton. The narrative was "Hillary is inevitable, and she is dangerous, and she's a liar." All true. BUT, less true about Obama? Not only did Democrats fall at Obama's feet when he uttered "new politics" "hope" and "change," but so did many conservatives. Not that they would vote for him, but he was better than Hillary. I was one such observer.

But as the recent weeks have shown, Barack Obama is anything but new politics. He is connected to the corrupt Tony Rezko. Another money-connected pol. He is anything but hope, with friends like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who in addition to being anti-white, is anti-semitic (pals around with the infamous Louis Farrakhan). He is anything but change, because he advocates the usual quasi-socialis economic policies of old.

Barack Obama was a winning narrative: a Kenyan father, a white American mother, and a childhood in Indonesia and Hawaii. Private schools to the Harvard Law Review. But as his recent phraseology has shown, he views guns and God as refuges that people (Pennsylvanians) cling to because they are irrational minds.

Two months ago, as Guy Benson recounts in his most recent column: ( http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/04/13/obamas_buddy_list ), Obama has said things that are self-damning. He wants to condemn John McCain for his associates--but Obama's buddies are far more reprehensible.

What Obama Deserves. What he deserves is an ad from McCain's campaign, calling him out exactly on the point above. What he deserves is to be called out on his lack of congressional leadership. While Barack Obama calls for bi-partisanship, we know that nobody was more partisanly far-left than he has been so far in his first senate term. What Barack Obama deserves is to be called out on the lack of back-up on his claims. John McCain can do such a calling-out, because unlike Barack Obama, McCain truly has been bi-partisan---to the chagrin of many fellow Republicans. Nobody has reached across the aisle as much as McCain, and evidence is his good friendship with Sen. Joe Lieberman, his co-sponsored bills with Senators Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold.

The bills aren't legacies he should be proud of, but the point is that McCain--NOT OBAMA--is the bi-partisan one.

Barack Obama doesn't have the record to run for president. He hasn't brought anyone together. What he has done is puff up his rhetoric, his resume, and attempt to hide some of the friends he's not so proud of.

What Barack Obama deserves is for his bubble to be burst, and for his posturing to be revealed as empty.

Delegate Wars

I guess "The Saga Begins" was a little premature, but nevertheless, a very amusing post I made with photoshop.

Obama's Version of The Lord's Prayer

""Our Government, who art in Washington, hallowed be thy name. Thy (socialist) kingdom come, our (socialist agenda) be done, in America, as it is in Venezuela. And give us this day, our daily bread, and everything else we need. And forgive us our trespasses, like owning guns and believing in God. And lead us into utopia, but deliver us from reality. For thine is this country, and power, and glory...for ever and ever, AMEN.""

*sigh*

If you haven't heard already, the most ridiculous story of the century is the story about the preschool kid who slapped a classmate's butt and has bee labeled a sexual predator. His record will carry that label from here on in.

Spouted your coffee on the monitor yet? Good. Because you read right. Mark Steyn's latest column is on that subject, Here...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-old-sexual-2016809-year-officials

Who runs the schools? Liberals do. Or at least, liberal policies do. Liberal ideas about education, which, among other things, say that it is no business of the parent as to whether or not the schoool gives sex-education to their children. Because, you know...kids are human too! They have sexual feelings too! Ask Judith Levin! Here...

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/voicebox/puberty/main.asp

Why on earth are we criminalizing a 6-year-old First Grader for a butt slap...but promoting the idea that young kids "find their sexual identity"?

Looking back on the primaries

The Article I'm about to link to (Gary Ater at American Chronicle) got me thinking about conservatives and the anti-McCain spat during the primaries. First, the link...

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/58217

I was one of those anti-McCain people. I supported Romney, and the disputes between McCain and Romney, and Huckabee and Romney had my blood boiling. But like many other conservatives, McCain was the last on my list of candidates.

Now that the GOP primaries are over, most talk radio hosts and pundits who opposed McCain have now come over to his side are are supporting him.

The question is, why all the anger in the first place? McCain has been the he is for quite a long time, and conservatives have butted heads with him in the past. We knew what he was all about, and that's why we didn't want him. But the anger can be explained another way. First, that the Democrats were having a heydey with their two favorite candidates. It was almost unfair that Republicans couldn't love their candidates as much. Just as the Democrats were getting candidates they agreed with, THIS TIME, we (conservatives) felt, we want someone who has no cracks in the conservative armor. We love Dubya, but we don't want another Dubya. We loved Reagan, but Reagan made mistakes. THIS TIME, we thought, we want someone who is everything we believe in.

Both parties' voters feel the weight of having to 'compromise' on a candidate they don't completely agree with. Senator John Kerry was a "compromise" because he was going to continue the Iraq war, was not going to implement universal health care, and was only for "civil unions." Add to that the fact that Kerry didn't exactly exhude The Common Man theme, while George W. Bush did. And finally with Obama and Hillary, things felt right (er, left), things felt good.

Republicans had less of a hard time accepting their candidates. Despite differences with Bush on illegal-immigration, spending, or even the Iraq War, most conservatives still like Bush on a personal level.

So when the winds shifted, and the Republican candidate field was filled with problematic candidates, it was inevitable that John McCain would get blasted. In reality, Senator McCain is no farther left than Bush or Reagan, except perhaps on business.

There was long stretch period where Republicans where trying to figure out who was going to be The Man. At first it was Giuliani, because he had name recognition and was seen as having a lot of crossover appeal. But as talk radio host Michael Savage has phased it, Giuliani didn't play much beyond the Potomac.

Then there was Fred Thompson who lead Giuliani in the polls for some weeks, despite the fact he hadn't even announced. But Thompson never defeated the stigma that he was a lazy man, and his late entry into the race only confirmed the stigma. I figure, if you can't beat the stigma about being lazy, it probably means you ARE lazy.

So the race was whittled down, and the three remaining candidates were John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul. Putting Paul aside, voters were starting to realize that they weren't going to choose a candidate they agreed with completely (which would have been someone like Fred Thompson)...for various reasons, enough people were drawn to McCain to beat out Romney. By the time Romney dropped out, he and McCain were close in popular votes, and closer in the delegate count.

It was a self-flagellation process that Republican voters went through this past primary season, and the candidate we ended up choosing was the one we thought we were farthest from. Why? Because John McCain, we realized, was the most seasoned candidate we had ever had. Nobody, Reagan or Bush, was as qualified a human being as McCain to become President of the United States.

It's also strange to observe the --again, shifting winds--place that GOP voters are at right now, versus the place Democratic voters are at right now. The Obama VS Hillary narrative has only gotten more and more heated, while GOP voters have healed their wounds and are prepared to vote for McCain.