I thought the official line was?...

Sen. John McCain, (RINO)- AZ, on the 'birth' issue:

All I know is that that came up during the campaign, and there was never any credence given to it," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said. "In these days of the blogosphere, a lot of things are given weight that shouldn't be. I didn't ever look into it specifically, but no one in my campaign ever found anything, were given anything, or searched for any information that would lead us to believe that was the case.(emphasis mine)

But hasn't it been the position of the leftists and the RINOs that Hussein O. has been/was 'thoroughly vetted' and whatnot?

Liars all! But not to worry, people who lie like this have to build lie upon lie, falsehood upon falsehood, until their entire house of cards comes crashing down upon them. Which is the precise reason that it is so vitally important to continue to pursue this momentus issue all the way to the goal line. The self-deluded opposition notwithstanding.

Read More

New CIS report claims Latino move to left part of a "Broader Electoral Movement"

I thought readers might find this CIS report interesting and informative. Here is a summary of the report which makes for much quicker reading if you're short on time. Also, see this angry rebuttal published at a site called America's Voice -- I'm so glad America has a voice, aren't you? It reminds me of the time the GOP sent out to "select" Republicans a questionaire concerning President Bush's "initiatives," in which those select few of us who received the questionaire were informed that we spoke for Republicans in our areas, so it was vitally important that we fill out and return the questionaire so that the voices of the masses might be heard through us. I was so excited to learn that I spoke for hundreds, maybe even thousands of Republicans in my area, and I was so certain that they'd be equally excited to know that I was speaking for them, and that the GOP selected me to be their voice without even consulting them about it, that I sent a nice letter to the GOP telling them how I really felt about it. But I digress...

I question some of the findings in the report, particularly the overarching claim, or conclusion, that the Latino movement to the left in the late election is part of a broader electoral movement to the left; a movement which includes white males among other conservative demographic groups.

With all due respect to Mr. Gimpel, I think he leaves out of his study a couple of important factors. First there is the reality that many Americans like myself abstained in the presidential election, albeit I'm not sure there's a way to measure that number of voters accurately. Second, there is the reality that John McCain was such a poor candidate in virtually every conceivable way; that in terms of appeal he is simply out of Obama's league. When the choice is between two liberals, and everybody knows it, so-called "moderates" are going to go with the leftier and the more attractive of the two candidates every single time.

But my biggest beef with the report is the conclusion drawn from the numbers that Latino voters simply do not care about immigration policy ... as part of a broader electoral attitude. I think that is just naive at best; as if to say that Latinos do not identify with their cultural and ethnic heritage, that when push comes to shove, so to speak, Latinos are culturally and ethnically neutral.

Anyway, here are the concluding paragraphs of the report:

In summary, the 2008 election has no clear implications for immigration policy making and for a very straightforward reason: Neither candidate campaigned on the issue, nor was it clear that their positions were appreciably different.

Over the long term, Republicans can expect to enlarge upon their voting margins among Latinos as Latinos become more prosperous and move into areas of existing Republican Party strength where they can develop ties to other GOP adherents. As it stands, what separates Republican-identifying Latinos from Democrats is primarily religion and income. Involvement in Evangelical church circles is clearly associated with Republican Party gains among Latinos, but promoting religious conversion seems like an unusual and possibly controversial way to go about building a base of party support.

As long as Latinos remain in lower income brackets, an outcome virtually assured by sustained high levels of unskilled immigration, the Democrats will continue to maintain their lopsided edge. American ethnic history has shown that the path to Republican Party identification is a slow and multi-generational one. The greater the education and skills deficit new immigrants arrive with, the longer this political migration process will take.

I'm interested in your take.

**********

I decided to read a bit more at the site presumptuously named "America's Voice," and I ran across this item which is apparently a speech given on August 21, 2008, to the Police Foundation of the city of Phoenix, by the city's Mayor, Phil Gordon who states in his opening remarks:

When this nation was founded, no one ever conceived or imagined that immigration enforcement was an issue that would ever fall to mayors and local police departments. But because of federal neglect -- here we are.

Now there's a politician totally disconnected from his nation's history. And I'm quite certain he isn't alone in this uninformed thinking. In fact, I'll bet he's in the majority among his peers.

Now, it's one thing to argue that the federal government ought to have exclusive authority in the realm of immigration standards and enforcement, but it is quite another to assert, dogmatically even, that no one ever conceived or imagined that local governments and law enforcement agencies would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws in their own backyards. This guy obviously doesn't know squat about the original U.S. Constitution. He obviously thinks that (if he's ever bothered to even read the phrase) the granting of hte power to create a "uniform rule of naturalization" to the national government is the same thing as sole and exclusive federal authority in the realm of immigration law and law enforcement. It is not.

What is worse is that the folks who presumptuously claim to represent "America's Voice" have this tripe posted at their website, as if there is anything factual about it. They don't know or understand the difference either. They have an agenda -- Comprehensive Immigration Reform -- and anything they perceive to be helpful in forwarding that agenda, any "authority" they can cite to push their agenda through, they will.

This is a good example of one of the biggest problems we face in this country. What our Mayor is complaining about is the fact that his state legislature created immigration legislation which, naturally, put it on local authorities to enforce. Just as is so common these days, our Mayor hasn't even given the law time to work; he hasn't even given anyone time to make the proper adjustments, which they will in time. Our Mayor expects instant results, and when they don't come, instantaneously, he screams and yells at the top of his lungs saying stupid things like "no one ever imagined local governments would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws." Then comes along a group presuming to speak for the American People and they publish that crap. It is the same thing that happened shortly after Oklahoma's immigration law went into effect. The first time someone suffered the God-awful inconvenience of having to provide a birth certificate as proof of citizenship for driver license revewal, due to their own neglect no less, people started screaming and hollering about how "unjust" this new law was. These same folks, incidentally, were staunch opponents of Oklahoma's law before it ever went into effect.

Read More

Don Wildmon on the upcoming

Donald Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA) has sent the following AFA Action Alert to the organization's subscribers, one of which I happen to be:

Please vote! Our children's future depends on it!

October 15, 2008

Dear Terry,

In my 70 years, I have never seen an election where coverage was so one-sided and biased or where censorship by the liberal media was so widely practiced and where media coverage was so slanted as I have seen in this election process. Their plan is working. The only chance conservatives have is to make sure they care enough to vote.

If the liberals win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on Judeo-Christian values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a secular state hostile to Christianity. This “city set on a hill” which our forefathers founded, will go dark. The damage will be deep and long lasting. It cannot be turned around in the next election, or the one after that, or by any election in the future. The damage will be permanent. That is why it is so important for you to vote and to encourage friends and family to vote. This is one election where your vote really counts.

Sincerely,

Translation? Vote the thoroughly non-conservative Republican ticket or all will be forever lost and you will have contributed to the final destruction of America. As a Christian and a conservative, a father of six children and a patriotic American, this cuts deep, which is the intent, no? But as I've pointed out so many times before, it's a false conception that my vote, as a citizen of the state of Oklahoma, is going to, in any way, shape or form be a difference maker in the presidential election. The same applies to you if you do not live in a swing state. Therefore, what would my vote cast for the Republican ticket accomplish other than to add yet another number to the McCain-Palin "mandate" should McCain manage to squeeze out the victory? I can't allow my vote to be misused that way. However, it is vitally important, as it always has been, for us to vote in the state and Congressional races, preferably according to the biblical admonitions on choosing our rulers.

No; my vote in this presidential election will be a protest vote, which is to say that I will not vote McCain-Palin, irrespective of the esteem in which I hold Mr. Wildmon. As I advised someone who was wailing and knashing his teeth over my not taking the Kerry candidacy seriously prior to the 2004 presidential election, "if you Democrats want us to take your candidate seriously then you need to nominate a serious candidate on the Democrat ticket." The exact same principle applies to the GOP, which in no way, by my estimation, can any longer be considered as representing Conservatism, or Republicanism for that matter, except, as I've also pointed out before, in a quickly eroding relative sense. I personally don't care to contribute further to that erosion.

I'm not seeking absolute conservative and Republican purity, but the two are already watered down enough, don't ya agree? A little coffee with your water anyone? No? So be it. But don't ask me to choke down your lukewarm watered-down concoction.

Read More

What do these people possibly have in common?:

Mohammed Ali, John McCain, George Foreman, Sarah Palin.

Without "rope-a-dope" and "rumble in the jungle," these people probably have no commonalities. But with these taken into consideration, will history record that John McCain, in Mohammed Ali rope-a-dope fashion, saved himself and his campaign for the final rounds of the fight when he would unleash his "knockout punch," otherwise known as Sarah Palin, onto a worn out and expended Barack Hussein Obama?

History, I suppose, will tell.

Read More

Horowitz predicts outcome of presidential race

David Horowitz, editor of FrontPage magazine, is predicting at his blog, based on the trends he's seeing right now, a McCain-Palin landslide victory in November:

Not being a pollster I have little to lose by predicting the race, and of course there's a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge -- events, debates, revised strategies etc. But right now I don't see this as a close race. If the present trend holds, McCain-Palin will win 331 electoral votes to 203 for Obama-Biden.

Well, I don't know about all that, but I like Horowitz's style. I've already predicted a McCain-Palin win at this blog, though I'm not nearly as confident as Horowitz appears to be that McCain will win by a landslide. Of course he is careful to qualify his prediction with the remark "if current trends hold," which they rarely do.

My thinking is that Palin's popularity among social conservatives will carry McCain to victory, probably a narrow victory, but a victory nonetheless. Sure, a lot can happen between now and then which might affect the outcome the other way, but I'm betting that Palin's popularity, particularly among social conservatives, can withstand virtually anything Obama and leftists have to throw at her. But ya never know.

It remains to be seen whether I'm closer to right or Horowitz is closer to right, or, of course, whether both of us is dead wrong.

Read More

Leftists shooting themselves in the foot

You'll have to pardon my getting pleasure from this, but I simply cannot help it. I mentioned in the previous post that I'd visited several leftist sites, one in particular, concerning the Palin interview. Well, I've gone back to the site -- which consists of a bunch of radical leftist female Barack Obama supporters -- and here is part of what I found there in a separate entry:

Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

For 19+ months you've tried to run a positive campaign. You've focused on change. You've inspired millions with your message of hope. You've focused on the issues. Now, all of a sudden, with the introduction of Sarah Palin as Republican Vice Presidential candidate, the game has changed.

The Republicans cannot go head-to-head with you on the issues because they know if they try they'll lose. THey have been. They're trying to co-opt your message of change and it's back-firing. They're offering more of the same and they know it. So suddenly it's not about issues anymore, it's about personalities: The grizzled POW and the pert PTA mom.

Here's what I want you to do:

I want you to fight. back. I am giving you permission to get. angry. I want to hear you say, "Enough is enough!" every time you speak. I want you to take on their cynical, half-truth-ridden, insulting-to-all-American-citizens campaign and wrestle it to the ground.

And the author goes on and on and on, building anger and momentum as she goes, about how she's giving Obama permission to go on the attack against the evil, hate-filled, perverted, lying, manipulating, everyone-offending, etc., fundamentalist Christian team of McCain-Palin. Apparently the author is too angry to have noticed that Obama has been on the offensive sticking his foot in his mouth every time he turns around lately, saying stupid things like McCain doesn't know how to send an email and whatnot.

I understand that the introduction of Sarah Palin into the mix put the fear of God into the left which had been just cruising along virtually unopposed, without a care in the world except arrogantly pronouncing how badly they were going to defeat McCain (apparently they don't understand the meaning of the phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), but doesn't the author realize how desperate she's become, in a matter of a couple of weeks no less, and how desperate and potentially harmful are her recommendations to the mild-mannered Barack Obama? And by the way, if the Republicans' tactic, according to this author, of "co-opting" Barack's message of change, is truly backfiring on them, as she further asserts, then what's to worry about, why get so passionate and angry about it; if it's backfiring, that means it's working against the Republicans, right? Call me crazy. LOL

Read More

Palin-McCain

Not an endorsement, just an image I thought you all might appreciate. It pretty much says it all, doesn't it? (Hat tip: Gates of Vienna)

Read More

If Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is

I've had a lot of critical things to say about Sarah Palin, mainly in comments over at VFR but at a couple of other places as well, including this blog. But today I had something of an epiphany.

No; I'm not taking any of it back. I think I've been fair to Sarah Palin while expressing certain legitimate concerns and criticisms. But I did have something of a revelation today that I'd like to share.

My revelation is that none of my criticisms or Auster's criticisms, or anyone's criticisms for that matter, are likely to make any difference at this point. Not that we shouldn't continue to criticize her when criticism is called for, but that it's not going to make any difference one way or the other.

When Sarah Palin's absolutely adorable six year old daughter Piper was caught on camera during her mom's speech at the RNC swiping her palm across her tongue for the purpose of laying her brother Trig's hair down, at that point the Palin family won the hearts of average Americans for once and for all. For those that didn't see it live, they heard about it and they've seen it now.

I watched it live and I even got a lump in my throat as I witnessed the scene. But don't tell my wife whose instinctive reaction was to let out a gasp and utter "Oh my God!" Then we both began to laugh joyfully together. This little perfectly innocent gesture of love toward her baby brother, this little non-scripted event involving this little girl acting the role of good little mother, which no amount of noise in the auditorium would turn her undivided attention from, captured our hearts. This was powerful, powerful stuff. The kind of stuff words cannot explain. It just is what it is. That's all.

A few minutes ago I found the You-tube video and watched it again. And this event still elicits very positive emotions in me. I can't help it. And I'm betting a lot of other Americans can't help it either. There's something almost magical about it. The shot starts out on Piper's mom giving her speech. This woman is easy to look at. And it's not just her physical beauty, though she's obviously very pretty, but you can see in her eyes almost a sincerity and goodness, maybe even a degree of naivete or uncorruptedness. But in addition you see her youth, the brightness in her face and her eyes, a very positive and outgoing attitude, and you just sense that Sarah Palin is a good and decent person, albeit one to be reckoned with. Then suddenly, without warning yet very naturally, the shot is on Sarah's youngest daughter Piper caring for her little brother. She's sweet and gentle, but not so cautious with him as to make you feel as though she thinks she's going to break him. You get the feeling this little six year old girl has already been trained very well; that she's a capable motherly caregiver with abilities well beyond her years, and that the Palins are well justified in placing a great deal of confidence in her ability to maintain perfect undivided focus, under virtually all conditions and circumstances, on her task of taking care of Trig. No amount of noise or commotion in the auditorium can divert Piper's attention from the duties at hand. She has a job to do; she can't be distracted by the insignificant goings on around her inside the auditorium. Relative to her job of taking care of Trig, this is all meaninglessness; a bunch of noise and racket that she simply can't be bothered with.

What a powerful testament; what a powerful scene! How could Obama ever touch it? How could he ever come close to touching it? Barack Obama doesn't have the stuff it takes to match this scene, let alone top it, even if he tried.

So as I said in the title to this entry, if Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is. But of course, you don't get Sarah without Piper or vice versa, they come as a matching set. With almost sixty days left until the general election and several debates to come, I'd bet my last dollar on it. Not that I'm particularly happy about it, or that I'll vote McCain, but I'll wager a McCain victory with anyone that cares to. And Piper Palin is a big reason why.

Read More

Religious Right Loses Bearings on Palin Selection

Below is a list of emails I've received to my inbox from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink organization on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate (Note: Links are provided here where they are provided in the emails.):

-Aug. 29: Dr. James Dobson: McCain's Choice of Palin 'Outstanding'‏

-Sept. 2: Dr. Dobson Prays for Palin Family‏

-Sept. 3: Palin Draws Dr. Dobson Toward McCain‏

-Sept. 4: Special Alert: Palin Adds to Euphoria over Strength of GOP Platform‏

These are the CitizenLink emails I've received to my inbox since Palin's selection as McCain's running mate was announced. Very interestingly to yours truly is the fact that Don Wildmon's AFA (American Family Association) has been strangely silent on the Palin selection. I haven't personally received a single email from AFA concerning the Palin selection, and this seems strange to me. Don Wildmon and Dr. Dobson are generally in complete agreement on these political questions, and yet not a word from Wildmon's AFA? It just seems strange.

I wrote at VFR the following concerning Dr. Dobson's immediate and continued support for Sarah Palin:

When one makes the leap--as Dr. Dobson did with both feet almost immediately after her selection was announced--onto the bandwagon of some relatively unknown political figure such as Sarah Palin, no amount of religion nor conservatism will suffice, it seems, to convince one that one has made an error.

Conservatism is about being level headed about these things, is it not? Why didn't Dobson recognize his initial joy at hearing of the Palin selection as based in passion, not in clear-headed reason?

It's hard to criticize a figure like Dr. Dobson -- someone who has for years done outstanding work in my opinion on family issues -- without looking (and feeling) like you're being overly-critical of him. But in this case Dr. Dobson needs to be criticized for hurling himself and his entire organization onto the Sarah Palin bandwagon before he knew anything of substance about Sarah Palin and her "family values". As a respected leader of the "religious right", I think the least required of Dr. Dobson is to take a second look at his support for Sarah Palin and to reconsider his position. And I hereby call on him to do so.

You disagree? Why?

Also, some of you may be interested in the contents of the following email (not posted at VFR) that I sent to Auster on the Palin situation and Dobson's blind support of her:

TM writes to LA:

I just want to point out, too, that as Dobson defends Sarah Palin's "family values" and effectively says that we can't question the fact of her "absentee momism" as having anything to do with the Bristol situation, he's effectively leaving her younger children (and all American children by extension) hanging out to dry.

Dobson says that being Christian does not mean you or your children are perfect. Fine. The Palin's are not perfect, they make mistakes like everyone else, and their children make mistakes like everyone else, who is saying otherwise? But then he says that there's forgiveness and restoration for those who confess their sins to the Lord. Well, first of all, does Mrs. Palin feel any sense of personal failure or sinfulness related to Bristol's condition? And if she does then why the hell is she going to continue to be an absentee mom when she still has young children at home who need the influence that only she, as their mother, can provide?

This is nothing less than the sacrificing of our children on the alter of liberalism; it is in one sense worse than abortion for rather than killing their bodies, it is killing their souls. As you've pointed out, this is not just about Sarah Palin. It is about our larger society and the influence that the Sarah Palins of our society have upon it.

I've never been more discouraged about our future.

Read More

Palin selection cont.

The discussion over Sarah Palin's selection continues in a number of interesting entries over at VFR, the latest of which Auster titled Viagra veep, a title derived from Carol Iannone's comment to another entry on the same subject.

When I first read Carol I.'s post in the earlier entry it gave me a chuckle considering the dire warnings that always attend these commercials, i.e., "if the effect lasts for more than four hours seek medical attention immediately!"; "don't take this drug if you have a heart condition," and so forth.

But Carol's remarks were not meant as a joke, and I understand that. And there is a serious discussion that ensues under the thread. Doug E. writes the following disagreeable comment to the consensus view:

With an election in 60 days, I disagree. You either get on board a train leaving the station taking you to perhaps smaller government town or you don't. Voting Marxist is the other option.

I don't think I could disagree with Doug more. First of all, what makes Doug think that voting Marxist is the only other option? He's of course referring to voting Obama-Biden. What makes Doug think that we have to vote either way in the presidential election? Second, is Doug serious when he says 'you get on board a train perhaps taking you to smaller government town?' Hasn't it already been well established that as V.P. Sarah Palin will have virtually no influence on John McCain? Is Doug anticipating McCain's dying while in office or what?

Read More

Will I be "throwing my vote away" in the November elections?

Recently I was graced by a visit, unannounced, by my dad and my wonderful step-mother, both of whom I love and respect beyond measure (Dad, next time you decide to drop in on us, please follow the good advice of your wife and give us fair warning.).

Dad and I, during our visit, and as is the usual for us, engaged one another in a political conversation, particularly whether or not to vote for John McCain in the upcoming election. My position is, as I said to Dad, that I can't, in good conscience, vote for the likes of the RINO John McCain. Dad responded that he would vote for McCain as opposed to voting for the alternative Obama. He also pointed out that our state, Oklahoma, would invariably go for McCain over Obama in the general election; that a wrong election on my part, with that fact in mind, simply amounted to a "waste" of my vote. I didn't, and don't, quite see it that way.

Yes; my state will go for McCain when all is said and done, to the tune of 60-40 I should imagine, but does this mean I'm wasting my vote in refusing to vote for the decidedly non-conservative John McCain? You be the judge. I'm truly interested in your take.

Read More

Election Question

Do any of you believe that McCain, if elected to the presidency, will follow up on President Bush's dire warnings that the United States will never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Or, do you believe that McCain, if elected, is more likely to follow up on Bush's policy than Obama, if elected, is, and why?

Thomas Sowell has said that McCain is the "no-brainer" choice between the two candidates on this basis alone. And further that we don't have the luxury in this election of casting a vote for a third party candidate, or of writing in a candidate. LA disagrees with Sowell's argument and offers his counter-argument:

LA writes:

In a column last week, Thomas Sowell presents what he sees as an open and shut argument on the presidential election: Obama won't do anything about the Iranian nuclear threat, McCain will. Therefore electing McCain is a no-brainer.

But whoa--we've had Busherino as president for seven years, and after declaring in January 2002 that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," which sounded like a virtual declaration of war, and then making numerous grave statements that he would not tolerate the creation of an Iranian nuke, statements which led to the widely shared assumption that he would take military action against Iran before leaving office, he lapsed into several years of weenie EU-type negotiations, making the U.S. look weak and allowing the Iranians to continue their nuke development.

So if Mr. Axis of Evil himself ended up doing nothing, what makes Sowell so sure that Mr. Son of Axis of Evil will do anything?

Where is the basis for the belief that there is such a stark difference between McCain and Obama on the Iranian threat that McCain's election is mandatory

I took a shot at getting inside of Sowell's head and wrote the following comment to LA's article:

"So if Mr. Axis of Evil himself ended up doing nothing, what makes Sowell so sure that Mr. Son of Axis of Evil will do anything?"

This is just a theory, but somewhere deep down inside himself Sowell might believe that McCain, as a first term Republican with a "conservative" base, will do something about the Iranian nuke threat whereas Obama, as a first term Democrat, will feel no pressure from his base to do anything about it.

To which LA replied:

But Bush was supposedly under the ultimate pressure--that he either take action before he leaves office, or be succeeded by a Democrat who would not take action. Yet he has done nothing. After years of Churchillian talk, he ended up like Neville Chamberlain.

In a reply to LA's reply to me, which, at the time of this writing, LA has not yet posted, I admit that he makes a good point, but also ask the ultimate question: "Isn't it reasonable for Sowell to assume that McCain, as president, is going to be looking to establish his own "legacy" apart from President Bush, and that part of that legacy might involve McCain's actually following up on Bush's threat?"

I suppose, in hindsight, that any action taken by McCain on the Iranian nuclear crisis would technically be tied to Bush's policy, but McCain can't expect to establish his own legacy apart from Bush by simply continuing the "War on Terror" as it now exists, can he?

What do you think? Is McCain more likely, as a first term president, to take decisive action against Iran's nuclear program than Obama? I tend to believe that Sowell has a point. What say you?

Read More

Is Michelle Malkin "spreading distortions" about the liberal McCain?

While I'm not a follower of Michelle Malkin's blog, it did seem to me to be a pretty serious charge to level against her that she's "spreading distortions" about Senator McCain. According to Mr. Auster, Malkin propagates two distinct distortions:

Distortion no. 1: Malkin gives the impression to her readers that McCain's "Big Vision" speech is referring to the here-and-now, as opposed to some future date.

Distortion no. 2: Malkin makes Senator McCain's immigration stand sound weaker than it actually is via selectively quoting McCain out of context.

As I said, I'm not a follower of Ms. Malkin, nor am I particularly fond of her. If anything I'm really just neutral toward her, but I disagree with the premise that she engages in spreading distortions about Mr. McCain in either case.

Regarding the first distortion charge, it seems to me that the title of her article about McCain's speech gives the exact opposite impression than that which Auster ascribes to the article itself. In addition, if the title of the article were not enough, Malkin says in the body of the text, and Auster quotes her as saying:

The bulk of the speech is a "look back" as if it were 2013 and McCain's assessing all his progress as president. You know it's pure fantasy because of this line: ...

How could anyone with a pulse read that and come away with the impression that McCain's speech was referring to the here-and-now? Is it Malkin's responsibility to take greater pains than she has here to ensure that every nitwit out there understands the clear meaning that this line conveys? I think not.

As to the second charge of spreading distortions, I addressed it in a comment to the VFR article. And Mr. Auster responded.

By the way, it occurs to me that by labeling them as I did in the body of this text I may have given some of you the impression that I'm the one accusing Ms. Malkin of propagating distortions about Senator McCain's speech. If that's the impression you got, I strongly suggest that you re-read the entirety of this entry (pay particularly close attention where I've added emphasis), including the title, as well as following the link provided to the VFR article. Thanks s'much!

Read More

The "six memo" to State Republican Operatives?

I wrote the other day about the e-news message sent to Oklahoma Republicans in which Matt Pinnell, Director of Operations for the OK Republican Party, wrote that all that is required for "conservatives" is that they remember for the next ten months the number six, and pull the lever for John McCain.

Coincidentally Don Feder writes today over at his Coldsteel Caucus of the Top ten reasons not to vote for McCain (hat tip VFR). And what reason of the ten takes up the number six spot on Feder's list? You guessed it. Mr. Feder must have been subjected to the same "six is all you need to remember" argument, which raises the question in the post title.

Mr. Feder writes:

The moment Mitt Romney “suspended” his campaign and McCain became inevitable, the squawking began: “You mean you’d actually prefer Hillary or Obama (judges)? At least McCain is pro-life (judges). He’s a war hero who’ll ably lead us in the War on Terrorism (judges). Did we mention that he’ll appoint conservative judges?”

But I agree, let's all remember the number six, Feder's number six -- create a bumper sticker, iron press it on some t-shirts, get one of those cool Henna tattoos, whatever it takes for you to remember that number -- as Mr. Pinnell might say.

Read More

What would a McCain Presidency portend were it not already doomed by its own Spinelessness?

If you've not yet done so, I strongly urge you to go over to VFR and read this entry. Here's the deal (pay attention Matt Pinnell and Republicans of the stripe!), a McCain presidency would be worse than an Obama presidency, and an Obama presidency would be worse than a Hillary presidency, which means that Hillary is the best presidential candidate still in the hunt; the only viable candidate left in the race who has the backbone to oppose and stop Obama.

Read More

Choosing up sides

On the heels of Mitt Romney's announcement of his suspension of his Presidential campaign, various conservative leaders are, quite naturally, beginning to announce their endorsements of their choice of the remaining candidates.

Dr. Dobson of Focus On The Family, as reported by CitizenLink, has now endorsed Governor Huckabee. Here is the text of the February 7 email sent out by CitizenLink announcing Dr. Dobson's endorsement (no link):

Dr. James Dobson issues the following statement tonight, speaking as a private citizen.

I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others. That is why I will support Gov. Huckabee through the remaining primaries, and will vote for him in the general election if he should get the nomination. Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for President of the United States.

(NOTE: Dr. Dobson made these statements as a private citizen. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a reflection of the opinions of Focus on the Family or Focus on the Family Action.)

Dr. Dobson is a man, and a Christian leader whom I highly respect. His unbending committment to and advocacy of strong family values including protecting the institution of marriage, the rights of the unborn, and other conservative values, has reserved to him a special place in my heart which he and he alone, through an abandonment of these values and the advocacy thereof, could possibly destroy. And generally speaking, when Dr. Dobson speaks my ears perk up. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to get me to say anything bad about Dr. Dobson, or to have any ill feelings toward him.

That said, I respectfully disagree with him on his endorsement of Mike Huckabee who himself, in a Fox News interview Tuesday night, proceeded to tell the viewing audience what a wonderful human being and strong conservative qualified leader John McCain is, and how much he respects and admires him for these qualities. This personal view of John McCain, I've concluded, must proceed from the same impulse that informs him of how great and wonderful and assimilable are the Mexican and other immigrants who are invading our land.

This isn't the first time I've disagreed with Dr. Dobson on an issue, and I'm sure it is far from the last time I'll disagree with him. But one wonders whether Dr. Dobson saw the Huckabee interview of which I speak, or if he simply chooses to ignore it. It's one thing to identify laudable qualities in an opponent, or to refrain from engaging oneself in the nasty business of character assassination. This is understandable, and a person of real character avoids doing so, or of giving the appearance of doing so insofar as it is humanly possible. But this is not what Huckabee was doing in the interview. He was, as I've implied, effectively announcing his own endorsement of Senator McCain, at least of Senator McCains impeccable qualifications to serve as President, even as he assured his supporters that he would remain in the race as McCain's real and actual conservative rival.

Is it just me, or is anyone else seeing a problem here?

For my part, Dr. Dobson's endorsement of Governor Huckabee is unfortunate and disappointing for the reasons I've mentioned and more. Not that I'm in the habit of prophesying, nor that I particularly care to do so in this case, but I have to say that I have a sneaky suspicion, given Huckabee's statements in the aforementioned interview from Tuesday night, that Governor Huckabee will himself get out of the race shortly under the auspices of doing what's best for the country. And he may truly believe that clearing the path for John McCain as the only choice left Republicans is the best thing he can do for the country, I don't know and I don't presume to know. But on this basis do I think it unfortunate that Dr. Dobson, among other influential Christian leaders, has cast his lot with Mike Huckabee.

Read More

Romney drops out

I'm a little surprised by this development, I admit, but not at all shocked. I think the timing of it caught me a little off guard.

But former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman didn't waste any time telling us Republicans what we need to do now that Romney's out of the race:

Within hours of Romney's speech, former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman endorsed McCain and urged all members of the GOP to back him.

''Our party has had many outstanding candidates this year, but it is now time for Republicans across the country to unite,'' Mehlman said.

"Many?" "Outstanding?" Would Mr. Mehlman care to elaborate, or to list for us the "many outstanding candidates" our party has had this year? "Outstanding" for what, Mr. Mehlman, their unprincipled non-conservative GOP destroying, Democrat empowering brand of conservatism?

Unite behind McCain?! You must be dreaming, man!

Read More

Senator Coburn endorses John McCain

I first learned of this the other night while listening to the post debate CNN panel which included Bill Bennett who mentioned the Coburn endorsement in the same breath with other "major" endorsements Senator McCain had received of late, including Mayor Giuliani and Governor Schwartzenegger (Good company there, Senator.).

Bennett was going over a list of endorsements Senator McCain had received, and was about to receive, which would increase the likelihood, thus reducing the chances of Governor Romney to save the Republican party of the embarrassment and disaster, of a McCain nomination.

Below is entered the text of the official press release which I picked up at John McCain's presidential website:

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn Endorses John McCain For President

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) has endorsed John McCain for President of the United States. Senator Coburn issued the following statement on his endorsement:

"I am honored to be here in South Carolina today, and I am very proud to endorse my friend and colleague Senator John McCain for President of the United States. John McCain and I have stood side-by-side on many issues and I'd like to speak to two of them today -- fiscal responsibility and ensuring the sanctity of human life.

"Much has been made in this presidential campaign about the need for change in Washington. Candidates from both sides of the aisle have talked about bringing real reform to the federal government. But, only one candidate has a record of putting his money where his mouth is, and that's John McCain.

"Since I came to Congress in 1995, I have met one true reformer -- John McCain. He has the unique blend of character, guts, and experience needed to transform Washington from the inside out. He is beholden to no special interest. He is guided by strong conservative principles, and committed to doing what he believes is right without concern for political consequence.

"John McCain has never been afraid to take the road less traveled, and he has fought wasteful spending at every turn along the way. He's saved taxpayers untold billions, and he has rightfully earned the reputation as the Senate's number one fiscal hawk. I trust that as president, John McCain will veto any pork-barrel bill that crosses his desk, and will make the authors famous.

"When it comes to ensuring the sanctity of human life, you will find no one stronger on the issue than Senator McCain. For twenty-four years, John McCain has been an unwavering voice in Congress for the rights of the unborn.

"For those reasons and more, I urge voters here in South Carolina and across the country to join me in supporting John McCain for president."

Well, Senator, urge all you like, but this Okie will definately not be joining you in supporting the nomination of John McCain! And you can take that to the bank.

Sometimes I'm utterly amazed at the amount of disconnect which exists between conservatives in the United States and their elected representatives, though I suppose I shouldn't be.

Don't tell me, the next "major" endorsement Senator McCain is going to receive will be none other than Oklahoma's other United States Senator, Jim Inhofe, who was himself instrumental in helping kill the Senate Amnesty bill. Come to think of it, I better go check to see whether McCain hasn't already received this endorsement. ... Nope, not yet.

In any event, I feel a good thrashing of Senator Coburn coming on. And by the way, can you imagine a more representative photo of the current state of the Republican Party than this one? Like I said, nice company you're mingling with Senator Coburn. I seem to detect a slight hint of your ghost-like conservative apparition looming in the background.

Read More

Who won the GOP debate at the Reagan library?

I watched about the last thirty minutes of the debate on CNN and came away with the impression that Romney did not do much to help himself on this night (I certainly wasn't impressed by him), as well as experiencing that down-in-your-gut sick feeling that Senator John McCain might actually win the GOP nomination.

My personal opinion is that Huckabee stole the show from both Romney and McCain. McCain seemed to be in ultra-attack mode, while Romney was, as the subject of McCain's attacks, equally in defense mode. All in all it was really just an unpleasant scene to watch, and from which I don't think I came away an ounce more informed about either man.

But like I said, I was pretty impressed with Mike Huckabee's performance on several counts. When was the last time you can recall, for instance, that a Presidential candidate, GOP or otherwise, spoke with such passion and clarity and lucidity on the issue of the tenth amendment and why governors of States should have the qualifications requisite to become President much superior to that possessed of national legislators? I know, I know, Huckabee is an open borders man, and that's a huge issue with me. But I have to hand it to him anyway. He impressed me as the most "together" of the candidates on this panel by far.

Anyway, I've selected a few comments on the debate from the Mike Huckabee for President blog and posted them below.

Kevin Tracy writes:

I got to watch the debate in Arlington at a debate party. We were ALL impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance, especially his last answer when he refused play the game of who would Reagan endorse and instead offered his endorsement of Reagan.

Quiverdaddy writes:

With the final debate before Stupor Tuesday behind us, it's time to begin recognizing the candidates for what they are. As I watched, I found McCain and Romney to be petty -- Was it "milestones and deadlines" or something different that means the same thing? Does it really matter?

Huckabee made sense and seemed to be mature enough to realize there are much bigger things at stake than whether Romney had a gaffe. So we have establishment "frontrunners", one of whom is testy and the other defensive. One an authentic hero and the other not authentic at all. A Ken doll vs. a GI Joe doll.

I'm all for climbing out of the Valley of the Dolls and going for a real life person fully capable of serving as our president. I know the Mediocracy has to declare frontrunners early -- to winnow the field down and reduce the damage the eventual nominee will endure during the primaries. To that end, it may be time for the commentators to recognize that principled conservatives -- especially those who take the social issues seriously will not support either of these guys.

Unless the establishment wants McCain, they need to rethink Huckabee. After tonight, I've come to the conclusion that Romney cannot be trusted and should not be considered by anyone who cares what happens to this country in the years after Bush.

Please consider giving him fair coverage and being honest about the "frontrunners".

John Michaels writes:

I know I said this previously, but Governor Huckabee. Since Anderson Cooper extended you an invitation to the Democratic Debate, I think you should take him up on his offer. It would certainly make it a more entertaining debate, and you would most likely end up taking both Obama and Hillary to the cleaners.

Ken Daugherty writes:

Bill Schneider is right that Mike Huckabee talked as the common person, my mother is a dedicated democrate and she's voting for Mike Huckabee.

Donald Fahrenkrug writes:

Gov Huckabee won the debate hands down. And he didn't sit on his hands and let the CNN staff ignore him.
He came across as intelligent, honest, very knowledgeable, and as the only one other than Ron Paul, that made any sense.

McCain was holier than thou, condescending, stupid, just plain horrible. Romney seemed like he just had the latest political computer chip implant. He was plastic and not believable, at all.

I am switching from Ron Paul, a truly great man, a gentleman and a scholar, but he let himself be ignored and just sat there.

Gov Huckabee has my vote. Good Grief America, wake up. We need a man of principle in the White House, and Gov. Huckabee is that man.

Jared Bridgeman writes:

It's amazing that Mike got shutout as far as the amount of screen time, but had a more clear message than the other two candidates due to their consistent blathering. McCain has two mouths, he speaks about homeland security, yet he has a Hernandez as his chief Hispanic vote-getter....I don't think he's even a United States citizen. From the get go, I have been extremely skeptical of Romney too...he seems too much in the pockets of big business and wishy washy on life. All of these things make it so easy to vote for Mike...the only problem is...convincing others in MO before Feb. 5th.

Sondra Ashmore writes:

Until today I had always considered you a solid candidate, but not necessarily one I would vote for. You refusing to be treated as a 3rd class candidate while also respecting the other candidates impressed me. I came to this site for more information as I rethink who I'm going to support on the 5th. I vote for character and I think you showed a lot of that tonight. Well done!

Read More