Important Stuff

Sponsors



  • Advertise on blogs

    The links directly above and below are advertisements only. The views and opinions expressed by advertisers are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Resistance is futile!

    Gullyborg is a proud capitalist, and encourages you to explore these NON-GOOGLE advertisements.

Shop Amazon


  • If you are going to shop, shop Amazon.com. Find just about everything you want from the comfort of your own home. By searching Amazon.com through this site, you are helping to support Resistance is futile!

  • Search Now:

Worthy Causes

Endorsements

Read my other publications

Blogfamily

Check once in a while

Dead Fish Wrappers and Bird Cage Liners

Cheney's visit to Eugene

  • 3: Cheney close-up
    The Vice President of the United States came to little old Eugene, OR. Who said this was a "liberals only" town? Best of all, this visit came on my Birthday. What a present! (kudos to "Redneck Professor" Scott for the camera work!)

Carnival of Cordite Submitters

April 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 10/2004

Thursday, 24 April 2008

This is how progressives promote peace...

...by beating up the girl in the wheel chair.

Maureen

I read about this over at Knowledge is Power.  I was so outraged, I had to immediately make my own post about this, because I recognized the girl in the photo from a recent television show.  Maureen was on The Dog Whisperer.  She needed help because her dog wasn't trained to walk on a leash, and she wanted to be able to take the dog for walks using her walker.  Cesar Millan helped her and her dog, and it really changed Maureen's life.  You could see the sheer joy in her face, her whole being just lit up, when she was able to enjoy a trip down the sidewalk with her dog.

She was so moved, she started up her own project to help train therapy dogs for children with disabilities.  She appeared again on The Dog Whisperer, with some of her canine students and their disabled owners, and you could tell she was really making a difference in people's lives.

So it really pissed me off to see the news that she was the young woman attacked at the Bush meeting.  Thank God she wasn't seriously injured.  I hope the scumbag who did this gets a maximum sentence.  And I hope Maureen is able to quickly put this behind her and continue making the world a better place.

Please keep Maureen and her work in your prayers.  And remember: this is how progressives fight for "peace."

Saturday, 19 April 2008

Public records not public

Jack Bog pointed out an idiotic act by the Legislative Counsel Committee... apparently, they think you can't publish Oregon's laws.  Never mind the fact that, according to these very same laws, anything made by the Legislative Counsel is a public record that belongs to the people...

On the committee are Jeff Merkley (Speaker of the Oregon House and candidate for US Senate), Kate Brown (Oregon Senate majority leader and candidate for Oregon Secretary of State) and Greg MacPherson (chair of the Oregon House judiciary committee and candidate for Oregon Attorney General).  These are the people running the show.  They are all running for higher offices with much greater impact on the law.  And they want to keep YOU, the people of Oregon, from having full free and open access to the very laws they make.

So much for public records law... speaking of which, in order to help you decide if they are right or not, in the extended entry you will find, reprinted for your convenience, for information purposes only, not for profit, and in accordance with basic principles of fair use, ORS Chapter 192 - Records; Public Reports and Meetings... which, as you can see from the link, is published FOR FREE on the internet on the Legislature's own website.  That should clear things up.

Continue reading "Public records not public" »

A Prediction...

Hillary will win Pennsylvania.  Obama has simply burned himself too badly there.  But Obama will still win the nomination.  His national lead at this point is simply too great, with too little opportunity for Hillary to catch up.

What does this mean?  It means Pennsylvania will be a key battleground state ripe for Republican pick-up.  Voters there will not be too keen to support the democrat nominee, and a good Republican team can snatch it - making the Electoral College pretty much a done deal for the GOP.

And so, my bold prediction: Vice President Tom Ridge...

Our_next_vice_president

Ridge is an ideal choice for McCain.  He is highly qualified: he has more Congressional experience than Obama, plus he is a twice-elected Governor of a large swing-state - a state that Obama needs to win and a state where Obama has "stepped in it."  Like Obama, Ridge is Harvard-educated and is an attorney.  But unlike Obama, Ridge is:

  • A practicing attorney with real-world experience as a prosecutor;
  • A board member of a Dow Jones corporation;
  • A successful private-sector entrepreneur;
  • A decorated war hero and the first enlisted Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress;
  • Oh, and let's not forget, the first Director of the Department of Homeland Security and the single most important person in the re-shaping of national security following the attacks of 9/11.

Ridge also happens to be a senior adviser to McCain.  He and McCain get along well and see eye-to-eye on many issues.  Ridge has ruffled the GOP base by being pro-choice.  You could say that he, like McCain, is a "maverick" Republican.

Now, some folks out there on the far right say they will sit out, vote Constitution Party, or even vote for Obama if McCain should choose anyone other than a traditional right-wing conservative running mate.  Well... I don't think McCain really cares.  Nor do I think he needs that support to win the election.  For every right-winger he turns off, he gains at least one more moderate.  Adding someone like Ridge will broaden that moderate appeal and cut into the democrat base - after all, there are quite a few voters out there who only vote democrat because they are afraid that Republicans will force women into back-alley abortions.  An openly pro-choice Republican on the ticket could reshape electoral demographics in a way that favors the GOP.  And when push comes to shove, a lot of the Ann Coulter crowd will come around and vote McCain, if only to prevent someone like Obama from becoming Commander-in-Chief during the War on Terror and appointing as many as five Supreme Court justices.  Would a pro-life voter sacrifice the Supreme Court and guarantee 30 more years of Roe v. Wade just to make a point about the ticket?  Plus, McCain gets to run his ticket as the ticket of two war heroes, two men who fought in the Vietnam war when Obama's friend in the Weather Underground was blowing up buildings and killing Americans back home.

But most importantly, Tom Ridge on the ballot means Pennsylvania is a Red State.  In order to win the Electoral College, the democrats already need to convert either Florida or Ohio - not an easy task against McCain, who is popular in both those states - and do it without losing any of their own ground.  Take Pennsylvania away from the democrats, and suddenly the Electoral College really comes down to the democrats winning both Florida and Ohio.  Jeb Bush has the popularity and power in Florida to ensure it stays Red, even without appearing on a ballot.  That means all the GOP needs to do is hold Ohio - and McCain already looks strong in Ohio, without even campaigning yet.

Yep, you heard it here: Vice-President Tom Ridge.  You may as well start printing up McCain-Ridge bumper stickers, lawn signs and T-shirts now...

Friday, 04 April 2008

Enjoy refreshing Bacardi

In what might wind up being one of the worst public relations blunders ever by a major international company, Absolut vodka envisions an "absolut world" where Mexico reconquistas the American Southwest.  This is NOT a photoshop:

Drink_bacardi

Well, it's a free country and Absolut is entitled to whatever message it wants to share and all.  But then, that makes me free to choose as well...

So next time you feel like a screwdriver, consider an alternative:

Bacardi_superior

Friday, 21 March 2008

Obama's new campaign theme song

Dedicated to his Grandma:

Thursday, 13 March 2008

Typical government overspending

OK, I suppose I need to take an afternoon off of work and actually make a blog post about Eliot Spitzer.

All I can say is...

What kind of idiot spends $5,000 an hour on a hooker?  What, didn't he shop around for a better deal first?  I mean, what the hell?  I just spent 2 minutes doing a basic Google search and concluded that a tenth that price seems to get you the finest call girls of the web.  Typical liberal politician: just throw money out the window without even checking first to see if there is a more cost-effective method.

No wonder New York State under Spitzer is billions of dollars in the red.

That's all I have to say about that.

For now.

Sunday, 02 March 2008

Yes, I know I'm lame

I've been working a new job this last month and the hours and schedule are killing me.  Hence, no blogging.  That, and I really haven't been too inspired to write much.  We know McCain will be the nominee.  I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it, but I will still happily vote for him over either of the democrats.  Speaking of the democrats, I just don't find that race very interesting.  Two liberals.  Meh.  And while there has been some interesting local politics, I really don't have much to say that hasn't already been said - just go over to NW Republican and read about the Oregon races.

Hopefully things will change and I'll be writing more soon.  Until then, keep your powder dry and read from the other many fine blogs over on my sidebars.

Monday, 11 February 2008

Huckabee is ruining his chances of being VP

I suspect he recently came to suspect McCain is NOT going to pick him... otherwise he would be lying down and sucking it up in Washington.  He also might think that if he can get enough people to vote for him simply as "not McCain" that, in terms of actual votes and not delegates, he could "win" the nomination even if he doesn't.  Imagine if, after all the primaries are done, McCain has "won" the delegate count but is far behind in terms of actual votes... that could lead to a breakdown of the nomination process and all hell could break loose at the convention.

But my real point is that McCain won't choose Huckabee as his running mate.  He played Huckabee, got him to stay in the race long enough to force out Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney... now he serves no purpose and can be discarded.  McCain is a back stabber egomaniac, after all.

So, who will be the VP?  Assuming McCain survives the possible convention melt down?

Why he MIGHT want Huckabee:

Huckabee brings in very enthusiastic evangelical support.  Huckabee might not have a majority of supporters, but his supporters are "broken glass" supporters.  That means good turnout.  It could also help win back Congress and retake some state governments.

What Huckabee doesn't do:

He doesn't solidify the conservative base.  He is too fiscally liberal.  Many of the conservative Republicans who hate McCain have no love of Huckabee, either.  So I don't think Huckabee is the right choice.

Another option is to try to unite the Party with a "healing" choice like Mitt Romney.  Why this is good:

Romney has money.  That is always good.  Romney has organization.  Also good.  And, when it looked like a McCain/Romney race, the conservative base suddenly liked Romney a lot.

But...

The conservative base didn't get fired up enough about Romney to actually turn out enough to support him.  He spend too long being known as the wishy washy slick flip flopper.  He only REALLY caught on as a last-ditch "not McCain" candidate.  His actual power to bring on the base is probably highly overstated - or else he would have won more states.  Same goes for Fred Thompson, so no need to repeat it for him.

Another option, go for a traditional conservative who DIDN'T run, someone who hasn't already failed to make a big impression.  I know several people now looking at Mark Sanford.

Why might this work?  The base NEEDS to feel relevant.  A real conservative on the ticket WOULD help.

But...

Sanford is untested nationally.  He isn't well known outside his own state.  While some people in the conservative movement would be REALLY excited, the reality is that we are talking about a small number of highly politically active people, not the average November voter.  There is no guarantee someone like Sanford would resonate.

So the other option is...

Screw the base!

And... I think that is the most likely path for McCain.  McCain has NEVER tried to reach out to conservatives.  I think he will like someone like Rudy Giuliani as his VP.  Here is why:

It isn't about winning big in Red States.  It is about holding on to Red States, even if by only one vote, and making gains in Blue States.  McCain/Giuliani does that.

So what if the GOP loses Kansas?  What is that, like six votes in the Electoral College?  McCain/Giuliani could win New Jersey.  That's more than double.  They could win Pennsylvania.  That's more than triple.  They could force the democrats to spend all their money retaining New York and California, leaving states like Ohio and Florida safe in GOP hands - and the democrats CAN'T win the Electoral College without taking a state like Ohio or Florida away from the GOP.

McCain also benefits from ticket balancing with Giuliani.  Not liberal/conservative, but in other ways.  Giuliani is a lawyer and an executive.  He has a record of running things.  As VP, he could be tasked with running a number of projects for the administration - and would probably do them well.

My prediction: McCain/Giuliani, and they win BIG in the Electoral College even without getting the conservative base out in droves.

But then, lately my predictions have been way off...

Tuesday, 05 February 2008

Yummy!

It's PANCAKE DAY!

How to cure your kid's cold and flu...

Hand him over to a British nanny...

Monday, 04 February 2008

Why I would still support McCain if nominated

Unless he did something really stupid in the next 10 months, I would vote for McCain in November should he be the GOP nominee.  Two big things:

1) While McCain has serious flaws and is generally not what I want in the President, he is still manifestly better suited to run this country than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

2) If conservatives "sit out" or give "protest votes" to third party, independent, or write-in candidates, then conservatives make themselves irrelevant.

Two parts to the second thing above:

A) If McCain loses, the left will see it not as a victory over McCain, or a victory over a moderate opponent.  The left will see it as a complete repudiation of the Republican Party, and they will link that to conservatism.  They will believe it is a mandate to implement every liberal dream they ever had - on a national scale.  Oregon is a microcosm of this.  In 2006, moderate Ron Saxton lost to liberal Kulongoski.  The Oregon democrats made gains in the already-liberal Senate and seized the House.  The 2007 session saw the passage of every liberal wet dream, save one (universal health care).  And they will try again with the health care this year.  Had conservatives rallied around Saxton, things today would be VERY different in Oregon.  At best, he would have won.  At worst, he would have still lost but conservatives would have been energized enough to keep the House.  We had two incumbent Republicans lose by only a few hundred votes.  Their victories would have kept the Legislative Assembly in check.  The same thing holds true nationally.  If the GOP is energized to vote for the nominee, whoever he is, we can take back the House and keep the Senate competitive.  Even with a moderate President, a Republican House will do a lot to keep us on a conservative track.

B) If McCain wins, and against the super-polarizing Hillary Clinton, he might win even without the conservative base, then the conservative movement is essentially dead.  We will have no sway with McCain if we don't support his candidacy.  If he can win without us, he is free to write us off forever.  He will be free to lead with moderate-liberal ideas, and all the pressure from the right will mean nothing to him.  GWB may have been a wishy-washy moderate on many issues, but when the right spoke up - Harriet Miers and Dubai ports - he stopped and listened.  And when the right spoke up on amnesty, the Senate stopped and listened enough to block the McCain/Kennedy bill.  But if McCain is elected despite the efforts of the right, the right can forget about ever holding power again.  Amnesty?  The Senate bill will move, the House will be the chamber under pressure, and President McCain will sign it into law.  Ditto any other liberal idea McCain ever had in the Senate.

Either way - President McCain or President Obama - the conservative movement dies IF it decides to abandon the GOP over McCain.

But let's say we all get fired up and pledge full support to McCain (if he is the nominee, that is; we can still hope for Romney until then).  Then, with the base motivated, McCain can win in November - and he will still be under political pressure to support conservative ideas.  The conservative movement can make the claim "McCain is only President because WE supported him to pass OUR agenda."  There is a very real power that comes from a mandate.  In the first GWB term, a lot of folks believed he had no mandate because of the 2000 election.  That really forced him into working with democrats a lot more than any of us Republicans liked.  A clear victory in 2000 would have completely changed the dynamic in D.C.  Likewise, a big victory with conservative support is a mandate for Republicans, a mandate for conservative policy.  But a weak win, without conservative support, is more like a mandate for moderate-liberalism.  It is a mandate for... exactly what some of us fear McCain embodies.  It is a mandate for McCain to reach out to liberals, independents, and swing-votes.  It is a mandate for McCain to work with Hillary and Obama.

So the conservative movement NEEDS to keep itself relevant.  We NEED to be a force in this election - and voting for a fringe candidate or sitting out in protest does NOTHING to make us more relevant.

So, if McCain is the nominee, and barring him doing something really stupid between now and November, he gets my vote.  But until McCain is the nominee, by all means, join me in supporting a better candidate in Mitt Romney.

Conventional wisdom

Conventional wisdom has McCain winning big tomorrow, and easily coasting to the nomination.

Conventional wisdom had New England winning the Super Bowl.

I'm just sayin'...

Thursday, 31 January 2008

An idea for a new reality television show

I call it:

Survivor: GOP Primary!

Here’s my beef with the primaries as they are currently formatted: the most disliked candidates aren’t necessarily eliminated early on, so long as they have some support in a large and highly divided field.

Right now, our presumptive nominee is John McCain.  McCain does have some very enthusiastic supporters.  But they are a relatively small number compared to the GOP as a whole across the nation.  Many of those supporting McCain at this point are only doing so because no one else still in the campaign really motivates them.  More importantly, though, a clear majority of GOP members currently want someone other than McCain.  A 35% vote in a multi-person primary only really means that 65% of the Party supported someone else.

But, despite his high negatives within the Party, McCain is not just clinging to life but leading the pack, because the votes in the primary are votes FOR, not votes AGAINST.

So here’s the plan:

We need a “Survivor-style” primary elimination competition.

The process would begin with a “pre-screening” of potential candidates through pre-primary caucuses, petitions, straw polls, etc.  Before January of election year, allow this process to put together a field of eight candidates.  Why eight?  Why not?  I picked eight because, at one point in this primary season, there were eight GOP candidates.  It could be more or less – just modify the following as necessary to make it work.

Once you have the eight competitors, begin a series of seven primaries to eliminate one, and only one, candidate each primary.  Have a debate.  Not a CNN or YouTube debate, where the candidates face questions by liberals designed to make the candidates look bad.  No, have a GOP debate with actual REPUBLICANS asking the questions for REPUBLICANS to get answers so REPUBLICANS can vote.  Have a series of fundraising events.  Let the candidates tour the states featured in the first primary (more on choosing the states later).  Then, have a closed primary at the end of January.  Only registered Republicans need apply.  Put out an elimination ballot.  Instruct all the voters: choose one candidate to REMOVE from this race.  Then, after the first primary, we have seven candidates still “on the island.”

Start the process again in February.  Eliminate another.  Repeat.  Keep doing this through July, when you will be down to two candidates left standing – and in the final round, let it be a competition to WIN instead of an elimination.  Have the vote at the end of the month, right before the convention in August.

Why do this?

Because this allows the primary system to actually weed out candidates we don’t like.  The current system doesn’t weed out unpopular candidates.  It weeds out candidates who might have very low negatives, but who don’t have the resources to remain competitive.  Sometimes we get a great candidate in the end, like Ronald Reagan.  Other times, we end up with Bob Dole.  Or John McCain.  Right now, John McCain is the most likely GOP nominee despite having never received majority support of actual Republicans.  He’s in this position not because he is the popular choice of the Party, but because he has maintained just enough tepid support in a multi-person race to cling to life as alternatives have been forced out - had the primary elections been true eliminations instead of competitions for nominal support, would McCain still be here?

What would have happened in this primary season had we been using the Survivor model?  Let’s hypothesize:

Letting the pre-primary system do its thing, assume we had the same eight candidates at the beginning of this race.  They are:

John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo.

Now, here is round one:

It’s January.  All the candidates take part in the debates.  All have their fundraisers.  All campaign across primary states.  Here we are at the end of the month.  We have our first primary, in about 8 states (again, more on this later).  Seven candidates move forward.  One is voted off the island.  Remember, it’s not a contest to see who can get the most FOR votes.  It’s a competition to avoid being the one with the most NO votes.  My guess:

Ron Paul is off the island.

Sure, he has rabid followers.  Sure, he can raise big money by tapping into angsty angry anti-establishment internet dorks and anti-war leftists.  But, I believe, a vast majority of GOP voters would recognize him as a kook who brings nothing to this race.  His isolationist, anti-war, blame America rhetoric may appeal to 5% of the Party, but it outright angers a solid majority of us.
Bye bye, Paul.  Don’t let the doorknob hit you on the way out.

Then we move on to February.  Same thing, but seven remain.  Have debates.  Have fundraisers.  Campaign across new states.  Vote.  Who is gone?  My guess:

Farewell, Rudy.  The tribe has spoken.

Rudy may be America’s Mayor.  He may have a lot of support among moderates and among the defense hawks.  Personally, I really like him and would not vote against him (at least, not until the last round).  But… a lot of Republicans really hate the idea of President Giuliani.  He would have all the Right to Life groups out there actively campaigning against him.  When RTL actively opposes you in a closed GOP primary, you are in trouble.

Sorry, Rudy.  I like you, but my support isn’t enough.

March.  You know that term, “March Madness”?  It would apply here.  Six remain.  Repeat the process.  Who leaves?

McCain.

McCain, probably more than any other candidate, really angers some people.  With the kook Paul gone, and the pro-choice Giuliani gone, the movement conservatives will look at the field and say “you know, just about any of these other guys would be ok for us, but man, I really hate that McCain.”  He might have 35% support, but remember, that’s 65% against.  And a lot of that 65% is STRONGLY against.

John McCain, pack your bags.

April.  Now it gets interesting.  Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo all have solid conservative credentials.  None of them managed to inspire majority support in this year’s actual primary.  But, none of them ever got a solid bloc of GOP voters ticked off enough to force them out.  Huckabee and Romney, however, each have problems.  Huckabee has some very fervent supporters.  But he also has really alienated some non-evangelical voters, and has drawn harsh criticisms from fiscal conservatives and defense hawks.  Romney has his own detractors who just don’t like his changing attitudes or his slick packaging.  I couldn’t tell you who would be out this round, but it would be either Huckabee or Romney.

May.  Same thing, but now the other one from April is gone.

June comes around.  The field now consists of Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo.  Now it comes down to one candidate who not only is inoffensive to a majority of Republicans but also has some energetic supporters and a degree of “electability” against the democrats… and Hunter and Tancredo.  No clue which of the also-rans is gone, but Thompson surely moves on to the final.

July: hail Fred Thompson, GOP nominee.

August rolls around, and Fred chooses a VP as the convention begins…

This is a primary system that gives us a consensus candidate who does not isolate huge parts of the GOP base.  Every state has had a say at some point in the process.  Oh, here’s the plan for dividing the primaries:

Take all the states by size.  Divide into seven groups, from smallest to largest, with the seven or eight largest voting in the final round.  The smallest states get to vote first.

Why?

I like the Electoral College.  I like smaller states getting a slightly larger say for their size.  This makes the small states relevant.  In this primary, the majority of candidates have to work in the small states right at the beginning, and the small states get to actually eliminate the worst candidates up front.  The big states have the large populations, and the majority of actual voters have the final say on who wins and who loses.  It’s a check and balance.

So round one would look like this:

Wyoming, District of Columbia, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, and Delaware.

That’s a pretty diverse group, geographically and ideologically.  Making the candidates campaign across all seven of these before the elimination vote ensures the candidates need to appeal to a broad demographic, instead of pandering to a small audience like the Iowa Farm Bureau.  You have East and West.  You have New England and the Plains.  You have rural and urban.  You have coastal and interior.  You have extremely conservative and more moderate.  It’s a good mix.

Round two:

Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, and Nebraska.

Again, a broad mix.  No allowing candidates to pander to one small group.

Round three:

West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

Here it gets interesting: for the first time, the mix starts to look like a collection of Red States.  Now that two of the weakest candidates have been eliminated, a group of solid Red States that represents real Republican values has its chance to eliminate.

Round four:

Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina.

Another group with mostly Red States.  The Party Base is having its say to weed out the undesirable.

Round five:

Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Missouri, and Tennessee.

Back to a broader mix, and populations are growing.  Now we are starting to see what a majority of the population, as opposed to the Electoral College, might look like.

Round Six:

Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Now we are cooking.  Here’s some serious diversity, including some of the biggest Red States.  And we have some big population centers like Phoenix, Boston, and Atlanta.  This is a great setup for the final showdown.

Round seven – the final vote, winner take all:

Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas and California.

The final round brings in the biggest chunks of the population.  It has the biggest of all Red States in Texas, forcing the candidates to truly appeal to Republicans.  It also has the biggest state of all in California, allowing California Republicans a chance to choose a candidate who can appeal to a broad base for the general.  And it has all the most important swing states like Florida and Ohio, giving us the chance to choose the candidate who can bring in those critical Electoral College delegates.

This is a winning plan.  It brings the Party together, rather than driving the Party apart.  The divisive candidates get eliminated early.  The remaining candidates are those who represent real Republican values.  The final winner is one who never alienated a large segment of the base and who, in the end, proves to be the better of the two finalists.  Interestingly, it might result in candidates forming alliances, like on Survivor, to work against other candidates in the early rounds.  This would give us a chance to see how certain candidates work with each other, and might give us insight into things like who a potential nominee's VP might be, who might get choice Cabinet appointments, etc.  It would be interesting and informative, for instance, to see if Giuliani and McCain teamed up early on to try getting someone like Romney voted out earlier.  It would truly give the voters a look into the minds of the candidates.

We need to enact a primary system like this!  If only…

Wednesday, 30 January 2008

Well, it's not my first choice. Or my second. Or my third...

Looks like McCain has pulled off a victory in Florida.  Oh, well.

However... one very important thing I'd like to say about McCain's victories so far:

Winning with 35% of the vote is NOT a mandate.  It is NOT proof of Party unity behind a candidate.  It merely shows that 65% of the people voted AGAINST the winner.  The time has come for every other person in this race apart from McCain and Romney to drop out.  Let the next round of primaries on Super Tuesday be between two candidates, and let the winner be chosen by a clear majority.

Giuliani has backed out.  He may be backing the lesser candidate now, but at least he has the principle to admit he is not a viable candidate anymore and he is out.  Time for Huckabee and Paul to follow suit.

More:

I'd like to reiterate: unlike some other Republicans out there, I am NOT going to give up over McCain.  He is an acceptable candidate, albeit a highly flawed one.  If he is ultimately our nominee, I will support him as better than the democrat alternative.  However, my support for McCain can be shaken if he does bad things between now and November.  For instance, if he winds up with Huckabee as his running mate, that might push me over the edge.

So for now, I am still hoping Romney can pull this off in a two man race.  If that doesn't happen, if McCain wins, I'll support him - unless he crosses a line.  And I'll be watching that line closely.

Tuesday, 29 January 2008

Prediction

Romney - 35%

McCain - 31%

Giuliani - 12%

Huckabee - 10%

Thompson - 6%

Paul - 5%

(Yes, I know Thompson dropped out... but he was still on the ballot for early voting.)

We'll see in a few hours... barring hanging chads...

Saturday, 26 January 2008

From Sea to Shining Sea

This is the best military recruiting commercial I have ever seen.

I hope this runs in the Super Bowl.  First quarter Super Bowl.

Friday, 25 January 2008

Battle of the cheesy action stars

Well, we all know Chuck Norris came out kicking for Mike Huckabee.  Now, Stallone is fighting for John McCain.  The question many have is: can Rocky Balboa take out Lone Wolf McQuade?  Can Rambo defeat Walker, Texas Ranger?  Can... can Hollywood stars be more irrelevant?

Who cares what these action stars think?  Besides, everyone knows a Terminator would easily kill them both.  And... Hollywood is so whacked out, why should we listen to ANY Hollywood celebrity?  Sure, Norris and Stallone at least say they are conservative Republicans.  But their association with Hollywood still makes their judgment suspect.  Ronald Reagan and Fred Thompson got OUT of Hollywood - they at least can claim they evolved.  And in Reagan's case, at least he was in Hollywood when it was still the home of John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart.  But acive celebs... why should we care when, in the end, the entire Hollywood establishment is going to work overtime for the democrats anyway?

Huckabee.  McCain.  Both losers if they are endorsed by celebrities.  These celebrities are useless.  The ticket will be Romney/Thompson, to take on Hillary/Richardson.  Hollywood will have no bearing on choosing the tickets.

Hmmm... what if Hollywood formed its own party, and ran its own ticket?  What would THAT ticket look like?

Here are some options:

A) The brilliant but cocky young superstar - and the seasoned old veteran who mentors him;

B) The sassy, foul-mouthed L.A. rap star - and his unexpected sidekick, the neurotic Jew from Brooklyn;

C) The disgruntled cop on suspension from the force - and the hooker with the heart of gold;

D) The angry, bigoted, rich old white man - and the cute little minority child who teaches him how to love; or...

E) Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks.

Choose who YOU think Hollywood would run on its own Presidential ticket, or write in your choice in the comments.

Wednesday, 23 January 2008

Why I still like Giuliani... and Romney, too.

I just read this piece on Rudy.  I have long said that Rudy would be a good President.  Before Fred got into the race, I thought Rudy was the best choice.  Now that Fred is out, I still think Rudy is the best alternative.

Do I think he will win?  I don't know.  I have said to many folks out there that, for strategic reasons, it makes good sense for us all to back Romney.  And I do think Romney would also be a good President.  So don't assume by reading this that I am actively endorsing Rudy over Mitt.  No.  I'm just saying that Rudy is still a very good option.

That said, here's the thing with Rudy.  Sure, I know he turns off social issues voters.  Well, I'm not one of them.  Sure, he turns off gun owners - and not without reason.  But, he has been making strong efforts to appeal to gun owners over the last few years, and I believe he is genuine.  You can disagree, but I think he means it when he says he supports gun rights and would not adopt liberal anti-gun policies as President.  If you've read me over the years, you know I am a Second Amendment absolutist - and I have seen Giuliani grow enough on gun issues to soothe my worries.

Other than those reasons, there are NO reasons for conservative Republicans to diss Rudy Giuliani - and some reasons why we should all embrace him as a potential President.

He is committed to winning the war on terror.  Like McCain, this alone makes him better than just about any democrat alternative.

He is in favor of limited government, lower taxes, and reduced spending.  Sounds good to me!

But here is the one big thing:

Rudy cleaned up New York City.

I don't think it is possible to overstate how big that is.  Rudy took control of the most important city in the world.  Other candidates may have run entire states, but those entire states had smaller populations with smaller problems than New York City.  And when he took control, New York City had been in decay for decades.  Overrun with crime and gangs.  Drugs everywhere.  Red light districts that made Amsterdam look classy.  Out of control bureaucracy.  Nothing working right.  New York City had fallen from the Crown Jewel of the Empire State to bordering on third-world status.  Americans just didn't want the rest of America to be, in any way, like their largest city.

And Rudy changed all that.

He took on the mob.  He took on the unions.  He took on the city council.  And he won!  Crime rates down.  Employment up.  Pollution down.  Renewal up.  Taxes down.  Prosperity up.

Of all the candidates in both parties, Rudy is the ONLY candidate who can point to a REAL record of success as a LEADER in government.  Not just a voting record.  Not just some moderate progress.  Real success as a leader.  Vision.  Innovation.  Leadership.

Most other candidates talk about leadership.  Rudy Giuliani IS a LEADER.  No, I don't always agree with him on some social issues.  But I don't care about them compared to the big picture.  America itself is on a dangerous precipice.  Our next President could lead us out of malaise and into prosperity and security... or could kick us into the abyss.  I believe Rudy has the kind of positive leadership we need to move forward as a nation.

Leadership matters.  America wants a leader.

Now... back to Romney.  I do fear that Giuliani's social negatives are too great for him to win the nomination.  I fear enough of the religious right voters would bail on the GOP to hand the election to Barack Obama, should Giuliani be our nominee.  Romney would be better at holding together our GOP coalition and beating the democrats.  Plus, he has the money and the organization.  He is clearly the better candidate.  But that doesn't mean Romney would be the better PRESIDENT.

Given the current field, my dream team would be Rudy Giuliani as the nominee, with Fred Thompson as his "social-conservative anchor" VP.  Fred has the endorsement of Right to Life and is the favorite of the gun lobby.  That ticket, I believe, is the best ticket.  Rudy has the record of success in reforming government.  Fred has the solid social conservative principles.  Rudy gets things done.  Fred would help influence the direction of progress.

But... I do understand why some folks would prefer Romney.  And... I like Romney.  He's a good guy who gets results, and far better than any democrat.  He has had great success in the "real world" outside of politics.  He understands the economy.  And he is squeaky clean.  He just has had a few too many policy changes over the years - but at least his changes have all been growth from moderate to conservative, not the other way around.  And who hasn't evolved over time?  Even Reagan started out as a democrat.  So... some folks see "weakness" with Romney.  Well... like Giuliani, he would benefit from a running mate like Thompson.  Having a Thompson on board would alleviate many fears from the conservative base.  A Romney/Thompson ticket would be great, and - with Romney's campaign money and organization - would have the best chance of beating the democrats.

But I still like Rudy.  Being a decent Governor of Massachusetts just pales in comparison to utterly reforming New York City in my book - and Rudy talks tougher on terror.

So there you have it:

Rudy would be a better President.  Romney would be a better candidate against the democrats.  Either one would be a good leader, and far better than the democrat alternatives.

Here's what I'm hoping for in Florida: I'd like to see Rudy and Mitt come out on top, with McCain a distant third and Huckabee a dismal fourth.  That would probably end the Huckabee campaign, and signal a hard road ahead for McCain.  Super Tuesday would become the battle between Rudy and Mitt - and the winner would emerge a stronger candidate to take on the democrats.  Whoever that winner is would be wise to bolster his conservative credentials by running with someone like Fred Thompson - and then offering his opponent a prominent role in the administration.

If Romney wins, Rudy would be an incredible Attorney General or head of Homeland Security.  If Rudy wins, Romney would be an incredible Chief of Staff or would do well in any of a number of Cabinet posts.

Bottom line:

Rudy Giuliani is a great guy for America.  Mitt Romney is pretty good, too.  By this time next week, we should know who of them moves on to the next round.  I hope they both do well - and I prefer them both to McCain.  But if it came down to just a choice between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, with no other considerations... I'd choose Rudy.

Why I won't rule out McCain

Some others I know see the possibility of a McCain nomination as the coming apocalypse.  They say, if McCain is the GOP nominee, well, they will vote third party - or even for Hillary.

Not me.

Granted, I have made it plainly clear that McCain is NOT my first choice.  Or my second.  Or my third.  But my first choice dropped out.  My second choice never ran.  My third choice shows no interest in running.

So, I may well be faced with the choice of McCain or a democrat in November.  Given that choice, I'm choosing McCain.  Without hesitation.

McCain is NOT the best conservative, but he is still FAR better than a democrat.  And, in the big issue of national security, I could count on him to use the full fury of our military might to respond to threats - the French be damned!  But there is a lot more than that.  Michael Medved, who I respect a LOT, has a great piece in defense of McCain here.  Read it, with logic, not emotion, and consider that McCain would NOT be nearly as bad as some would have us believe.

No, I'm not endorsing McCain.  And, if nominated, he could still really disturb me by choosing Lieberman or Huckabee as his running mate.  But, barring something so shocking, I think it's safe to say I could happily vote for McCain... if he is the nominee.

I'd much rather vote for Giuliani or Romney, though, and will actively support them as alternatives to McCain as long as the primaries continue.  I hope the rest of you agree.

Tuesday, 22 January 2008

Fred has left the building

Fred is out.  That's a damn shame.  But, he just couldn't get the numbers together to stay viable.  Now the big question is:

Can he play kingmaker by getting behind someone else going into Super Tuesday?  And if so, who?

My guess is: he would be happy as VP for Romney or Giuliani.  He probably wants to see how Florida shapes up without him in the race, and then will probably get behind whoever of those two looks stronger going into Super Tuesday.

It's not my dream ticket, but I'd be happy with either Romney or Giuliani, with Fred backing him up as VP.  It's way better than the McCain/Huckabee alternative.

Friday, 18 January 2008

LISTEN UP!

Click here and listen (it's long, but worth it) to an excellent interview with John Lott on the DC gun ban and the Presidential election.

Indeed

Click here.

Why is this even an issue?  Did Congress pass a bill condemning SC and no one told us?  Why not talk about things that are relevant, like how he raised taxes in Arkansas?  Like how he wanted to give state tuition benefits to illegal aliens?  Like how he is morphing into Ron Paul on foreign policy?  No, just wrap up in the Stars and Bars and scream "YEEHAW!" while jumping the General Lee over the crick.

What a retard.

Thursday, 17 January 2008

Desperate. And Dirty.

Mike Huckabee must see the light at the end of the tunnel... and he must realize it is the headlight of the oncoming train.  First came the news he couldn't even beat Mitt Romney among evangelicals in Michigan.  Now this.

I think South Carolina is the beginning of the end of the Huckaboom.

Wednesday, 16 January 2008

Fred gets it

Only one candidate is out there talking about the awful Solicitor General's brief in the DC gun ban case.  Guess who?

Tuesday, 15 January 2008

Done.

As far as I am concerned, I am done with George W. Bush.  I have spent most of the last few years of my political life apologizing for him.  No more.

I've been apologizing for his failure to implement a "surge" strategy in Iraq back in 2004, when it could have worked just as well as today and resulted in much more rapid progress.  Sure, he didn't have the political clout to do it when his enemies had too much power in the Senate.  Sure, the situation in Iraq had to get worse before a clear majority in Washington would agree to make it better.  So what?  A real leader LEADS and makes the tough decisions.  Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

I've been apologizing for Harriet Miers.  Sure, with folks like McCain and Specter among the Senate GOP, and the democrats filibustering everything, W felt his hands were tied and he would be unable to advance a great conservative candidate.  So what?  He needed to put up the best judges possible and fight for them.  As we saw from the conservative backlash over Miers and the subsequent appointment of Alito, the power was there all along to get the right people on the bench.  W just needed to actually do it.

I've been apologizing for the out of control spending.  OK, we all know Congress spends, not the President.  But the President can do two important things: lead and veto.  Where was W during the first six years of his Presidency when it came to out of control spending?  Was he out there preaching small government and fiscal responsibility?  Was he breaking out the big red pen and saying "NO!" to Congress?  Nope.  He was too busy rubber stamping whatever Congress threw at him to give a crap about our financial future.

And now... the last straw.

The Solicitor General, an agent of the Bush administration, has submitted a brief in the upcoming DC gun ban case that... SUPPORTS THE GUN BAN!

That's it.  Done.  No more apologies.

I tend to be a single issue voter when it comes to guns.  For the last several elections, I've basically supported the Republican Party without looking to hard at individual positions on gun rights.  After all, most Republicans are far, far better than most democrats on guns.  The Clinton administration gave us the assault weapons ban.  The Republicans who took over allowed the ban to expire without renewing it.  That was good enough for me on my single issue, allowing me to look at other things like national security, the judiciary, and fiscal policy.  And... President Bush has come up lacking on these issues.  But I always felt the need to apologize because, damn it, at least with W in the White House no one was going to take away our guns.

I can no longer continue to believe that.

If this is the way a Republican administration responds to a constitutional challenge of the outright ban on handguns in our nation's capital, then the time has come to remove the blinders and return to single issue voting.  If the Second Amendment fails, all our other rights become meaningless.  Our next President HAS to be one who will support and defend the Constitution, all of the Constitution, and especially our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Who will that be?

Of the current candidates, only two have a demonstrated record of supporting gun rights: Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.  Of these two, I believe only one can defeat his democrat opponent in November, and that's Fred.  And... Huckabee is a wishy washy liberal who "talks good" to Republicans about a few "red meat" issues like guns, gays, and babies.  But his record is liberal.  He says he is a fiscal conservative, but he raises taxes.  He talks tough on immigration, but he supported benefits for illegal aliens.  So he talks good on gun rights - but what would he actually do?

I can't trust Huck on ANY issue, so why should I trust him on THE issue?

So that leaves Fred Thompson.  Period.  End of discussion.  I don't care about his age.  I don't care about the fire in his belly.  I don't care about his wife.  I don't care about his late entry.

I care about our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

PERIOD.

And I care about getting this election over with and getting the next President sworn in so we can put the era of Bush behind us.  I can't wait for his administration to end.  I only hope the next President is an improvement, and not a step further back.

Monday, 14 January 2008

He's campaigning for the wrong job

The election is for Commander in Chief, not Pastor in Chief.

Thursday, 10 January 2008