Republicans in the lurch

So, it seems the party is on the brink here.

We may be about to become as irrelevant as the Democrats were in '84.

Problem #1: I told you earlier this week. McCain, should he get the nod, CANNOT win in the general election.

Problem #2: We hate Hillary Clinton too much.

Huh? How is that a problem? Let me explain.

Sean Hannity has called his program the "Stop Hillary Express" for months now. Rush can't go a day without mentioning her. We all know that she's got huge "disapproval ratings." Problem is, the Dems know it too.

You see, the negative attention that Republicans are providing to Hillary, the missteps of her campaign (read: her husband) in recent weeks, and the defection of party leaders like Teddy to Obama's camp make a tri-fecta. All together, these things are about to make the Democratic nomination a lock for Barack.

Barack Obama is going to be damn hard to beat. Why? Same reason Hillary isn't beating him: race. Race trumps gender in the United States; it always has. How does that hurt us in the General Election, though?

Regardless of who the Republicans put up, we're going to be stuck. If we criticize Obama in any way, shape, or form, there will be accusations of racism. Don't believe me? Ask Bill Clinton. And nobody wants to vote for someone they think is racist, and no one wants to be seen as racist by not voting for "the black guy." Add to this the fact that McCain is throwing around racist terms and that the founder of Romney's religion (NOT Romney himself, however) was violently racist, and we're really screwed.

Make no mistake, Obama is dangerous.

But, Obama is dangerous in other ways. Need proof? A sample of his issue positions, from his web site:

"Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. "

"As president, Obama will reward work by increasing the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increasing the benefit available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increasing the benefit for families with three or more children and reducing the EITC marriage penalty which hurts low-income families."

"Obama's K-12 plan will expand service scholarships to recruit and prepare teachers who commit to working in underserved districts."

"Obama will ensure that trade agreements include strong labor and environmental protections and that all Americans share the rewards of globalization."

"The lack of affordable, high-speed Internet access in rural, urban, and minority communities has created a digital divide between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not. This severely limits the growth potential of many urban and rural companies. Barack Obama believes we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation technologies, and new tax and loan incentives. "

Name one provision in any of his policies above that doesn't involve a radical expansion of Federal power and/or a radical expenditure of federal funds.

Barack Obama may well be the most dangerous man in America right now.

No way. Way!

This has got to be, by far, the most interesting primary season that I can recall. Looks like one of my predictions from yesterday was actually spot on. Of course, my Florida predictions were rather akin to a shotgun blast...

At any rate, McCain beat, not handily, but he did beat, Romney in Florida. Rudy's out, and probably going to endorse McCain. Will that hurt Romney? Probably. But, Mitt still has some things going for him, leading up to the convention:

• There are enough Western states, where Romney is likely to perform well, on Super Tuesday to catch up, or at least keep within striking distance, of McCain's delegate count.
• He has the support of a sizable majority of the "uncommitted" delegates (akin to the Democrats' SuperDelegates)
• If Huck makes it all the way to the convention, his delegates could, in theory, be sent to one column or the other, tipping the balance. My guess is that Huck is going to send them to Mitt, rather than John, because Mitt is closest to Huck on social issues.

As for the Dems, Hillary continues to shore up her delegate count, while Barack is wooing establishment Dems like Teddy into his camp. Hillary's ace in the hole has always been the SuperDelegates; Teddy's defection suggests that they may not be a lock for Hill. Still, Barack is going to have to pick up some delegates on Feb 5 if he wants to stay in this thing.

As for Super Tuesday? Hell if I know.

Bye Bye, Rudy

Odds are against America's Mayor tonite.

Was a time I thought Rudy might have been the most electable guy in the Republican field. (Note that I didn't say he was the guy I would vote for, but he was the most electable). Truth be told, he's probably still the most electable in a general election, at least against Hillary. Obama he'd have a harder time with, I think.

At any rate, there are several scenarios that could come out of Florida, not just for Rudy, but for the Republican field. Since I suck at predictions, I won't tell you which I think is most likely. You'll just have to guess.

• Under scenario #1, Rudy wins the Florida primary. The momentum carries him all the way to the Convention. Alternatively, there is no momentum and he fizzles on Super Tuesday, leaving Mitt or John at the top of the delegate count.
• Under scenario #2, Mitt takes it. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for the rest of the field; If Mitt takes Florida, he probably takes Super Tuesday as well.
• Under scenario #3, Huck makes a comeback. We have a 3-way race, maybe decided on Super Tuesday, maybe later. Maybe third round of balloting at the Convention.
• Under scenario #4, John picks it up. It's a 2-man race, with Mitt in the lead. John could easily pass Mitt on Super Tuesday.
• Under scenario #5, Fred Thompson remembers who the hell Terry Schaivo was, makes a Santa Clause/Superman tour of the state and wins it as the "hands down" candidate.

Sorry, couldn't help it. I had to put something light in there. No way Huck's coming back. Some things just ain't possible.

McCain is NOT going to win. Not even against Hillary.

Frank Rich thinks that the combination of Hillary Clinton on the Dem ticket and John McCain on the Republican ticket means a Republican victory.

Respectfully, I must disagree with Mr. Rich. Or maybe not respectfully, we'll see how it goes. Depends on whether he starts to behave himself or not. If not, I might suggest he go back to reviewing Broadway plays. Poorly.

At any rate, Frank Rich has got to realize something: the people that want to see John McCain as the Republican candidate, primarily, aren't Republicans. They are Independents and crossover Dems. They're people like Frank Rich who have the good sense to be tired of the Clintons. But, most Republicans would rather have another candidate. Practically any other candidate.

You see, the buzz about McCain, like it was in 2000, proves something about Republicans: we aren't willing to nominate someone just because the media thinks that they could be electable. If you don't believe me, I've got two words for you: Bob Dole. The media never thought Dole was electable (he wasn't) but we put him out there anyways.

The thing is this: with the exception of defense, John McCain offers nothing different from what any of the Dems are offering. Independents and crossover Dems will vote for McCain in the primary, because 1) they have no scruples, and 2) because they know that, regardless of which Democrat is nominated, they are probably going to be OK.

McCain vs. Hillary, or McCain vs. any Dem, is a loss for McCain, no matter how you slice it. You see, he isn't going to win in a general election because those Independents and crossover Dems aren't going to vote McCain in the general; they're voting Democratic. Add to this the fact that the Republican base is not going to get any more fired up about McCain than it got for Bob Dole, and you've got a solid Dem victory.

Yeah, Romney, Giuliani and Huck all have their problems in terms of electability. Fact is, so did Reagan. We need to be less concerned about electability, and more concerned about ideas and competence. If we put forward the candidate that has the best ideas for America, and that is competent to implement them, we've got a shot at winning.

Three-Ways aren't always good

Just a quick update from South Carolina:

Looks like McCain will narrowly take it over a close second Huck. Looks like we forgot about the 25% of voters in South Carolina that are veterans, as it seemed they tracked extremely high for McCain.

While I'm here, let me say this: I thank John McCain for his service. America owes him a great debt that we can only repay by insuring future generations of Americans grasp the freedom for which he was imprisoned.

Having said that, the fact remains that, while a veteran may be emotionally connected to McCain, it doesn't mean he'd be a good president. It's not that much different than a woman who votes for Hillary, or an African American who votes for Obama. Being able to relate to a candidate does not qualify them, and voting on that basis is plain foolish.

Aw hell, at least Rudy's way down at the bottom. Still, I'd prefer him to McCain. And Mitt may actually be in trouble here if he can't make some deeper progress in the other southern states.

Goodnight, Fred, we hardly knew ye. If you'd have run 200 years ago, you'd have won in a landslide.

Well, I suppose that's it, then.

Fred managed to hit higher than Rudy, but lower than Ron.

The big surprise yesterday, for me, was the Mitt victory over John McCain. Let me tell you why I was certain McCain would win.

• In 2000, when McCain was running a primary campaign against George W. Bush, he won Michigan handily, thanks to folks like my democrat boss who really liked the guy. I assumed that would carry him.
• McCain's campaign actively sought independent and even Democrat voters in the Michigan primary (a move, by the way, which pisses me off to no end; MY party, not yours. I don't pretend to be a Democrat, you shouldn't pretend to be a Republican.)
• My precinct is around 10-1 in Democratic favor. Yesterday, at least from the pages I could see, at least 3 Republican ballots were passed out for every 1 Democrat ballot. Even if the Dems stayed home, that's just shenanigans.

Fortunately, my precinct wasn't especially representative of the state. Mitt, my #2 man trounced McCain handily, and is creeping closer to the magic number of 1,191..

Unless Fred can turn it around in SC, or Rudy in FL, it is looking like Romney will be the Republican candidate. There is a scenario in which McCain places 3rd in Florida and then makes a big bang on Super Tuesday, but even if that happens it is likely that the delegate count will be close come July. Same thing if Huck handily wins SC, and then begins to carry the rest of the South. Still, things are looking good for Mitt right now.

The Michigan Republican Primary, Continued

OK, so, moving on...

John McCain. What do I think about John McCain? Well, he'd probably do all right in the War on Terror. Border security is a wishy-washy issue for McCain, having supported the failed immigration bill. He calls himself, on his campaign web site, a "leader on the issue of global warming," which is, of course, not a good thing. He seems to be OK on taxes, but less so on government regulations. McCain-Feingold, of course, best exemplifies this. His work with Kennedy on education falls into that category, too. He's generally OK on social issues, but has the whole federal marriage legislation thing going on.

My big beef with McCain, however, has been this maverick-centrist image he's tried to create over the years. It pissed me off in 2000 why my boss at the time, a staunch democrat, decided to vote in the Republican primary for McCain. She liked what he had done, and what he had to say. Fact is, unless the Dems had run someone really off the wall, she'd have voted for the Dem in the general election anyways. I always felt like McCain enticed "independents" to interfere with the Republican primary process, which just isn't the way it ought to be. The Republicans ought to be able to pick their own guy. By targeting independents, McCain corrupted the process. He did it again in New Hampshire, and if he wins Michigan, it will be the independents that did it for him.

Those are plenty of reasons not to vote for McCain in the primary. Beyond that even, he just seems like a loose cannon that could go off at any moment. He feels like the Republican Howard Dean, in terms of personal stability. That all is perception and maybe even a result of media interpretation, and not the reason I am not voting for him, but I do have to admit it scares me.

Yabba Dabba (Friggin) Do!!!

My good friend Phil believes that, if there is a Republican who can beat out Hillary, it is Fred Thompson. He thinks that Rudy's too moderate to energize the Republican base, and that Romney is still a moderate deep down as well, despite the rhetoric. McCain, well, he's just a couple deuces short of a full deck.

But Fred Thompson, more than anyone in the field, has a folksy, populist, Reagan-like appeal. Thompson presents well on TV, and Arthur Branch is embedded in many of our minds in the same way that "The Gipper" was in a former generation. Not only that, Thompson has the wherewithal to look Michael Moore in the eye, tell him he's nuts, and then blow a big puff of smoke in his face. That, my friends, is the testicular fortitude that a Republican presidential candidate needs to have.

Now, all of the big conservative radio guys have held off of a full endorsement of a particular candidate. My bet is that, as we get closer to this thing, that's going to change. Thompson is the kind of candidate that someone like a Sean Hannity or even a Rush Limbaugh can get behind, I believe.

Reagan said it once, "How can a president not be an actor?" I can see Fred saying that. Reagan also said, "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." I can see Fred saying that, too.

It is looking like Fred is finally going to declare, quite fittingly, on Independence Day. Let Freedom Ring!

Why the Dems want a timetable

Democrats want us out of Iraq. That's not news. A millitary withdrawal would make for the ultimate black eye on any administration. Just ask LBJ's ghost, he can tell you all about that.

But, this timetable thing is especially interesting. Hillary, of course, previously said that Bush shouldn't leave Iraq for his successor to clean up. That would mean, then, that we should be out of Iraq by January of 2009, right? Nope. The Democrat timetable for the pullout of Iraq is August, 2008. Why?

It is simple. The Dems don't want the war on terror to be an issue in the 2008 campaign. The fact of the matter is that, unless Lieberman decides to run for prez as a Dem, they don't have one candidate on the block that is strong on defense. And the Republicans are overflowing with them. And, while I don't personally like McCain because of his encroachment on free speech (which was initiated and executed by the Democrat Feingold, by the way), you damn well better believe I'd rather have him at the helm during war than Barry or Hillary.

The Democrats know it. Even if support for the war is at an all time low, none of their candidates can get elected if we've got troops deployed in an active conflict zone.

This is also, by the way, the same reason the Dems want to negotiate with a guy who denies the holocaust ever took place. God forbid that we should be in active conflict with Iran in August of '08, just three months before the presidential elections.

What the Liberal Media isn't Telling You - Part 1

Among other things...

Not everyone hates George W. Bush, especially not all Republicans.

DDT is not as dangerous as malaria.

Phil Gramm behind him.

Democrats pander to the evangelical block as much as Republicans.