Pending legislation by Clinton and Obama

If conservatives reject McCain in November, and we get Clinton and/or Obama instead, just what might we excpect? A look at current pending legislation sponsored by Clinton and Obama provides some clues, and it's not pretty:

Equal Rights Nonsense

Now that the excitement of Super Tuesday has passed, we should remember the kinds of policies and principles at stake. Exhibit A: three pieces of legislation pending in Congress that would dramatically increase the liability of private companies for alleged acts of employment discrimination.

The first would resurrect the discredited idea of "comparable worth." The second would add various sexual orientations to the classifications protected from employment discrimination. The third is a plaintiffs' bar wish list, aimed mostly at overturning cases it lost in the Supreme Court.

There are actually two versions of comparable worth legislation, the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. The former is co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama; the principal sponsor of the latter is Sen. Hillary Clinton (Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor). Both would push companies to set wages based not on supply and demand -- that is the free market -- but on some notion of social utility. The goal is to ensure that jobs performed mostly by men (say, truck drivers) are not paid more than those performed mostly by women (paralegals, perhaps).

President Ronald Reagan correctly called comparable worth "a cockamamie idea." A great lesson of economic theory, not to mention historical experience, is that government-set wages and prices not only curtail freedom, but lead to shortages, surpluses and market disruptions. [...]

Read the whole thing for all the horrific details. These are the same old and tired commie ideas that the Dems have pushed for in the past. Great for crippling employers, driving up costs, sending more jobs out of the country and damaging our economy, all in the name of social engineering and feel-goodism. Reality be damned.

They will bring "change" alright... the same way Jimmy Carter did, but probably even worse. If conservatives don't support McCain in November and we end up with all this crap forced on us, I will blame the anti-McCain conservatives as much as the Democrats; allowing it to happen is just as bad as legislating it.
     

Select Marsha Blackburn for Republican Veep

At least she ought to be seriously considered. Her name is being kicked around a lot, and she certainly would be a great choice in many ways:

Marsha Blackburn's Biography

Marsha Blackburn is an established, conservative, results-oriented legislator who solves problems. She was sent to the U.S. House of Representatives at the start of the 108th Congress where she was one of only a few newly-elected congressmen selected to serve as an assistant whip on the majority whip team and the first female in Tennessee elected in her own right to the US House.

Blackburn was elected State Senator in 1998, becoming the first woman to represent Tennessee's 23rd Senate District. While in the Tennessee Senate, Blackburn led a statewide grassroots campaign to defeat the proposed state income tax. Her frequent appearances on talk radio and positive mention in national publications like the Wall Street Journal made her a recognized national anti-tax and government reform advocate. She quickly earned a reputation for keeping her legislative focus on defending and expanding individual freedom and free enterprise.

Blackburn willingly accepts the responsibility of helping shape American fiscal policy as a member of the exclusive House Energy & Commerce Committee. For 208 years, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the oldest legislative standing committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, has served as the principal guide for the House in matters relating to the promotion of commerce and to the public’s health and marketplace interests.

Representing both a portion of metropolitan Nashville and the suburbs of Memphis, Blackburn has strong ties with some of the nation’s premier songwriters and performers. In 2003, Blackburn founded the Congressional Songwriters Caucus to give the nation’s creative community access to Capitol Hill. The caucus focuses on the protection of intellectual property and tax policy.

Blackburn was selected to serve as an Assistant Majority Whip in the 108th Congress and an Assistant Minority Whip for the 109th Congress. Whip Roy Blunt has recently selected Congressman Blackburn to serve as a Deputy Whip for the 110th Congress .

She has been named the Communications Chairman for the Republican Study Committee, a large group of fiscally conservative Republicans that make up a majority of Republicans in Congress . Blackburn was also named by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) as the Communications Chairman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which recruits and supports Republican candidates for the United States Congress .

A graduate of Mississippi State University and a small business owner, Blackburn has been actively involved in Tennessee grassroots politics and civic organizations for more than 25 years. Blackburn was born on June 6, 1952. Marsha and Chuck Blackburn have been married for thirty-two years. They have two children, Mary Morgan Ketchel, and Chad Blackburn.

Beauty, Brains, Experience and Competency. A winning combination! Marsha has also made some great comments about Hillery Clinton's complaints about being treated differently because she's a woman candidate.

You can look at some more potential Veeps here:

John McCain's Top 24 Potential Picks For Vice-President

[...]

Marsha Blackburn: The TN Congresswoman is attractive, has a superb personality, and has a 97% lifetime ACU rating. She would be a fantastic choice if McCain wanted to reach out to conservative voters and women voters at the same time. Of course, Blackburn has only been in office since 2002, but that still makes her more experienced than Barack Obama. How seriously McCain would look at Blackburn is hard to say, but at first glance, she would appear to be an excellent choice for Veep.

[...]

Jim DeMint: DeMint is relatively young, feisty, is a decent speaker, and is extremely well liked by conservatives. He would be a good choice to shore up McCain's right side. However, DeMint has yet to finish his first term in the Senate, which may keep him from getting serious consideration as Veep (He has already spent 3 terms in the House though).

[...]

Tim Pawlenty: Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota, which could be a key swing state in 2008. He's also relatively young, conservative, and endorsed McCain early on. You have to think that Pawlenty will be one of the candidates who gets a really hard look from McCain.

[...]

Have a look at the whole list. Who would you pick as the best Veep for McCain?
     

Europeans for McCain? A view from Portugal

As I reported earlier, most of the European's have Obamamania. But one wise liberal, center-right European in Portugal, João Marques de Almeida, sees John McCain as the ideal American Presidental choice. Read why:

McCain is the Best: Three Lessons from the American Race…

[...] There are four questions that from Europe’s perspective are fundamental: keeping troops in Iraq; preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; engaging in World Trade Organization talks to reinforce the global free trade system; reforming the trans-Atlantic alliance and reforming NATO in 2009. I'm not sure a Democratic president will endeavor to accomplish these four objectives like McCain would.

In addition to these reasons, there are three other reasons that lead me to look even enthusiastically to McCain’s candidacy. The first has to do with McCain’s character and personality. There are few things better than to see a free politician. When during the 2006 elections the majority of Republican leaders - including the other candidates (with the exception of Giuliani) - concealed or changed their opinions about Iraq, McCain maintained his position. He passed the big test: he was faithful to his convictions even when they were profoundly unpopular. He gave priority to what he considered to be the North American interest at the expense of his immediate political career. At the end of last year, he was almost finished. A month later, he's the heavy favorite to win the Republican primaries. This is the lesson of McCain.

Secondly, if McCain is elected president in November he could change the Republican Party. As with all great parties of bipartisan political systems, the Republicans are an alliance of various political and ideological families. The Bush presidencies reinforced the power and influence of religious conservatives. However his two election victories don't seem to have sparked a longer-term trend. Almost all the other winners of the Bush years, particularly the heirs to Reagan and the neoconservatives, stand by McCain. Ironically, in view of many European commentators, the neoconservatives could play a critical role in defeating religious conservatives at the heart of the Republican Party. Despite the complications of recent times, the Republicans seem to understand that ideological radicalization is the worst thing that can happen to a party that wants to win elections. This is lesson of the Republican Party.

Finally, the electorate seems ready to challenge a truth that has up to now been almost absolute: that in times of economic crisis, the economy decides elections. After the Michigan primary, Romney found his campaign theme: he would be the best qualified candidate to solve America's economic crisis. He accused his main rival of not understanding economics. But despite this, McCain won in South Carolina and Florida. And since it isn't expected that the economy will improve by the end of the primaries nor that by then the senator from Arizona will become an expert in finance, we can assume that this is a truth that has stopped being absolute. And thank goodness, since this "truth" is based on erroneous ideas.

It isn’t governments that solve economic crises, create jobs or increase economic growth. What we ask is that they don’t take decisions that undermine the economy. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The Republican party needs to be a "big tent" party. It needs to unite and become an effective and functional "alliance of various political and ideological families", all co-operating without any one faction dominating all the others, if it intends to win any elections. I think that's true no matter which side of the Atlantic you live on.
     

Are there three kinds of Republicans?

Jon Henke at the QandO blog seems to think so. He also has a look at some big discrepancies between the way some conservatives judge John McCain, as compared to recent conservative presidents. He also offers some explanations as to why this is so, in defiance of the facts. Here are some excerpts:

Republicans and McCain

[...] My fundamental problem with McCain comes down to his philosophical approach to government. While I, like Arnold Kling, am anxious for "someone with humility about what government can do in general and what a President can do in particular", John McCain is a Progressive Republican, from the Teddy Roosevelt branch of the Republican Party.

It seems to me that there are three main branches of the Republican Party...

• Teddy Roosevelt Republicans (Progressive Republicans) - "The object of government is the welfare of the people," (Teddy Roosevelt) so Great Men must sometimes do Big Things.


• Goldwater Republicans - Limited government, Individual liberty, Strong defense; "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." (Goldwater]


• Bush Republicans - Big Government is fine, so long as the government does social conservative things. "Prayers can help, and so can the government." - President Bush, February 6, 2008

A Progressive Republican like John McCain is better than a Bush Republican, but it is not the Goldwater Republican for which I hope. Still, with very few Goldwater Republicans around and with the potential for Democrats to consolidate control of the government, it's better than the available alternatives.

[...]

McCain is perceived as an almost wholly unacceptable Republican (primarily) for his positions on immigration and campaign finance reform, with additional anger directed at him over a few other issues. Yet, President Bush presided over/supported, e.g., No Child Left Behind, the immigration reform bill, McCain-Feingold, the Medicare Drug Bill, a massive expansion of federal spending, egregious agriculture and energy bills, a badly conceived and conducted war in Iraq, and myriad other anti-limited government positions. And he did most of that with a Republican Congress.

Bush is worse in almost every respect - having actively introduced and supported outrageous violations of the putative ideals of the Right - but he is not regarded with the same anger. Why?

What's more, Reagan raised taxes 6 out of his 8 years as President; Reagan maintained diplomatic relations with even our worst enemies, including negotiation and compromise when it was useful; Reagan voted for immigration amnesty; Reagan failed to restrain the growth of government, etc. But today, the Right lionizes Reagan and revolts over McCain.

I have a theory for why this is so. [...]

Indeed he does! It's enough to make you want to scream "Gosh people, WAKE UP and smell the coffee! Look at the facts, they are a matter of public record, not imagination. And as to the why... well I'd love to say more, but I can't excerpt the whole thing here, so do follow the link over there and read the entire article, it's real food for thought. It addresses some thoughts I know that I've been having about some Republican's objections to McCain. These things need to be looked at and examined thoroughly, if we are to ultimately unite our party and WIN.


Related Link:

A riff on "redefining conservatism"
     

John McCain and the Veep Question

I'm skeptical about polls, especially in absolute terms, although they often show which way the wind is blowing. Someone named Frank Newport at Gallup.com is claiming that Huckabee has the support of as many as 1/4 of Republicans nationally:

Gallup Daily: Tracking Election 2008
Based on daily polling conducted Feb. 8-10, 2008

[...] We will know more after the results of Tuesday's voting have filtered down to Republicans nationally, but several things are clear at this point from the Gallup Poll Daily tracking of Republicans' preferences. McCain is holding on to the support of more than half of Republicans nationally and maintains a lead of more than 30 percentage points above his nearest competitor. But, despite widespread discussion of McCain's status as the presumptive GOP nominee this year, the rise in support for him after Mitt Romney dropped out on Feb. 7 has essentially stalled -- at least for the moment. Despite Huckabee's slim mathematical chances of receiving enough delegates to win the Republican nomination, he has been able to hold on to the support of about a quarter of Republicans nationally. -- Frank Newport

I'd like to know exactly where he got that figure from, before I'd believe it. I admit I don't WANT to believe it. If Huckabee were chosen as veep, I think it would further alienate much of the conservative base who are already balking at McCain. Yet if they continue to balk, he may have to consider other options... might Huckabee be one of them? Lets hope not.

The Veep question is one that's on a lot of people's minds. Lisa Schiffren at NRO has a look at some of the possibilities available for John McCain, and weighs their strengths and weaknesses:

McCain’s Veep
The right No. 2 could help John McCain.

Because he is not the first choice of the conservative base, and enthusiasm for his candidacy is, to say the least, weak, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain should use the occasion of choosing his running mate to show us he cares. Instead of the verbal bouquets he’s begun tossing, the ideal Valentine should be something more solid — like picking a real conservative to round out his ticket. In the interests of balance, his running mate should not only be a staunch conservative: he or she should be younger; be more ideas-driven; boast an executive record; and — ideally — have the capacity to carry a major swing state or region. This year, race and gender could also be factors to consider.

What’s good for the GOP ticket today is good for America tomorrow. A running mate who performs well either becomes vice president — a job in which he or she may influence the administration considerably — or, if the ticket loses, becomes the presumptive candidate in 2012. [...]

She asked readers of NRO's The Corner to make suggestions, and it's those suggestions that she examines. There were too many interesting men and women to list them all here - I suggest following the link to have a look.
     

McCain and Gallup polls as of Feb. 7-9

Gallup Daily: Tracking Election 2008

Based on daily polling conducted Feb. 7-9, 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- The Gallup Poll Daily election tracking results show John McCain with 57% of Republican preferences, and Mike Huckabee with 23%. These latest nationwide results from Feb. 7-9 polling among Republicans are based on the first three-day rolling average in which Mitt Romney no longer was listed as a candidate on any of the three days of interviewing.


Romney's vote has now been totally redistributed, and it is clear that McCain has been the beneficiary. Looking back, the Feb. 4-6 rolling average -- the last that included three days of polling before Romney's announcement that he was leaving the race -- showed Romney with 26% of the vote, McCain with 40%, and Huckabee with 21%. Now, with Romney's total down to 0%, McCain has picked up 17 points while Huckabee has gained only 2 points. The rest of Romney's vote went to "other," "don't know," Ron Paul (up 2 points), and Alan Keyes (up 1 point).

Since the close of Gallup polling on Saturday, Huckabee has received favorable press coverage for his good showing in Saturday's GOP voting -- winning Kansas and Louisiana and coming very close to McCain in Washington. Whether this gives Huckabee a bounce in national Republican preferences (including independents who lean Republican) will begin to be answered in Sunday's interviewing and reflected in Monday's report. [...]

     

Re-entry Dilemmas; the Orion Capsule and SS2

What is the best way for a spacecraft to safely return to earth? Here is a look at two very different spacecraft, and the decisions they face:

Water vs. Land: NASA Weighs Landing Options for Orion Spacecraft

[...] NASA expects to decide sometime in 2008 whether the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the agency's space shuttle replacement, will typically splash down off the California coast or touch down on dry land when it returns from space.

Time is of the essence because the choice will determine a number of other design decisions that need to be made between now and a scheduled review in September, NASA officials say.

It is a decision NASA officials have likened to choosing the shape of the space shuttle's wings or the International Space Station's orbit. As might be expected in cases where the long-term consequences of a decision are not always obvious, NASA is not of one mind on the Orion landing question. [...]

There are so many variables to consider. If they choose land landings, they can reuse the capsules 10 or 15 times. If they land in the water, the salt water ruins the capsule - depending how long it's in the water.



But if they land on land, they need airbags, and that adds a lot of extra weight, and they have to eject the heat shield before the airbags can deploy. The extra weight is controversial:

[...] "That's a pretty big amount in terms of the mass challenge that the Orion team was facing last summer," Hanley said. "That 1,500 pounds represents quite a bit of the amount that they were trying to burn down."

No panacea

Land-landing advocates inside NASA argue that the added weight is worth it if it means the difference between using each Orion capsule up to 10 times instead of throwing it away after every mission. By treating Orion as expendable, they argue, NASA could find itself spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually keeping production lines open. That money, they say, would be better spent establishing a robust presence on the moon.

"It's the difference between going to the moon to stay and making one two-week trip a year," one such advocate said.

Gilbrech said the Constellation Program is being asked to assess the long-term cost implications of a water- versus a land-landing scheme. A key factor in the analysis is the cost of maintaining a permanent Orion production capability versus building enough vehicles and spares to last 30 years and then shutting down the assembly lines. [...]

And that's not all. There are so many variables to consider, and it has to be decided soon. Once they decide, they are stuck with it, so lets hope they make the best choice. The designs keep changing too:


I like the idea of a reusable spacecraft, on the face of it you would think it would be cheaper than building new each time, but I suppose a detailed cost analysis will have to be done. What a thing to have to make a quick decision about!


Meanwhile, Virgin Galactic is working on it's own commercial space flight offering, Space Ship Two (SS2). It doesn't have the same re-entry issues, because it doesn't go into full and complete orbit. It's re-entry is more similar to an airplane or the space shuttle.

There is an aspect of SS2's re-entry that is a bit scary. It's the folding wings:

Virgin unveils spaceship designs

[...] When SpaceShipTwo reaches the top of its climb, it "feathers" its wings. This configuration gives the spaceliner stability as it begins to fall back through the upper atmosphere.

[...]

The rocket spaceliner will carry two pilot astronauts and six ticketed passengers. They will fly initially from a new facility called Spaceport America in the New Mexico desert.

The journeys will last about two-and-a-half hours from beginning to end.

Eight individuals will be aboard each flight

Passengers on SS2 will climb to an altitude of 110km, from where they will get to experience weightlessness for a few minutes, and see the curvature of the Earth and the black of space. [...]

That's fine, but when it's time to return, what happens if one of those folding wings gets stuck? Ok, they don't call them folding wings, they call them "pivoting" wings, but it's still moving parts. If something gets jammed, you can't fix it up there.

Just consider that it's "1920's safe":

Virgin Galactic unveils SpaceShipTwo; Plans open architecture spaceship

[...] The configuration is designed to reenter the atmosphere at any angle. “This vehicle is designed to go into the atmosphere in the worst case straight in or upside down and it’ll correct. This is designed to be at least as safe as the early airliners in the 1920s,” said Rutan. Later in the press conference, Rutan was asked to clarify that 1920s comment. He said: “Don’t believe anyone that tells you that the safety will be the same as a modern airliner, which has been around for 70 years.” Rutan also noted that SpaceShipTwo will have to be 100 times more safe than government space travel. [...]

Ida know, I might just wait for the Orion Space Clipper after all...

Or maybe I'll just stick to being an Armchair Astronaut.


Related Link:

NASA goes Back to the Future
     

Endorsments of McCain shift some opinions

When John McCain became the front runner for Republicans on Super Tuesday, radio commentator and author Tammy Bruce claimed that he was just "Hillery in drag", and has been vehemently against his nomination. But cracks are showing in her rigid stance on that position:

My Hero John Bolton Endorses McCain

[...] I respect Bolton, in fact, more than anyone else on the public/political scene. I do not question his judgment. At all. I also, as I think all of us do, think very highly of Ted Olson. I was thrilled when he threw his support to Giuliani, then was extremely disappointed when he endorsed McCain. I decided it exposed a side of Olson that was not to be trusted. Now, with the Bolton endorsement I feel compelled to rethink my assessment of Olson.

I am not the only one who needs to ratchet up my self-reflection on the McCain issue. You Fredheads have no doubt been dealing with your guy's endorsement of McCain as well. Perhaps most of you would prefer to not be exposed to my wrestling with our issue, but I think it's only fair to let you know where I'm at in this process. I know I'm not the only one struggling.

Perhaps my process will help some of you who are as frustrated as I am by the whole situation. We also must remember this is only February. We also must see what McCain does with his Veep choice.

As I reflect on what to do, I do realize that someone like Ted Olson is more likely to be nominated by McCain for the Supreme Court, than by Hillary. But we also saw what a hostile congress can do to any nomination, the Bolton UN nom being the prime example. It's choices like that which do make a difference.

I also trust John Bolton. This is a guy who we can trust to make statements and recommendations based on what he truly thinks is best for our country, especially in dealing with the international tyrants the Bush admin has allowed to prosper. Bolton is not a man who endorses someone out of 'compromise.' He doesn't have to.

I know the comments here and ensuing discussions help me get a sense of what independent conservatives think on this issue. Please chime in here and let me, and everyone else, know what you think of all these developments. And remember--you don't have to decide today, or even next week, or next month for that matter. This is indeed only February. What ultimately matters is what you do in November. [...]

This is a big deal for her, as she has spoken out vociferously against McCain in the past. I'm glad she's at least willing to reconsider the whole situation. She correctly points out that November is a long way off, and we have time to consider and talk about it (as folks are in her comments thread) If you follow the link to her post, she has a video clip of John Bolton giving his endorsement, and talks about an email she got from Debra Burlingame. Lots of food for thought.


Related Links:

Larry Kudlow: The Case for McCain

Bennett on McCain
     

I support John McCain for President

My original choice was Fred Thompson; then it was Mitt Romney. But the process of elimination has removed them from the race, leaving only McCain and Huckabee.

I doubt that Huckabee the spoiler has any chance at all (nor should he). So now we have John McCain in the lead. He was my third choice, but he's the one we got now, and I support him. I say, "Third time lucky"!

I shall post the reasons for my support later, when I've got more time (in the meantime, be sure and check out VDH on McCain). Today, I signed up for a new blog roll:

Straight Talkin' Blogger's for McCain

It's now in my sidebar. I hope you will consider joining up, too. You may also consider visiting John's website, for the latest news from his campaign:

JohnMcCain.com


Related Links:

Fred endorses McCain

John Bolton Endorses McCain at CPAC
     

Will John McCain play nice with evangelicals?

I read that as many as 40% of evangelicals voted for Mike Huckabee in the primaries. I haven't been able to confirm that number, but it would seem that a significant number of evangelicals have split from what used to be called the Reagan Coalition. It seems they want something different from what past Republicans have offered them so far.

Much has been made of John McCain's uneasy relationship with religious conservatives. Some say that it makes it impossible for McCain to be a viable candidate for the Republican party. But what if McCain offers religious conservatives a New Deal?

McCain appeals to conservative critics

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer Wed Feb 6, 5:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain, more than halfway to his party's presidential nomination, told his conservative critics Wednesday to dial back their animosity and personally reached out to a leading Christian conservative.

"I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there's areas we can agree on," McCain said at a news conference in a Phoenix airport hangar before he flew here.

The Rev. Jonathan Falwell, son of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell who made the religious right a political force when he founded the Moral Majority in 1979, disclosed Wednesday that he had a telephone talk with McCain within the past 24 hours. Falwell, who succeeded his father as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchville, Va., said he wasn't ready to endorse a candidate but wanted to hear more from the Arizona senator on the issues.

"I look forward to seeing what McCain's plan is to unite the party," Falwell said, "and to see what he has to say in the coming days on the social agenda." He also expressed interest in hearing more from McCain on national security, the economy, Supreme Court nominees, and "how to protect human life and traditional marriage."

Falwell said McCain's call was the culmination of a couple months of contact he has had with McCain's staff.

McCain had a falling out with Christian conservatives during his 2000 presidential campaign when he called the elder Falwell and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." But McCain made up with the elder Falwell in 2006 and spoke to graduating seniors that year at Liberty University. The school was founded by the elder Falwell and is now run by Jerry Falwell Jr., who last November endorsed McCain's rival, Mike Huckabee, himself an ordained Baptist minister. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) So McCain kissed and made up with Jerry Falwell before he died, and now he's meeting with Falwell's son and heir, Jonathan. Jonathan's older brother, Jerry Falwell Jr., endorsed Mike Huckabee. Hmmmm...

I believe it's Jonathan on the left, and Jerry Jr. in the center.

Sounds like McCain has been planning this outreach for a while. It's interesting to note he's reaching out to the Falwells, one of whom is a Huckabee supporter. It's also interesting to note who he is NOT reaching out to:

[...] He said he has no plans to reach out personally to Limbaugh or Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, but emphasized: "Our message will be that we all share common principles, common conservative principles, and we should coalesce around those issues in which we are in agreement and I hope respectfully disagree on a few specific issues there's disagreement on."

He later told reporters aboard his campaign plane: "I'm aware there's a very fine line between inspiring in unity and pandering. You know, you've got to present it in the right way, of course."

The conservative critique of McCain escalated Tuesday when Dobson released a statement saying: "I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative, and in fact has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are." Conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter has said she'd vote and campaign for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton if McCain is the GOP nominee. Limbaugh has said a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican party. [...]

Destroy the Republican party? It sounds like McCain realizes the party is already split and floundering, and he's going to try to pull together a new coalition. But it will not be the Reagan Coalition. I think he recognizes the Huckabee evangelicals discontent, and their unwillingness to vote for Mitt Romney. At this point, he's not interested in reaching out to conservative critics like Limbaugh and Dobson, who were Romney supporters. Actually I don't know if Dobson supported Romney, but he sure didn't support McCain.

Interesting.

UPDATE 01-08-08
Dobson has officially endorsed Huckabee. From AP:

Christian Leader James Dobson Endorses Huckabee for GOP Nod

James Dobson, one of the nation’s most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, backed Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid Thursday night, giving the former Arkansas governor a long-sought endorsement as the Republican field narrowed to a two-man race. In a statement first obtained by The Associated Press, Dobson reiterated his declaration on Super Tuesday that he could not in good conscience vote for John McCain, the front-runner, because of concerns over the Arizona senator’s conservative credentials. [...]

Dobson is concerned about McCain's conservative credentials? But he apparently has no concerns about these credentials of Huckabee's:

Why Huckabee is NOT a good GOP candidate

Some of us can read, and we read more than just the Bible. Some of us understand what party politics is about, how it works and how and why we need to form alliances and work within the Republican party, so we can actually win elections and have a voice that matters. Smart evangelicals know and understand this.

Romney gave a very good speech at CPAC yesterday, explaining why he was stepping aside, for the good of America. Huckabee ISN'T stepping aside... for the good of himself.

John McCain is trying to form a new coalition and bring the party together. If Huckabee and his supporters like Dobson continue to divide the party, they may find they are no longer part of it. Perhaps that would not be a bad thing.
     

Back to reality... where to from here?

The Editors of National Review Online have published an editorial, I'm going to repeat the whole thing here, because it's short:

The Comeback . . . Adult

Mitt Romney is a smart and talented man who has run a vigorous campaign based mostly on conservative issues. He vows to keep fighting all the way to the convention. But he took third place in several Southern states on Super Tuesday, a dismal showing for someone attempting to rally conservatives. He has our support. But it is now up to him to identify a plausible path to the nomination.

Sen. John McCain’s amazing comeback is a testament to the power of perseverance, conviction, and luck. It has been good to see his strength on Iraq rewarded. For the Republican nomination to be worth his having, however, he needs to consolidate his support on the Right — ideally, before the fall.

Doing that will require ignoring some of the spin coming from his allies on immigration. They say that McCain’s victories prove that opposition to amnesty is a losing issue. Actually, the anti-amnesty candidates — including Mike Huckabee, who has been running as a deportationist — have gotten majorities in most states. Even in Florida, where strong Hispanic support gave McCain a decisive win, the anti-amnesty candidates got nearly half the vote. McCain’s success proves that Republican politicians can survive supporting amnesty if they have compensating strengths. It does not prove that the issue helped him. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in the upcoming issue of National Review, conservatives cannot reasonably ask McCain to abandon his convictions on immigration. But they can ask him to say that he will defer any action on amnesty, or guest workers, until a few years after enforcement has been put into effect.

Immigration reform is the policy issue that gives conservatives the most concern about McCain. But they worry as much about his priorities as his policies, so he will not be able to win their support merely by listing all of the topics on which he agrees with them. Aside from his opposition to pork-barrel spending, there is no domestic conservative cause that McCain has taken up. We believe that a President McCain would prefer to appoint conservative judges, for example. But would he fight for them or cut a deal with Pat Leahy? That is the fear that underlies the complaints about McCain’s membership in the Gang of 14.

He has not always taken the lead even on national-security issues. Republicans in Washington want to extend and reform an intelligence-collection law, but Democrats are balking, threatening an interruption in operations. McCain’s voice would be helpful here, if he chose to use it.

McCain can win over most conservatives, but their support is not his by right. They will rally to him if he demonstrates that he believes that a broad range of conservative policies are among the things that are, to quote the title of one of his books, worth the fighting for.

The calm voice of the editors of NRO, helping us keep our eye on ball and focused on where it is in the bigger picture. Thank You NRO.


From Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot:
Hugh: Put Humpty Dumpty Together Before St. Paul

[...] Hugh is a party man, and a conservative, and a guy who keeps his eye on the long term. (Like him, I never buy into arguments that you win later by losing now.) [...]

Whatever our disappointments presently, let's keep our eye on the long term. That means using with whatever we have now, and making it work.


I think it's safe now to say the Reagan Coalition is dead. If you MUST have a post-mortem, try this one:
Religion and the death rattle of the GOP?

[...] So the South thinks it voted for a real conservative by voting for the Huckster? As I've said many times before, scratch a southern Republican, and you'll find a big-government Dixiecrat which is what Huckabee is. The Goldwater/Reagan conversion of Dixiecrats to Republican was skin deep.

What has amazed me is the depth of anti-Mormonism in evangelicals (not all - I know many who are practical and sensible when it comes to politics.) I find this completely illogical given that all religion is personal and subjective but then I'm not a domineering, authoritarian, dogmatic control freak as some religionists seem to be.

As for California: this is the first time that they have had a say in the primaries. In the 25 years that I lived there, it was all over by the time we voted in May and many people didn't even bother to vote. So far it looks like McCain is ahead with 44% (still not the magical 51%) but we won't know till tomorrow for sure. If I were Mitt, I'd concede now and not spend another dime of my own money on ungrateful and self-centered Republicans.

I've said before I'll settle for McCain. He could win against the Clintons but maybe not against the feel-good Obamania sweeping the country. Maybe the blundits are right and Americans are sick of Republicans and their endless pontificating and moralizing. [...]

The Reagan Coalition may have worked in it's time, but that was then, this is now. Now we have to form a new Coalition if we can. That coalition will consist of the willing. I'm willing, are you?
     

Is the Romney Surge the Last Chance for Evangelicals and the "Reagan Coalition"?

Dee at Conservatism with Heart has a good post at her blog about why she if voting for Romney today:

Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday

[...] I will be honest and admit (as most of you are aware) that Romney was not my first choice. Yet, as I look at what is at stake in this November's election I think it is crucial that we pick the most conservative candidate for our nominee. I am a pretty loyal Republican and I like, probably 80% of our guys. Why we are somehow stuck with several candidates that are a part of the 20% is very frustrating, to say the least.

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that I have had HUGE issues with McCain for many years. The fact that he is now the possible nominee for our party is just beyond dis-heartening. It is like driving a stake through the heart of Reagan Conservatism. I cannot sit by silently while what so many of us have worked for is dismantled by someone as liberal as McCain. Therefore, it is expedient to support the one conservative left in this race, Mitt Romney. [...]

Dee is a conservative Christian, and I'm seeing more and more evangelicals rallying around Romney to oppose McCain. But will there be enough, and will it be in time? The polls keep showing McCain as far ahead. But the polls can be wrong; remember when the polls predicted that Hillery would lose New Hampshire? So I think it's more important to just vote, and see what the polls say later.

One of the links on Dee's post was about Huckabee as a spoiler. On that blog (Article VI Blog), I found an article by John Schroeder that was quite interesting, about the evangelical vote, conservatism and the Republican party, and how the evangelicals are about to lose their political voice, if they don't rally around Mitt Romney NOW. Here are some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

What Is At Stake

[...] When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

[...]

There is much discussion in this cycle by evangelicals of feeling like they are “taken for granted” by the Republican establishment. There is some truth to that, but there are two vitally important points I want to make.

The first point is - grow up. It is politics, not church. This is not about making friends and feeling good about yourself. It is about gathering enough support, meaning people, to your particular cause, concern, or issue. That is definitionally about “using” people. Once you have secured someone’s support, you have to move on to the next someone. Is that taking you for granted? In a way, it is, but no more so than your employer that fits you in a spot on the assembly line. And if you quit your job because you think your employer takes you for granted, all you really lose is a paycheck. Best have someplace else to go before you make that move, I don’t care how “hurt” you “feel.”

A brief personal aside on this point. Through the course of things it has been my privilege to meet Mitt Romney on multiple occasions. I have had extensive and personal conversations with some of his family. Over the years, I have met presidents of this country in intimate settings, and I have met presidents and potentates of many other nations. Almost all of these people have referred to me as their “friend.” When I was young, I thought that meant we were going to start hanging out and having beers together - yeah, right. But when Mitt Romney called me his friend, I knew that if time allowed, there might not be beer involved, but we could enjoy some conviviality. Simply put, the man is as genuine in his connection to the people he meets as the circumstances can possibly allow - more so than any individual of such position, and higher, that I have ever met. I can assure you, Evangelicals could never be “taken for granted” by Mitt Romney. They might get less attention than they think they deserve, but that is their problem, not his.

The second point is a far more important one. Party politics is how you get things done in this nation. In those rare instances where independents manage to get themselves elected, they are relegated to the role “the speech everyone sits through politely” or the “class clown” a la Jesse Ventura. Accomplishing things in government requires rounding up enough of the right people - yeah, it’s social networking. Political parties are the infrastructure necessary to build that network.

Political parties thrive on loyalty. If they cannot, at least from time-to-time, take you for granted, they have to move on to people and groups that they can depend on so that they can accomplish their goals. It is a simple exchange. You give the party your dependable loyalty and in return they give you the means necessary to make your voice heard.

[...]

As things have turned out, Evangelicals have not refused, so much, to vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon, they have instead chosen to vote for Mike Huckabee because he is “one of us.” How much a role suspicion and bias against Mormonism has played in that somewhat more positive-appearing choice is a determination that will ultimately be up to pollsters and psychologists in the years after the election to determine. And while it may not be “bigotry” it is identity politics, and they are as suicidal as pure bigotry.

No identity group is sufficiently large to carry a presidential election. A coalition is required. What Mike Huckabee has done is peel off one section of the traditional conservative coalition, Evangelicals, and claimed it for himself. With the coalition split, neither Evangelicals or the greater conservative coalition can win.

The presidential candidate for a party leads that party. That leader is going to pay attention to and drive the agenda of the coalition that got him there. Not only are Evangelicals not part of the coalition that has gotten John McCain this far, McCain has in the past loudly and actively found Evangelicals distasteful. [...]

He goes on to describe the consequences of evangelicals leaving the coalition, the consequences for both evangelicals and the conservative movement as a whole, and Huckabee's terrible role in bringing this about. Huck is promising evangelicals something he can't deliver, and following him will lead to political suicide.

It's a well thought out article, and worth reading the whole thing, I think there is a lot of wisdom in it.

I'm not an evangelical, nor are all their concerns my own. But I do acknowledge that they have been vital in the past for holding the "Reagan Coalition" together. If enough of them pull out of that coalition now, it will collapse, and a new coalition will form without them. John McCain's candidacy is just the first sign of things to come. If you are unhappy about it, you can thank Mike Huckabee and his followers for that. If it's going to be turned around, it needs to be done soon.
     

The Romney Surge is Beginning...

At least I think so. Romney is gaining support, and isn't giving up:

Romney Expects to Fight on Past Tuesday

Despite John McCain's building political momentum, Mitt Romney said Saturday he does not expect the Republican presidential nomination to be settled during the coming week and he is planning to continue campaigning beyond Super Tuesday.

The former Massachusetts governor said the number of states up for grabs, his prospects of succeeding in some of the 20-plus GOP contests that day, as well as a growing concern within the Republican Party about conferring the nomination on McCain give him reason to fight on.

[...]

During a news conference late in Minneapolis, Romney celebrated a caucus victory Saturday in Maine, noting that it came despite McCain's backing by the two U.S. senators in Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

"This is a people's victory," Romney said. "It is, in my view, also an indication that conservative change is something that the American people want to see. I think you're going to see a growing movement across this country to get behind my candidacy and to propel this candidacy forward. I think it's a harbinger of what you're going to see on Tuesday."

[...]

Romney also said his campaign has seen an uptick in donations - $345,000 in one day last week versus a typical daily take of $50,000 - as the race has crystallized into a two-man contest between him and McCain.

Two other candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have lagged in national public opinion surveys and the GOP delegate count.

"I think one of the dynamics that changed is that conservative Republican and mainstream Republicans, all over the country, in the last 48 hours or so, have concentrated on the prospect of Senator McCain being our nominee and are saying, 'That's not the direction we want to go,'" Romney said. [...]

Good! If Super Tuesday doesn't decide it, he will keep going and may yet make it to the White House, as splintered parts of the Republican party now unite to rally around him.

Win Mitt Win!!!

Related Link: Good News For The Romney Camp?
     

Romney or McCain? Or the alternative...

I came across this article from the New York Observer (Oct. 22nd 2007), that claims McCain dislikes Romney, for the following reason:

What Mitt Romney Doesn't Need: A Furious John McCain

If John McCain thinks he deserved just a little better from Mitt Romney, well, it’s pretty understandable.

Five years ago, Mr. Romney’s political career was on the line. Just a week before the 2002 election, he found himself one point behind in the race for governor of Massachusetts, and his Democratic foe was about to receive some high-profile campaign assistance from Hillary Clinton.

And so Mr. Romney called in his secret weapon: Mr. McCain, who in those bygone days was the most popular national political figure in Massachusetts, where he scored a 65-11 percent favorable rating in a fall 2002 poll.

As the cameras rolled, Mr. Romney paid tribute to Mr. McCain’s “straight talk.”

"That's the kind of leadership we need in Massachusetts—not a curved talker,” he said, taking a shot at his gubernatorial rival. Mr. McCain also lent his voice to automated phone calls that flooded Massachusetts, and Mr. Romney pulled out a last-minute victory.

But now Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney are running against each other for the presidential nomination, and it’s Mr. McCain who’s calling Mr. Romney the curved talker. His exasperation has begun to boil over. In Sunday night’s debate in Orlando, Mr. McCain reacted harshly to Mr. Romney’s suggestion that his rivals are less pure conservatives than he is. [...]

The article goes on to say that in 2005, Romney called McCain's immigration plan "reasonable", but later on when they began competing as rivals, Romney began calling it “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

You can read the rest for details, it's written by a McCain supporter I believe, so be warned. ;-) I haven't verified every detail, but it would explain a lot of things. It also touches on an accusation that has followed Mitt throughout his campaign: Flip-Flopping.

Most of these flip flopping accusations are about liberal positions Romney used to hold, which have been displaced by more conservative ones. Romney claims that with age and with his experiences as Governor, he has become more conservative as he has grown into an understanding and appreciation of the conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

Many would say this is plausible. Many say this is not flip flopping, to move from one position to another; it's only flip flopping if you move from position "A" to position "B" and then BACK to "A" again.

Mitt's detractors maintain that he pretended to be liberal to get elected as governor, and now uses conservatism to get elected as president. But his father, George Romney, was known as a moderate Republican, so many would say it is plausible he was really more liberal in his youth.

I for one can't read his mind. And even now, not all his positions would be considered conservative. While he may have become more conservative on some issues, I think of him as being overall more moderate than hard right. He has explained much of his reasoning about his positions quite clearly; some people believe him, some don't.

Neither McCain nor Romney is perfect, and I have some reservations about both of them, although I still favor Romney. I don't know which one will come out ahead in this. But whatever happens, my GUT instinct about all this is... vote for the Republican. Whichever one wins. Here is a good explanation as to why:

The GOP: what's good for business is good for America

[...] Voting for a Republican is a crap-shoot just like business - and life in general. You pick your cards and roll the dice and hope for the best - but you've made the effort to remember which cards have already been dealt and you make an educated guess.

Voting for a Democrat is not a crap-shoot. You know for sure that you're going to get more commie crap. So my educated guesses have nearly always led me to vote for Republicans. Yes, deep down inside, I have ideals and wish for politicians who understood the wisdom of the Founders' limited government Constitution but we've strayed so far off course over the centuries that just a modicum of Americanism satisfies me nowadays. [...]

That's it in a nut shell; the rest of Pat's post spells it out, and it's those very thoughts that have been nagging at the back of my mind in all of this primary political juggling. Reading it spelled out, it's like someone turned on the windshield wipers, and the view is clear once more. I can see the way forward; I'm going to vote for the Republican in November, hope for the best, and do what I can to make the best happen. That's bound to be better than the Democrats certain alternative. If you aren't certain, follow the link and see.
     

A split decision... who do you believe?

Forget the Presidential candidates, this is MUCH more important:


It's Groundhog Day! But It's a Split Decision

Punxsutawney Phil and Woody the Woodchuck have each issued their winter/spring predictions, and it's a split decision. Phil saw his shadow today which means we'll have more winter, but Woody didn't and predicts an early Spring. I will choose Woody's prediction because I like it better. Also, Woody is a girl, so her female intuition probably gives her an edge. See, wasn't that easy? Time, of course, will prove one of them right. [...]

Which one is Phil, and which one is Woody? Follow the link for more details.


     

Vote for Mitt Romney, stop McCain/Huckabee

Romney aims for a split in California

DENVER - Republican Mitt Romney is conceding the bulk of the Northeast to rival John McCain, counting instead on his home state of Massachusetts, a split in California and wins in a series of caucus states to extend his presidential campaign beyond Super Tuesday.

[...]

If he fails to capture enough delegates to offset McCain's likely wins in other states and strong showing in California, where the Arizona senator has the backing of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Romney could end his campaign in Boston on Wednesday.

During a news conference Friday outside a Ford dealership here, he passed up three opportunities to declare he would carry on if he fails to surpass McCain in the Super Tuesday voting.

"I really thought it would all be over, you know, early in January, and now we're going to go into February, and I just can't predict what will happen in February," he said, "so we'll see what happens."

This week the multimillionaire former venture capitalist authorized only a modest $3 million advertising buy, after committing $35 million of his own money last year in an effort to lock up the nomination early with back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

While Romney won in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada, McCain beat him in major head-to-head battles in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Huckabee prevailed in the leadoff Iowa caucuses. He has vowed to remain in the race, taking critical conservative support from Romney.

Currently, Romney trails McCain in delegates to the Republican National Convention, 83-59. A total of 1,191 are needed for the nomination.

Simple mathematics highlight the challenge confronting Romney. [...]

Read the entire article for all the details. I don't like the sound of this at all. Huckabee may take just enough votes away from Mitt to sink him. Where is Huckabee getting his money to continue on? He can't win, but can only drag Romney down.

The Mack and Huck Show

[...] Where is Tonya Harding when you need her? Huckabee should have been kneecapped back before South Carolina. He has no money to run ads in the 23 Tuesday states but just having his name on the ballot is going to steal votes from Mitt. If I were a conspiracy-minded person, I would say that Mack and Huck have done a private dirty deal to take votes away from Mitt.

That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If Mack picks Huck for VP, then it pretty much confirms my suspicions and I could not, in good conscience, bring myself to vote for them. I'd rather see them both in hell than in the White House. [...]

This is all like a nightmare to me. I won't get to vote until April, and if the MSM is right, it could all be decided on Feb. 5th. It stinks.

Tonya, where ARE you?
     

The world should be given the right to vote in American Elections to make "correct" choices

At least, that's what many of the European elites are saying. And of course when they say "the World", they really mean just themselves. From Soeren Kern at the Brussels Journal:

Obamania: What Europeans Are Saying About American Democracy

The outcome of the US presidential election will affect the lives of millions of people around the world. So it’s probably not surprising that many Europeans are resentful that only Americans will have a say in it. European media are saturated with election coverage that is heavily biased in favor of the Democrats. And, as in past elections, European elites are also demanding the right to help choose the next occupant of the White House. What follows is a brief survey of what some Europeans are saying about the American way of democracy.

An editorial in the Brussels-based, center-right De Standaard articulates a view shared by many Europeans: “American presidential elections are not ‘home affairs’. American decisions have repercussions all over the globe…. Hence, the world should be given the right to vote.”

This view is echoed by Simon Heffer in the London-based, conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph. A column titled ‘If Only We Could Vote for the Next US President’ argues that “Many Britons will feel it would be rather nice to have a vote, too. Well, maybe not a whole vote: I would settle for one worth 50 per cent of those cast by American citizens. After all, since we are a strategic colony of the US, it would be nice to have even a marginal say in how the empire chooses to dispose our goodwill and our blood and treasure.”

What European elites really seem to want is the right to “help” Americans choose the “correct” candidate. And if newspaper headlines are any indication, that person is, overwhelmingly, Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Indeed, across the continent, European elites are infatuated with Obama, who is now a cult figure. [...]

It goes on to give many examples of what Europe's Newspaper editorials are saying. It's not surprising the Europe's elites want to steal our elections, since they have already stolen the rights of voters in the European Union's member states. The European Constitution that was rejected by Europe's voters is now being called a "treaty" instead of a constitution, and is being implimented without a vote. From Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal:

Rise of the Tranzi-ists

By the end of this year, when Americans know who their 44th President is, Europeans will know who the first President of Europe will be.

[...]

Today’s EU’s governmental bodies – the European Commission and the European Council – are unelected; they are appointed by the national governments. As the British author John Laughland explains: “The EU is a cartel of governments, engaged in a permanent conspiracy against their own electorates and parliaments.” The EU gives the 27 government leaders wide-ranging law-making powers. In other words: it allows the executive powers to usurp the legislative powers.

Today, up to three quarters of all legislation in the 27 EU countries already emanates from the commission and the council in Brussels. The national parliaments are obliged to rubber-stamp these decisions. The reform treaty – or the constitution that dares not speak its name – will formally subordinate Europe’s 27 national parliaments to the union, while the latter will also receive self-empowerment powers.

The new EU will act as a state in its relations with its citizens and other states. It will have a common diplomatic corps, a common foreign minister, a common president. Unlike the American president, however, the European peoples have no say in deciding who their president is going to be. The first president of Europe, who will assume powers next year, will be appointed next fall by the 27 leaders of the member states’ governments. It looks as if the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has the best chances of becoming Europe’s president. [...]

It goes on to describe how Tony Blair, just days before resigning as Briton's Prime Minister, signed away a number of the rights that Margaret Thatcher had secured for Britain in the 1980s.

Read the whole thing for all the horrific details. I don't know which is more sickening; what they are doing, or the fact that so many people in the USA think Europe is the best example of what WE should be doing too.
     

John McCain: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

If you try to look at McCain as the presidential candidate, from an objective viewpoint, what might you see? Pat's done that from two different articles he's taken excerpts from, to give us a peek at the Good, the Bad and the Ugly we might see from a McCain Presidency:

More lemonade out of lemons

[...] Reading this made me realize what my basic problem with McCain is: he's a neoconservative not a traditional conservative. He believes that citizens are subservient to the state; that we are all duty-bound to toil in the cause of "National Greatness." In other words: he believes that government is the solution not the problem and has not understood the anti-statist, individualistic core principles of the American Revolution. If McCain were omnipotent, he would soon have us all in uniforms marching to his ideas of "National Greatness."

Fortunately that can't happen in the US and the worst that can happen under President McCain is that he will compromise too much with the left because of his belief in government-led social engineering.

I will continue to fight for Mitt (who, unlike McCain, has grasped the core principles of American individualism and does not see us citizens as potential drones in a "National Greatness" beehive.) But whoever the nominee is, I will back the winner. [...]

Read the whole thing for the Good, Bad and Ugly excerpts which he is commenting on, and more.

It's too early in the primaries to say if John McCain is the new face of the Republican party. We have to hear from more states, which we will on Super Tuesday.

The Reagan Coalition, in whatever form it still exists, may have been splintered between the many candidates. Now that the field has narrowed, they may rally around Romney to appose McCain. But that's not a sure thing.

What about states southern states like South Carolina, where some people say more liberal north-easterners have been moving in and dominating the local GOP chapters, outnumbering the more conservative local Republicans? Are there enough Reagan conservatives left to carry these states for the Coalition, or will they support John McCain?

We shall see on Super Tuesday, which way the wind is blowing.
     

The state of the Reagan Coalition, as it is today

I've done two other posts, linking to articles that question whether the Reagan Coalition is as influential as it once was, or if it's even still the Republican base.

I think the questions are important. But to be clear, I'm not saying the Reagan Coalition is DEAD. But if we end up with McCain as our candidate, then clearly something has changed or gone terribly wrong. The situation we find ourselves in could possibly be explained thus:

1.) The coalition may be smaller; it's eldest members have certainly passed on, as has President Reagan himself. Have many new members of like mind replaced them? If not, then the coalition would be smaller, and therefor less influential.

2.) A coalition needs a leader to unite them as one political force. The coalition has not rallied around any of the candidates. It has, in fact, been split.

A segment of evangelicals has gone for Huckabee. These folks were once Democrats, and like big government. They are reverting back to their roots, and Huckabee has split them away from the coalition.

Giuliani and McCain may have split away many of the National Security member's of the coalition. The Fiscal conservatives drafted Fred Thompson into the race, but he entered so late that many potential supporters had already committed themselves elsewhere; his campaign staff was too small and couldn't cope quickly enough to build the support he needed.

The coalition has been fractured and scattered; now we find ourselves looking at John McCain as the potential front runner. I say "potential" because the primaries are hardly over yet; the MSM may be pushing him as having already won, but that's typical of them, trying to create the news instead of reporting it.

The coalition, however fractured and reduced it may be, it's members, however scattered about they have been, still have a chance to regroup. I see that they have two choices left:

1.) Rally around and support Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday February 5th. He is really the only alternative to McCain right now. He may not be your ideal candidate, but in politics we often don't get our ideal; we get reality. We vote for the best person AVAILABLE, and we work to make the most of it.

2.) Vote for McCain, and take the consequences. You might get a few things you want... if he can even win. The MSM wants him to be nominated, because they know he's unpopular with the base. Once he gets the nomination, I have no doubt the MSM will turn on him, play up the aspects about him that Republican's hate, play that tape of him ranting like a lunatic about lettuce and lazy Americans... you get the idea?

If Mitt gets the Nomination, he will also be given a very hard time. Either way, it's going to be a tough battle. But I believe that Mitt Romney is the best candidate, not necessarily the perfect one, but the best one available. He has many fine qualities, and should be given serious consideration. The left absolutely despises him, for reasons that conservatives would love. Even conservative Democrats. Yes, remember, conservative Democrats were always a part of the Reagan coalition too.

Now that the many candidates that have distracted and splintered the coalition have been narrowed down, we have an opportunity to unite again. The coalition may have changed; times change, the players change, but certain conservative truths don't change, and that is what unites the coalition. So let's not sweat the details too much, and unite and pick the BEST candidate on Super Tuesday.

I feel that candidate is Mitt. If it turns out to be McCain, I'll deal with it if and when I must. But I live in Oregon; our primary won't be until April. Those of you who get to vote in Super Tuesday have a chance to reunite the coalition, in whatever shape it might be today. I hope you will. It's up to you.


Related Links:

Is Romney appealing to a conservative coalition that no longer controls the GOP?

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

The early primaries are the problem
     

Is Romney appealing to a conservative coalition that no longer controls the GOP?

Michael Scherer asks that very question:

Is Romney Fighting the Last War?

From the start, Mitt Romney had a clear strategy for winning the White House. He would run as the candidate of the ideological establishment, the Republican old-guard, the coalition of Ronald Reagan, with that three-legged stool of social, fiscal and national security conservatism. He would become the inside man in a presidential field filled with outsiders.

[...]

And yet, his candidacy sputtered. His narrow loss Tuesday to John McCain in Florida was just the latest in a series of disappointments that began in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where he had outspent his rivals and once led in the polls. His failures have many causes, which will be raked over by historians. But they also suggest a broader shift: Romney may be running to lead a Republican Party that no longer exists.

As has become increasingly clear, the ideological coalition Romney so eagerly courted no longer controls the fate of the GOP, at least in the early voting states - which have favored Mike Huckabee, a populist who trumpets the occasional role of larger government, and John McCain, a legislative maverick who does not always play by the Republican rulebook. Romney tried to run as the establishment candidate, only to find that the establishment no longer held the power. [...]

The article goes on to talk about some of the new strategies the Romney camp plans to move forward from here.

I think it is quite possible he's been appealing to a coalition that either no longer exists, or is smaller, weaker or otherwise changed from what it once was. The Reagan Coalition was formed almost 30 years ago. Many of it's members, like president Reagan himself, have passed on. Times have changed.

The best winning strategy that Mitt can use right now is, IMO, to just be himself, and not try to fit into a conservative straight jacket. He won't be conservative enough for the extreme right, but how likely is he to get their votes anyway? He has potential appeal to a lot of more moderate conservatives, including conservative Democrats. He should use this to his advantage, rather than play it down.


UPDATE 01-31-08
I just want to state that I'm not saying the coalition is dead, but I am trying to understand what has happened to bring us where we are now, so we can understand what needs to be done next. I elaborate more on that here:

The state of the Reagan Coalition, as it is today


Related Links:

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

Hope!!