comMITTed to Romney!

I’m back!

Hey there folks. Sorry for the long absence, but I take a while to get over disappointment like having the most qualified presidential candidate narrowly lose in the primaries, due in large part to religious bias. Little stuff like that bothers me. Another examplie is that it took me months to get over the defeat of my San Francisco Giants to the Anaheim Angels in the 2001 World Series after leading in the 8th inning of game 6.

But I thought I’d add some quick musings to the site as we seem to be hearing both pluses and minuses about our man Mitt joining up with McCain, should an invite be extended. Here’s my take.

Bottom line: I’m not sure I’m in favor.

On the minus side:

* The GOP’s risk of loss in the election. The democrats seem to be rolling. The media has loved the Barack v. Hillary fight. While it’s messy and bloody, remember that lack of press hurt Giuliani after Iowa and NH. Lack of press could hurt McCain and his veep choice once the dem battle is over. Don’t forget the dems have had superior turnout and superior fundraising to date as well. Signs seem to point to an uphill battle for November. Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to win, and I’d prefer McCain to either of the dems (I disagree with Ann Coulter on this one), but it’s going to be tough and my desire is Mitt in the big chair, not Dick Cheney’s old spot.

On the plus side:

* Exposure and the possibility of a win. I’d love to have Mitt get all the attention a VP offer would get. He’d campaign for McCain, have the spotlight, have less pressure and would perform. I think he’d wow the country. He may also end up Vice President.

* I can’t think of someone more qualified to be VP. For all of the things I think McCain falls short in, I think Mitt is a great complement. Mitt brings economic expertise at a time it’s sorely needed. I’d love for him to keep his promise to Michigan as well and send funds there to promote innovation. I also think Mitt would act as a calming influence on McCain. Mitt would be able to use his data gathering and analysis skills to provide McCain the info he needs to make a decision, and provide great input. Mitt would also obviously gain first-hand experience very few in the country have (and that even Hillary doesn’t) at being in the “inner circle” in the White House, involved in key decisions, and would come out uniquely prepared to serve. Given the hand we’re dealt, I’d rather have Mitt as VP than anyone else.

So how do I come out?

So given Mitt’s qualifications and where things are (McCain having won the nomination), I’d love for Mitt to be VP vs. not involved in government at all. But I balance that with wanting him to avoid the possible stigma of having been on a losing presidential ticket, a la John Edwards. Perhaps it’s obvious, but I want him to win in 2012, should he decide he wants to put himself through the process again. Regular readers here agree he’d be a great president, and I want to see it happen, even if I have to wait until 2012 or 2016.

Help me decide, folks.

Share on Facebook

Share This

If the rumors are true, and all my efforts add up to giving Mitt the stage to make this speech, it was worth it. He’s setting the stage for conservatism for years to come, and taking up the mantle left by Reagan.

If you can, tune in now. It’s on the CNN website.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Simple “Wisdom” of Yogi Berra

I’m a National League fan. I grew up in the Bay Area and after a childhood of loving the Oakland A’s, learned the superiority of the National League game as I matured, and “flipped” to the San Francisco Giants. No flip-flop, just flip.

I’ve never liked the Yankees much. As Mitt once said, it’s an American tradition to hate them. But they once had a catcher who was known for his unique way of expressing himself. He didn’t always say things the way he meant them, but one thing he said is relevant tonight, and it’s deceptively simple: “it ain’t over till it’s over.” And it won’t be over until Mitt says it is.

Of Battles and Wars

John McCain won a big battle Tuesday. He’s stolen victory in a manner that I understand is “politics,” but that I find distasteful. His maneuvers included breaching the trust of his donors to get a loan (pledging their confidential information to secure it) to keep a nearly dead campaign alive after most of the American public rejected his immigration policies. They included tag-teaming with a candidate who was so glad to have a part of the spotlight that he was willing to do McCain’s bidding for a bit of after-glow. They included mis-representing Mitt’s record to take a narrow 36-31% victory in Florida that made people somehow call him “front runner.” And most recently they included handing victory to Huckabee in West Virginia, sending the clear message that McCain sees Huckabee as irrelevant and his supporters as pawns. Yes, this is politics, and to my knowledge none of this is illegal (except maybe the pledging of the donor list), but I do find it distasteful. So McCain wins, mostly with a plurality of the votes and no clear mandate from anyone.

What it Means

So where does this leave us? Do we throw in the towel? Not for me. I agree with the Ross Perot quote on another blogger’s post, that many people give up right as they are about to achieve success. I feel that’s the case here. Say I’m crazy, but it’s just a feeling in my bones–we can win this thing!

I’m reminded of a time I went on a bike ride with my father in law. The first half was nearly all uphill. After what seemed like forever trudging up yet another incline, I stopped and got off my bike. That hill had finally conquered me. I was discouraged. I took a moment to rest, then walked my bike up the hill about 50 yards, turned the corner, and found when I stopped I was about 30 seconds from the summit. Had I continued, I’d have conquered the hill and been able to ride downhill for about 30 minutes straight as victor, not victim. I learned a lesson that day. Sometimes you don’t see the finish line or the full path ahead, but you DON’T GIVE UP.

FREEDOM!

Mel Gibson’s William Wallace may have said it best. If you don’t remember, have another listen. “Free men you are. And what will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?” I will. I will not say die and will not back down while Mitt is in this race.

What we’re fighting for here is more than just the GOP candidate or one president. This is about the principles that guide our country, and whether we will turn back to failed systems and failed morals. In Mitt’s words:

This isn’t just about the heart and soul of our party. It isn’t just about which party is going to win in November. This is the about the future course of our country. This is about whether or not Washington will finally deal with the challenges we face, whether Washington is up to the task of helping solve these problems, taking advantage of opportunities, making sure that our kids and their kids live in an America that’s the greatest nation on Earth. It must be. It has always been.

The world depends upon our sacrifice, our commitment and dedication to peace and prosperity and to liberty. This is the greatest nation in the history of the Earth. We will keep it the hope of the Earth. With your help, we’ll do it together.

CPAC

If you think that quote was good, something else tells me that Mitt spent a lot of time today working on the speech he’s giving tomorrow at CPAC. I’m going to do what I can to try and tune that one in. Mitt’s earlier speech about his religion was called by many “THE Speech.” It defined how Mitt viewed religion in America. I expect tomorrow’s speech to be very similar, and will define how Mitt views conservatism in America. I expect it may be the definining moment of conservatism in this country for this race and a long time to come. If you were stirred by the first “Speech,” I’d be ready to be stirred by the second.

Paths Forward

Notwithstanding McCain’s good night, Mitt’s in a strong 2d place, and 1st isn’t locked up. The two conservative candidates, if they united, would still be stronger than the liberal candidate that’s benefitting from this fluke idealogical split. Mitt can win if he wins more delegates between now and the end. McCain could drop the ball (he does have a temper). More people may continue to wake up as conservatives get more and more vocal about their dissatisfaction with McCain. Something also tells me the days of tag-teaming are nearly over, and that Mike Huckabee will soon begin to turn on McCain. Stranger things have happened, even in this race.

Finally, if we hold our ground in the upcoming states, as I understand McCain won’t be able to win the nomination outright. Mitt’s official website said McCain would need to take an extraordinary percentage of the delegates between now and the convention to be able to take the nomination on the first ballot. And if we hold firm, we may well get to a brokered convention where anything’s possible. There could be more political maneuvering there, it’s true, but something tells me that McCain made some promises along the way to Charlie Crist, Rudy Giuliani and others, and that Huckabee may not always be willing to play McCain’s spoiler.

Miracles Happen

When my mother emailed me today asking about Mitt’s chances, I told her in my assessment he was still in it, but it could be tough. Her response? “I believe in miracles.” And you know what? I do, too.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Congratulations to Huckabee for accepting John McCain and his campaign’s gift to you in West Virginia. It seems reminiscent of Iowa, with Huckabee first, Romney close behind (even closer this time), and McCain in the distant rear view mirror.

The difference this time, however, is striking. McCain, knowing he was headed for 3d, authorized / encouraged his supporters to flow over to Huckabee and allow Huckabee to win the convention. This is not right-wing paranoia, or a conspiracy theory. This is being widely reported (see here, for example, on Fox). Why would McCain do such a thing? The answer is easy: he believes Huckabee is irrelevant, and doesn’t mind admitting it. Whether there’s another back room deal (the evidence for which is mounting), or McCain simply doesn’t view Huckabee as a threat, the message is clear from McCain: my real opponent is Romney, and we can hand Mike a win and it won’t matter.

This is politics, and people do things out of their self-interest. I’m uncomfortable with the unseemliness of what happened and the “stealing” of a victory from Mitt, who appeared to have it locked up with more percentage points in WV than McCain won with in FL. And like Florida, politics worthy of Richard Nixon effectively steal a state from Romney. If this makes you uncomfortable, too, though, you can do something about dirty politics and reject this sort of gamesmanship by voting for Romney. But if you say “it’s just politics,” I certainly can’t argue. It is certainly “politics as usual.” Huckabee, through apparently legitimate voting, walked way with a VERY narrow win (51.x% to Mitts’ 47.x%) thanks to McCain’s gift. And I’m sure he’s glad to take it. But McCain clearly thinks it’s in his self-interest to use this back-room maneuver, or he wouldn’t have done it. Why? Because McCain views Mike Huckabee’s supporters as irrelevant; they’re pawns on the chess board to be moved around by the would-be king from Arizona.

Huckabee supporters, and there are a few of you out there who read this site, while you may be happy with WV, you should seriously consider whether you like this road’s direction. You’ve got your right to choose, and no one is saying otherwise. But you are being used, and while you may have wished Mitt made his pro life change earlier, if you continue you may end up with a nominee that will not support strict constructionist judges, and you will lose the very thing that means the most to you. Remember Esau and his mess of pottage. He exchanged what he wanted most, his birthright, what he stood for, for what mattered at the moment, and he lived to regret it. Don’t be an Esau.

Share on Facebook

Share This

How happy am I? Before I go to my day job and add to the GDP (I’m proud to say Romney supporters know what that means), let me tell you just how happy I am.

I’m a Republican. I’ve voted Republican in every election after registering to vote. Never a blue thought has crossed my mind. I was in my early teen years when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter, and then, as now, I was convinced that lower taxes would yield a better economy, and that America deserved a strong military to thwart the Soviet threat. Reagan was California’s former governor, and he was taking a message I strongly believed in to the rest of the country.

Since that time the demographics of my great state have changed dramatically. An influx of new people into urban areas has turned the once proudly red state into a red state with two big blue dots: in the Democratic strongholds of the San Francisco Bay Area and in LA county. In elections subsequent to 1984, a Republican vote has meant less and less as, in election after election, California has “turned blue.”

But today, in the birthplace of the Reagan revolution, the tide is turning. As our party has seemed ready to plug its collective nose and vote for McCain, my state, my California, is turning into the bulwark that will save our party from McCain’s blue invasion. California is turning into the state that will give Mitt the victory he needs. California! Why am I happy? Today, my vote finally means something, and I’m ecstatic. California conservatives, once again we can be the birthplace of the revolution. Please join me today and vote for Mitt Romney, who is the only candidate left in the race that is willing to live in the house Ronald Reagan built.

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Washington Post, in an article talking about flip flops by both candidates, doesn’t spare McCain.

Have a look:

McCain has changed his stances more often than he is usually prepared to admit.

…

Nachama Soloveichik, communications director for the Club for Growth, a free-market think tank and lobby group, said Romney comes across as “more sincere” than McCain when it comes to maintaining President Bush’s tax cuts. She said the senator had sounded “like Ted Kennedy” in 2001, when he opposed the tax cuts because they helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

“He is trying to have it both ways,” Soloveichik said. “It’s hard to take him seriously when he says he is going to fight to make the Bush cuts permanent. He was front and center opposing them.”

[in defending himself against McCain's flip-flop charges]

Romney shot back that McCain was “against the Bush tax cuts” but “now he’s for making them permanent.” And “he was for McCain-Kennedy” immigration reform, Romney continued. “Now he’s for a new program on immigration. He’s changed his view on issue after issue. He was against ethanol, then for it, then against it again.”

…

[A] Romney ad … shows McCain justifying his position change on the Bush tax cuts with the “Blue Danube” providing the soundtrack. A caption then flashes across the screen: “John McCain. Always for Tax Cuts . . . Except when he’s against them.”

Romney supporters argue that McCain’s flip-flops have largely been under the public radar because they conflict with the “straight shooter” narrative that they say has been accepted and promoted by the media. McCain has altered his position on such issues as taxes, immigration, the religious right, Roe v. Wade and ethanol. McCain has moved toward mainstream Republican positions on all these issues, including an embrace of the Ronald Reagan philosophy that tax cuts always lead to higher government revenue.

The senator has sought to disguise his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts by arguing that the main reason he opposed them was that they were not accompanied by cuts in government spending. This was not the explanation he gave at the time, however. In a May 2001 speech on the Senate floor, he said he could not “in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

This article hits Mitt, too, but most of us here have understood and gotten comfortable with Mitt’s change to pro-life (a conversion we welcome), but the story here is that at least someone is noticing that McCain’s “Straight Talk” label is bunk.

Share on Facebook

Share This

McCain gets a lot of credit for supporting the surge in Iraq, as if no other republicans at the time supported it. That’s simply not true. Lots of other republicans were in favor of increasing troop numbers in Iraq. But beyond that, and more importantly John McCain is going to be saddled with the legacy of the Iraq invasion in any general election, which, regardless of the polls, would put him at a marked disadvantage in November regardless of the foe. See this quote:

Once the primaries are past, of course, there will be big differences on key issues between the Republican and Democratic nominees. In particular, there is likely to be a stark debate over the wisdom of the Iraq war, particularly if the nominees are Sen. McCain, who has turned defense of the war into a cornerstone of his candidacy, and Sen. Obama, who has trumpeted his opposition to the war from the outset.

If Sen. McCain is the Republican nominee, that will bring about a “fundamental debate,” says William Galston, an analyst at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Clinton White House. “Sen. McCain sees the future of Iraq through our experience in West Germany and South Korea,” which became permanent outposts of American power, Mr. Galston says. Any Democratic nominee isn’t likely to share that vision, he says.

But that debate will be more about dealing with the residue of a past decision — the Iraq invasion — than about charting a new ideological course for America in the world. Indeed, the debates now under way within the two parties are striking for their lack of new direction.

Obviously we’re in Iraq now regardless of how we got there. But if this election in November is a referendum on the war, guess who loses? The candidate most closely associated with it: John McCain.

Notwithstanding the surge’s current success, and the great job the additional forces have done to secure Iraq (obviously the first order of business), many in the public still very much dislike the reasons we went in and harbor latent resentment about that decision. Thus McCain’s consistent re-write of history that the GOP lost the elections in ‘06 due “not to the Iraq war,” but because of runaway spending (that McCain was a part of, by the way). But many of the American public won’t remember it that way, and they’re not going to be bullied into it by McCain. Many will see McCain as a staunch war supporter, and, as I do on economic issues, “part of the problem.” That may not be fair when discussing what we need to do about Iraq now, since in reality no candidate can pull out our troops immediately even if they wanted to, but the issue will come up.

When faced with Obama, McCain has a moral dilemma: take the position the war was a good idea in the first place or not? It’s the same difficulty Hillary has when debating Obama. The Hillary vs. McCain difference isn’t as stark (like on a lot of issues!), but it’s there given her constant anti-war rhetoric.

But let me point out the obvious: Mitt Romney doesn’t have this problem. He wasn’t in Congress. It wasn’t his decision. He didn’t vote for the invasion or against it. He just has to do what’s right now. And thus Romney is the cleaner candidate on Iraq come November, and can stand squarely against Obama and debate what the right thing is to do now, and not allow the discussion to degrade into a referendum on the invasion. Because, my friends, if it becomes a referendum on the war, 2006 shows us, notwithstanding McCain’s 72 year old memory he insists is sharper than everyone else’s, we lose.

Share on Facebook

Share This

See this article by Pat Buchanan, who was visibly concerned on Fox when discussing McCain’s statement last week “there will be more wars.” In an article entitled “The Great Betrayal,” Mr. Buchanan says why. Where Bush was right, McCain stood in his way, and where Bush was wrong, McCain was pushing him along:

Offering more “straight talk” on the Sunday before the Florida primary, John McCain made an arresting prediction: “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars. I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

Ike promised to “go to Korea” and ended that war. Nixon pledged to end Vietnam with honor. McCain says we may be in Iraq a hundred years and warns, “there’s going to be other wars.” Take the man at his word.

Mimicking the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann,” McCain has joked about “Bomb, bomb, bomb—bomb, bomb Iran” and urged the expulsion of Russia from the G-8. He wants to expand NATO to bring in Georgia and the Ukraine. This could mean confrontation between Russia and the United States over whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia should be free of Georgia or ruled by Tbilisi, a matter of zero vital interest to this country.

We are forewarned. John McCain intends to be a war president.

Where Bush has lately cleansed his administration of neocons, McCain offers the last best hope for a neocon return and restoration and more wars in the Middle East. And if, as seems probable, Bibi Netanyahu again becomes prime minister of Israel, he and a President McCain will find a pretext for war on Iran.

Year 2008 may prove a defining one for conservatives. For on many of the great issues, McCain has sided as often with the Left and the Big Media as he has with the Right.

Where Bush has been at his best, cutting taxes and nominating conservative judges, McCain has been his nemesis. Not only did he vote twice against the Bush tax cuts, McCain colluded to sell out the most conservative of Bush’s judges

In 1993, McCain voted to confirm the pro-abortion liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain formed the Gang of 14, seven senators from each party. All agreed to vote to block the GOP Senate from invoking the “nuclear option”—i.e., empowering the GOP to break a filibuster of judicial nominees by majority vote—unless the seven Democrats agreed.

With this record of voting for Clinton justices and joining with Democrats anxious to kill the most conservative Bush’s nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain would nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

McCain also colluded with liberals to pass McCain-Feingold, a law that denies to Second Amendment folks and right-to-lifers their First Amendment right to identify friends and foes in TV ads before national elections.

On ANWAR, too, McCain votes with the liberals, and on global warming he has moved toward Gore.

After five record trade deficits have denuded the nation of thousands of factories and 3 million manufacturing jobs, McCain is still babbling on about Smoot-Hawley. “When you study history,” he told a Detroit newspaper, “every time we’ve adopted protectionism, we’ve paid a very heavy price.”

But what history was McCain talking about? From Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge, the GOP was the Party of Protection that put 12 presidents in the White House to two for the Democrats, and the U.S. became the most awesome industrial power and self-reliant nation in the history of mankind, producing 42 percent of the world’s manufactured goods. Even Hillary, whose husband passed NAFTA with McCain’s support, has begun to question the free-trade paradigm and the disastrous results it has produced.

On controlling America’s borders and halting the invasion through Mexico, McCain collaborated with Senate liberals in the McCain-Kennedy amnesty, which was rejected only after a national uprising.

When 190,000 Arizonans petitioned in 2004 to put Prop 200 on the ballot, requiring proof of citizenship before an individual could vote or receive welfare benefits, John McCain led the GOP congressional delegation in opposing it unanimously. Prop 200 passed with the support of 56 percent of all Arizona voters and 46 percent of Hispanics.

Unsurprisingly, Juan Hernandez, the open-borders chatterbox and former adviser to Vicente Fox, has turned up in McCain’s campaign.

On the two issues where Bush has been at his best, taxes and judges, McCain has sided against him. On the three issues that have ravaged the Bush presidency—the misbegotten war in Iraq, the failure to secure America’s borders, and the trade policy that has destroyed the dollar, de-industrialized the country, and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America—McCain has sided with Bush.

Now McCain is running on a platform that says your jobs are not coming back, the illegals are not going home, but we are going to have more wars. If you don’t like it, vote for Hillary.

And this was to be the Year of Change.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Washington is Broken

John McCain has been a senator for 24 years. If we think he’s good at it, I’d suggest we send him back to the Senate. If we’re not satisfied with Washington’s performance, we shouldn’t consider sending someone who’s been in the seat of power that long back to try and get a job done he’s been unable to do for 2 1/2 decades. If he had leadership abilities, he’d have already led. But the fact is with McCain, he’s a “maverick,” which means he doesn’t lead, he wanders off on his own. George Bush said there’s the Republican party, there’s the Democratic party, and there’s McCain’s party. It takes leadership to rally people around a cause, which he’s been unable to do without joining forces with the liberals. Team building takes convincing, and that’s something apparently John McCain is not very good at. Bullying and quid pro quo maybe, convincing apparently not.

Barack Obama is a very left-leaning candidate, but one who has convinced people it’s time for a change, to the point where he has a senior senator, the wife of a two-term president and the master of an incredibly successful political machine running for her life. If Obama can defeat Hillary as the Washington insider, imagine how much easier Obama will have it with John McCain, the ultimate insider, the ultimate Washington back-room favor-grabbing, power-broker politician, the ultimate symbol of Republicans and residual distaste for the war. John represents what’s broken in Washington and would get creamed by Obama. Mitt Romney is a Washington outsider, someone with the experience necessary to look at Washington inside-out, like you do as a consultant, figure out the problem and devise solutions. He has the experience to look at the budget and to balance it, like he did in Massachusetts without raising taxes. And, unlike John McCain, he debates issues and has a reasoned stance. McCain has avoided a debate with Mitt on the economy. Do you think the American public would allow McCain to get away without having a one-on-one debate with Hillary or Barack? No way.

Romney beats Clinton

While I think polls are meaningless at this point, it was interesting to hear recently that some polls have shown that Mitt and McCain both beat Hillary head-to-head, but both lose to Obama. McCain is NOT the only candidate who can beat Hillary in November. Again these polls are way early, and lots can change, even McCain’s “front runner” status.

Who’s McCain’s No. 2?

Never has this question been more relevant regarding a candidate. John McCain will be 72 years old by January 2009. I believe that would make him one of the oldest presidents ever to enter a first term in office. Yet we haven’t heard a peep about who his running mate might be. That seems incredibly relevant to anyone considering voting for John McCain, as their first choice is advancing quickly in years.

It’s Still the Economy

Forgotten in the consolidation of the anti-McCain forces with Mitt has been the fact that Mitt’s run-up in Florida was driven by the correct perception of Mitt as the economic expert, while McCain was the candidate, like in his Naval Academy days, coming in the bottom of his class, this time in Reagan 101. While McCain may have finally passed the first test now that he changed his mind (after considerable pressure) and agrees with Mitt that the Bush tax cuts were a good thing, he’s still failing the course. Manufacturing jobs continue to be lost overseas. We depend on borrowing money from Asia to finance purchase of machines, even military equipment, that they make to our specifications. McCain wants a unilateral self-tax on carbon emissions that would provide back-door incentives for companies to leave the U.S. for China where they’d continue to pollute and we’d lose the jobs. We need to all understand: our economic strength is a pre-requisite to our military strength. The economy is a national security issue. Ronald Reagan knew the two were linked, but there’s a footsoldier in Reagan’s army that’s gone AWOL. We have long term issues that we need fixed, and McCain doesn’t understand their importance; he just talks about being in Iraq for 100 years and having more wars (how he’s going to fight them without a strong economy to finance them no one knows). He can’t even identify the problem, much less fix it. We need Mitt Romney as Commander-in-Chief for the security of our country.

Maine Looms Large

Here’s an interesting thought: Maine gave Mitt a nice burst of delegates and Mitt-mentum, bringing him in the unofficial CNN count to within 8 of McCain. Now recall that Florida was winner take all, and McCain won by a narrow 36% to 31% margin (after McCain’s dirty pool). Now imagine what the press would be saying if Florida had been proportionally split? Mitt would be in a comfortable lead if you cut those FL delegates in thirds, giving one third to Mitt, one to McCain and splitting one with Paul and Huckabee. So you’d subtract 40 from McCain’s count and add 20 to Mitt’s, and suddenly Mitt’s up by well over 20. Now there’s a thought. Even without the “coulda” “woulda’s,” the “front runner” ain’t in much of a lead after all, and is dang lucky the rules broke his way, given he hasn’t won a majority in any state to this point, while Mitt has done so in 3 out of the 8 contests that have taken place.

Here’s to a Super Tuesday!

Those of us paying attention from the beginning know that while polls can be predictive, they can also be flat-wrong. So I’m not ready to buy any of McCain’s leads in some states, or even Mitt’s break in CA. I’ll believe it when I see it, and you should, too. Polls are an attempt to measure what will happen in the future. But in a democracy we can make the future. In a democracy we are the future. What the polls say will be completely irrelevant tomorrow as the people will have spoken, and it’s up to all of us to get out there and speak. Cast that vote, call that friend, make sure you drag at least 5 other people down to the polls with you. Call again, email again. This is it, ladies and gents. The first primary of this magnitude, and literally, if we do what we can, WE CAN WIN THIS THING.

Share on Facebook

Share This

See this article on yet another blogger’s conversion to Mitt.

Here’s one noteable quote:

Meanwhile, Republicans should not take too much comfort from McCain’s performance in polls against Clinton and Obama this far from November. The McCain I saw in the California debate last week didn’t look particularly electable. With the economy emerging as the overwhelmingly central issue in the campaign, with McCain’s nasty streak increasingly on display, and with his reputation for straight-talk diminishing before our eyes, I’m not prepared to base a vote for the Senator on electability.

The decision thus comes down to policy and effectiveness. I give Romney the edge on both counts.

Share on Facebook

Share This

A couple things have been clear to me as I’ve reviewed the mushrooming number of anti-McCain spots.

The first is that there are quite a few motivated conservatives out there that don’t relish the thought of this guy being the GOP nominee (as his mom seems to admit: see the link here).

But the principal reason for this blog entry is to initiate discussion of the second thing I’m noticing consistently. Namely, when faced with a flip-flop or other “inaccuracy” (that’s a euphemism), McCain does one of two things:

1. He re-writes history. Has anyone else noticed this?

Example 1: there are quotes at the time of the Iraq invasion in which he swore it was going to be easy. Now that we’ve been there for years, when asked about Iraq he states, as if it was obvious to anyone paying attention at the time, that everybody knew it was going to be tough going in, and that anyone who thought otherwise wasn’t paying attention. It’s as if he’s accusing everyone else of being wrong if they remember things any differently from him. Isn’t that a bit fishy? When called on a flop he essentially accuses the questioner of remembering incorrectly, even though McCain’s been caught on tape with a contradicting statement? And what are the reasons he gives as to why he’s right? Because his 72 year old memory is better than everyone else’s and he does, after all, only give us straight talk.

Example 2: when asked about the Bush tax cuts, he claimed most recently that he wanted there to be accompanying spending cuts and that’s why he voted against them. But in reality his rhetoric at the time was that he couldn’t “in good conscience” support tax cuts “to the wealthiest americans.” The problem of course for conservatives is that the real reason is consistent with liberal thinking (a problem), but his later excuse is more consistent with conservative thinking, which may sit better with republicans. When pushed on these and other matters, he states, again as if it was obvious to anyone paying attention at the time, that “I made very clear at the time” or “I’m consistently on record as saying” that the reason was spending cuts. But again, what reason are we given to trust his memory over the sound bites, quotes and YouTube videos from the time? None, other than “I’m a straight talker.” Unfortunatley that’s just not the case.

Example 3: when discussing his allegation that Mitt supported an Iraq withdrawal, he claims that “at the time timetables was the buzzword,” and that everyone at the time knew that discussing timetables meant a withdrawal. Again, he apparently remembers the past better than everyone else, even when caught in a dissimulation (lie), truth-twist or a flip-flop. I know lots have discussed his flip-flopping ways, but my point here is that his consistent excuse is that “it was clear at the time” or “I’m consistently on record as saying,” when in fact, in all three examples, the record in fact DOES NOT support his statement. Yet people seem like they just let his initial answer suffice, saying essentially “oh, you must be right, I must be remembering wrong.” I believe this is working with journalists because they don’t usually anticipate having their research challenged, and, unless they’ve anticipated it, in the face of a confident fraud, they figure they need to go back and look at things again. So McCain gets pass after pass from people that just bow down when he simply says “the record is clear” or “I’ve consistently said….” In fact, anyone can make that statement, and it’s about time to make him back them up.

2. When faced with an unpleasant part of his record, like his votes on the Bush tax cuts, like his lack of experience on the economy, he never says “here’s what I’ve done: x, y and z.” Instead he cites his list of Washington insiders that have endorsed him, like an old smoke and mirrors parlor trick. His argument is that “if I’ve tricked these smart people, you should be tricked, too.”

I’m getting the distinct impression that his “straight talk” is just really him bullying us into believing him because he remembers better than everyone else, including video and audio recordings. The argument boils down to “it’s true because I said so.” And the second line of defense is if you don’t believe him, look at all the Washington buddies standing behind him. Of course all these folks owe and are owed favors by McCain, and the endorsements make Mitt’s argument that we need new blood in Washington, not someone with lobbiest on all sides and that will owe everybody and their brother when they arrive.

Let me know if you’ve also noticed this. I’m getting pretty annoyed at his circular reasoning as to why we should trust him. When I studied formal logic way back when, this was called “begging the question.” See this link at Wikipedia that defines what this means, and it’s not what people usually mean when they use this phrase. It’s an argument that assumes the very conclusions it’s trying to make, and that’s what McCain’s been selling us. And with most of his statements attempting to justify departures from conservatism, this former Reagan foot soldier has gone AWOL.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Very interesting comment from McCain’s mom. She recognizes the base isn’t helping her son and says we’ll all have to plug our noses and accept our fate. Wonder why there’s no GOP support? Maybe the inconsistency of his positions. She complains that her son’s support of Pres. Bush over the last 8 years hasn’t won over the GOP. Think the Bush-hating democrats won’t have noticed? If this election is about change, McCain starts at a significant disadvantage. Sorry the clip makes you endure an ad from the source, CBS, who in turn got this from CSPAN.

Share on Facebook

Share This

“His temperament could affect his performance if elected president…”

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

Romney leads McCain by 37 percent to 34 percent in California in a recent Zogby / Reuters / CSPAN poll. The poll’s margin of error is 2.9 percentage points.

Share on Facebook

Share This