comMITTed to Romney!

Looking at this primary campaign debate video, it’s not hard to remember why John McCain lost his one shot at getting elected President. His attempt to explain why his Amnesty bill was not an amnesty is a case study in why the voters hold most politicians in contempt.

In the video, Mitt Romney rightly points out that McCain could at least attempt to deny that the bill was a de facto amnesty because it did have some bare bones requirements to qualify for the provisions of the bill. English proficiency, no felony convictions and pay a $5,000 fine. Wow! Tough stuff! Who said we weren’t going to lay the wood to lawbreakers? As one pundit pointed out, the $5,000 fine was nothing more than a membership fee.

The other thing that struck me was the three man tag team of McCain, Giuliani and Fred Thompson all ganging up on Gov. Romney in an attempt to rattle him. Even under trying circumstances, Mitt was very effective in getting his points across.

With rumors swirling about the possible collapse of the Mexican government and the poor people of that country under increased pressure to try to escape the poverty, violence and corruption of their system, now it’s more important than ever to have pro border law enforcement policies coming out of Washington. Of course, that is highly unlikely coming from this administration. Looking at the video and hearing Gov. Romney’s common sense solutions to a problem that is threatening to spiral out of control, the tragedy of the outcome of this election cycle and both the leadership that we got and the leadership that we were denied is brought home with a vengeance.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

Several months ago when I posted here that I was going to write-in Mitt Romney’s name on my Missouri ballot, I was thinking ahead to the day when I would see a headline very similar to the one that THEHILL.COM just used for their article.

I did everything in my power to prevent John McCain from becoming the Republican Party’s nominee. I did so primarily because of his wrong headed support of a policy that will further add to this county’s unbelievable debt and financial problems, and that is the coming amnesty for the illegal immigrants who have flouted our laws and who have hired criminal smugglers to get them into this country. Now, if Dingy Harry Reid, Obama and John “Landslide” McCain get their way, these folks will be rewarded for their criminal activity by becoming US citizens, just in time to start collecting unemployment benefits. Is it any wonder that this country is in the pathetic shape it’s in? How could it be any different? We have violated every principle of economics, we have wasted money on every useless, feckless and pointless government program devised by the human mind and now, to add the icing to the bankruptcy cake, we will make another push for a general amnesty for illegal aliens.

Congratulations Sen. McCain, you have not disappointed me. You have done PRECISELY what I expected you to do. BTW, for those of you who observed on these pages the deafening silence during McCain’s anemic campaign regarding the illegal immigration issue, this move toward amnesty will, of course, not shock any of you. We all knew exactly why this was not being debated. The answer is that there was nothing to debate. Both Obama and McCain were totally on board this train, we all knew it, and that is why I would have written in Romney’s name if my state allowed it.

The fix was in. I saw it coming and as I wrote here months ago, it really didn’t matter who got elected, we were going to have another amnesty bill shoved down our throats, regardless.

Now, once again, it is up to the voters to turn the screws down on the thumbs of their Congressional delegations and let them know that you are in favor of the rule of law and that you will demand that they enforce our border laws and that you will eject them from office if they fail to follow your directives. We must keep in mind that these people work for us and that we will fire their lame posteriors if they don’t meet our expectations.

~~John Cronin~~

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/11/25/reid-obamamccain-agreement-on-immigration/

President-elect Barack Obama and his former general election rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), have come to an agreement on immigration, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid told the Detroit Free Press in a recent interview.
Reid said the two standard-bearers have agreed to move forward on immigration legislation during Obama’s White House tenure.

“On immigration, there’s been an agreement between Obama and McCain to move forward on that,” Reidsaid when how Congress would handle immigration and healthcare with expanded Democratic majorities and Obama in the White House.

Early on in their general election campaign, both McCain and Obama pledged to enact sweeping immigration reforms. McCain attempted to pass a massive immigration bill during the last Congress, forging alliances with such heavyweights as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and President Bush. McCain proposed granting a pathway to citizenship for illegal resident aliens and ramping up security efforts along the U.S./Mexico border. The effort failed.

When asked if immigration reform would cause “as much of a fight” in Congress the next time it comes up, Reid cited McCain as a key GOP ally who could enable Democrats to enact reforms.
“We’ve got McCain and we’ve got a few others. I don’t expect much of a fight at all,” Reid said.
The Detroit Free Press posted Reid’s interview to its website Sunday.

Share on Facebook

Share This

News from Dr. Bob Onder’s campaign office shows a growing list of influential Missouri leaders have endorsed his candidacy. His first quarter fund raising shows some financial firepower as well.

While the national press is ringing the death knell for the Republican Party in this election, it seems the good citizens of Missouri didn’t get the memo.

~~John Cronin~~

Jefferson City – Representative Bob Onder today announced the support of twenty-two current and two former state elected officials in his bid to represent the people of the Ninth District.

Dr. Onder’s announcement comes shortly after winning the first-quarter fundraising race against
all other candidates to replace Representative Kenny Hulshof when he raised over $370,000,
more than any other candidate in the race regardless of party affiliation.

“As I prepare to bring my prescription for change to Washington, I am honored to have the
support of so many conservative leaders in the 9th District and around our great state,” said Dr. Onder. “These leaders understand what it takes to defend our freedoms and fight for mainstream Missouri values. I greatly appreciate their support.”

“Dr. Onder has been a leader in the General Assembly from his first day in office,” said House
Republican Majority Floor Leader Steve Tilley. “Simply put, he is a proven winner who gets
things done on the issues that matter most to Missourians. I know he’ll take that same ability to
Washington.”

“I can’t think of anyone more qualified to represent the people of the 9th District than Dr.
Onder,” said Representative Doug Funderburk of St. Peter’s. “His experience as a doctor and
lawyer, and his willingness to fight for the right-to-life and tax relief and to stop illegal
immigration and wasteful spending will serve the people of Missouri well in Washington.”

“From watching him work in the Missouri House, I know that Dr. Onder will stand up for
principle and Missouri values when he gets to Congress,” said Representative Jason Smith of
Crawford County. “He’s just the type of leader we need to fight the liberal excesses of Nancy
Pelosi and the MoveOn.org crowd in Washington.”

Representative Brian Nieves noted that Dr. Onder’s leadership is not restricted to the pro-life
issue. This year, Dr. Onder also sponsored House Bill 1549, an effort to outlaw sanctuary cities
in Missouri and to give local law enforcement the tools they need to stop illegal immigration.
“Last year, I stood side-by-side with Bob Onder when we passed my bill to put English as the
official language on this year’s ballot,” said Representative Brian Nieves of Franklin County.
“This year, I was proud to stand by him as he proposed House Bill 1549. When he gets to
Washington, I know Dr. Onder will fight for effective enforcement of our immigration laws and
against San Francisco-liberal calls for amnesty.”

Dr. Onder has been a leader his entire life, particularly on pro-life issues. After graduating with a
medical degree from Washington University in St. Louis, he opened his own medical practice in
St. Charles. Later, after seeing so many of his physician friends face frivolous lawsuits, he went
to night school to get a law degree at St. Louis University. He is an active member of St. Gianna Catholic Church in St. Charles, and has six children with his wife, Allison. He has served on the boards of Missouri Right to Life, the Catholic Medical Association, and the Center for Bioethics and Culture. In 2006, he led the statewide fight against Amendment 2 as President of
Missourians Against Human Cloning.

The growing list of endorsements, combined with the first-quarter fundraising win, shows
Onder’s increasing momentum and widespread support. A full list of endorsements and
statements follows:

ENDORSEMENTS

Senator Scott Rupp R-Wentzville
Brian Nieves R-Union
Jason Smith R-Salem
Sally Faith R-St. Charles County
Mark Parkinson R-St. Charles County
Doug Funderburk R-St. Peters
Cynthia Davis R-O’Fallon
Stanley Cox R-Sedalia
Jane Cunningham R-Chesterfield
Ward Franz R-West Plains
Tim Jones R-Eureka
Don Ruzicka R-Mt. Vernon
Dwight Scharnhorst R-Manchester
Shane Schoeller R-Willard
Ryan Silvey R-Kansas City
Rick Stream R-Kirkwood
Mike Thomson R-Maryville
Don Wells R-Cabool
Rod Jetton R-Marble Hill-Speaker of the House
Steve Tilley R-Perryville-Majority Floor Leader
Senator Jason Crowell R-Cape Girardeau
Former Representative Bob Behnen R-Kirksville
Former Representative John Bennett R-St. Charles
–##–

Share on Facebook

Share This

Brief article over at HOT AIR touts Mitt Romney for the vice presidential slot.
The article talks about the strength that Romney would bring to the ticket because of his mastery of business and economics. If Mitt is not picked for VP, I think this is what needs to happen.

The McCain campaign needs to send a message to conservatives, IMHO, in two areas of vital importance, or they will not be pleased with the results they get at at the ballot box in November.

1. We need an iron-clad promise to secure our borders and to enforce the existing laws on immigration.

2. We need a comprehensive economic policy that includes making the Bush tax cuts permanent, killing the death tax, balancing the budget and moving to reform the bloated entitlement spending that threatens to bankrupt this country.

Failing to accomplish this, the feckless leadership we have been getting from the Republican Party at the national level, will usher in eight bleak years of Democratic rule.

I know I am repeating myself, but I will say it again. Unless grassroots Republicans rise up and retake this party in order to guide it back toward the conservative principles that made the Party and the country great, we are going to lose this election. If there isn’t two cents worth of difference between the Democrat’s platform and the Republican’s platform, who cares which party wins? Obviously the career politicians do, but I am talking about the voters who have to pay for all of this.

We are not getting our money’s worth!

~~John Cronin~~

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/01/pew-mccain-gaining-at-the-center/

The economy will present a critical test for McCain. He has worked on building economic chops, and his campaign has notable assistance in this area from Steve Forbes and even Mitt Romney. Obama’s stumble on capital-gains tax increases could help narrow this gap, but thus far the McCain campaign hasn’t offered any focus on that gaffe from the April 16th debate.
McCain could use a well-recognized hand on economics as a running mate. I’ve suggested that Romney could fill that role, although Allahpundit has been less enthusiastic. Romney did a great job with fundraising in 2007 and could help fill a critical gap there as well. Now that Jeremiah Wright has managed to splatter himself all over Obama, not too many people would worry about Mormons in the general election. Mormons aren’t known for asking that God damn America or promulgating weird conspiracy theories about HIV and government-sponsored genocides. Wright’s demagoguery has taken the Mormon issue off the table, if Obama wins the nomination.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Below is part of an email that I received from a HUMAN EVENTS advertiser, the Center For Individual Freedom. (WWW.CFIF.ORG.)

They have published a list of members of Congress who voted for the SAVE Act bill, but who have as yet not voted for the discharge petition so that the bill can get a straight up or down vote.

Below is the list of the House of Representative members who need to get a letter or a phone call to let them know that their constituents are paying attention.

~~John Cronin~~

The Following Members of the House of Representatives: The Hon. Jason Altmire, The Hon. Michael A. Arcuri, The Hon. Brian Baird, The Hon. Melissa L. Bean, The Hon. Marion Berry, The Hon. Sanford Bishop, The Hon. Dan Boren, The Hon. Leonard L. Boswell, The Hon. Rick Boucher, The Hon. Allen Boyd, The Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, The Hon. Steve Cohen, The Hon. Jim Cooper, The Hon. Robert E. (Bud), Cramer Jr., The Hon. Artur Davis, The Hon. Lincoln Davis, The Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, The Hon. Bart Gordon, The Hon. Brian Higgins, The Hon. Baron P. Hill, The Hon. Paul W. Hodes, The Hon. Tim Holden, The Hon. Steve Kagen, The Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, The Hon. Ron Klein, The Hon. Jim Marshall, The Hon. Jim Matheson, The Hon. Jerry McNerney, The Hon. Charlie Melancon, The Hon. Patrick J. Murphy, The Hon. John P. Murtha, The Hon. Ed Perlmutter, The Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez, The Hon. Mike Ross, The Hon. Tim Ryan, The Hon. Joe Sestak, The Hon. Zachary T. Space, The Hon. Bart Stupak, The Hon. John S. Tanner, The Hon. Mark Udall, The Hon. Don Young, The Hon. Peter J. Visclosky

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a handful of her far-left cronies in Congress are plotting to put amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens back on the table!

And their first order of business is BLOCKING legislation that would finally beef up our nation’s border security and crack down on employers that hire illegal aliens.

We’re talking about the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 or SAVE Act of 2007 (HR 4088), an enforcement-only bill that will add 8,000 agents to secure our borders and implement systems that will allow employers to easily verify workers’ immigration status.

According to the Washington Times:
“But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the House Democratic leadership are open-borders advocates who want no part of the SAVE Act, and have thus far managed to keep the bill buried…”

In other words, if Pelosi and company have their way, the SAVE Act of 2007 will NEVER get a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives!

But you have the power to STOP this obstruction!

A few days ago, Congressmen Brian Bilbray (R-California) and Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) initiated what is called a “discharge petition.” Under House rules, if a simple majority, 218 Members, sign this discharge petition, the SAVE Act of 2007 will be FORCED to the floor of the House for a fair-up-or-down vote!

To date, 181 Members have signed the discharge petition. So we are only 37 votes short from forcing a vote on the SAVE Act!

But, as radio personality Paul Harvey used to say; “just wait until you hear the rest of the story!”

38 Members of Congress who actually sponsored the SAVE Act of 2007 have NOT — as of yet — signed the discharge petition!

If these 38 Members simply moved to give the legislation they so proudly sponsored a fair up-or-down vote, the Pelosi-inspired obstruction would be stopped dead in its tracks!

And that’s where you come in!

If you take them to task — RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW — they will do the right thing.
And if the SAVE Act of 2007 passes, we can thwart Pelosi’s plans to bring back amnesty!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Super Tuesday II has come and gone and Sen. McCain has clinched the Republican Presidential nomination. Clinton and Obama continue their internecine warfare for the Democratic nod and, thankfully, Pastor Huckabee is finally out of the race.

As we look at the political landscape, what policies do the remaining candidates offer and are we satisfied that conservatives will be represented in the administration of whoever the winner of the general election is? I think the obvious answer is no.

I will be the first to acknowledge that Sen. McCain is the most conservative of the three remaining candidates. He will prosecute the Iraq war successfully and for that I am grateful. I think he will remain a budget hawk as well. I remain skeptical about his commitment to immigration law enforcement and I am not convinced he will nominate another Roberts or Alito to the SCOTUS.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama are so far left that I honestly worry about the future of the country if either of them win. Clinton’s husband decimated the military during his tenure in office and Hillary will do the same in order to fund the “million ideas” she has for the country, all of them involving federal spending. Obama has already promised to cut “tens of billions of wasteful spending” from the armed forces’ budget. This is also the man who voted “present” 130 times while in the Illinois legislature, but did manage to vote “No” on a bill designed to require medical care be given to a baby born live after a botched abortion.

Those of us on this site remain Mitt Romney partisans, but MR isn’t in the race to represent our interests in this election cycle. That is why I titled this post “Participatory Democracy”. If many of our interests are to be represented this Fall, it will be because we, through our participation in the democratic process, see to it ourselves.

If Mitt was still in the race, I wouldn’t worry about the military. MR wasn’t talking about gutting their budget, he was talking about raising it back up to historical levels. If Mitt were still in the race, I wouldn’t worry about Supreme Court judges or the abortion issue. If Mitt were still in the race, I wouldn’t worry about illegal immigration……But, he’s not.

So, where do we go from here? To Congress. You always start at the top (the presidency) and if that fails, you go down one notch to the legislative branch. As conservatives, it is incumbent on us to remain more involved in the political process than ever. We will not automatically be represented on our hot button issues as we once might have been. Now it is our responsibility to do everything we can to promote conservative principles at the Congressional level, so that we can influence the policy initiatives and the spending levels of the next administration. If it is Clinton or Obama, we are going to have our hands full for the next four years. I say for the next four years and not for the next eight years, because I believe that either one of them will inspire massive buyer’s remorse and that the electorate, after suffering under their wrong headed policies for four years, will have the same reaction to them as it had to Jimmie Carter after his four feckless years in power.

If it is McCain, we will have to be ready to shut down any future amnesty proposals, just like we shut the last one down in the summer of 2007. We have to be sure we let our representatives in Congress know how we feel about the issues and that we are paying attention.

These politicians are very good at counting votes and they know that the body politic is split right down the middle. Any strong stance they take is automatically going to anger about half of their constituency, so they have to know that we have their backs or they will cave to the special interest groups.

Presidential politics, to me, is the most fun. Congressional politics is mostly just hard work, but if we disengage from the process, the liberals will be pleased to craft the legislation for us. You can just use your imagination to envision what they will come up with.

Let’s stay involved during the course of the next four years. Let’s continue to monitor the activities of the U.S. Congress so that we will have a vibrant, powerful, informed and united conservative wing of the Republican Party, ready to assume power in four years, with Mitt Romney as our standard bearer in 2012!

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Share This

H/T: Hotair and a tip from a friend of mine

First, here’s Grahamnesty playing dumb under an onslaught of facts from Sean Hannity and attacking Romney for allegedly supporting a timeline for surrender.

Putting that clip together with this link from Time Magazine from back in September, however, makes me think that perhaps Grahamnesty was just confused and projecting onto Romney his own desire and advocacy for a timeline to surrender.

Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2007
Lindsey Graham’s Iraq Deadline
By Michael Duffy/Washington

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a pivotal Republican vote in the U.S. Senate on Iraq policy, is willing to give the government of Iraq until Christmas to get its act together.

But not much more.

Graham told TIME Wednesday that the Iraqi leaders have 90 days to start resolving their political differences with real legislative agreements or face a change in strategy by the U.S. “If they can’t do it in 90 days,” he said, “it means the major players don’t want to.”
Graham, who has been to Iraq nearly a dozen times, including spending 11 days in August on duty as a reserve Air Force officer, pointed out that Washington has spent the last few weeks debating Iraq policy and emerged with a commitment to continuing the surge through the spring. That commitment, he said, is the green light for the Iraqis to finally take action on resolving their disagreements.

But Graham, who is up for re-election in 2008, said he will not wait forever. “If they can’t pull it together in the next 90 days,” he said, “I don’t think they are ever gonna do it.” He followed that prediction with a promise: “If they don’t deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote.”

Graham said he believed the “conditions are ripe” for political deals between factions on de-Baathification, which would ease the way for participation of Sunni tribes in local Iraqi politics, and on the holding of local elections, which would allow Sunnis to take a greater role in the Shia-dominated country.

Graham first hinted at a 90-day clock in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee September 19. In his comments before that panel, he merely predicted the world would see progress by Baghdad in the next 90 days.

In his conversation with TIME, he held out a stick in the event that progress does not materialize. Said Graham: “We’ve won the day here politically, to give them the infrastructure they need to do this. It’s been missing up until now. I am vocally saying it’s up to [the Iraqis] to deliver. We’ve done our part.”

Though he would not elaborate on what kind of plan he would push if the Iraqis fail to meet the deadline, Graham did say a change in strategy would be warranted. “If they can’t do it by the end of the year,” he said, “how do you justify a continued presence?”

In response to Graham’s comments, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday, “The President urged the Iraqi government to make progress on the political front in his meeting with Maliki yesterday. The President has also said that Petraeus and Crocker will report back in March, when they will be able to make a further assessment.”

Do McCandidate and his lap dog Grahamnesty really think that Republicans are this stupid?

By way of contrast, here’s the link to Mitt’s interview with Wolf Blitzer today. Note the good nature and humor with which he responds to McCain’s lies. Night and Day.

Share on Facebook

Share This

…Shamnesty

Say hello to another soft-on- illegal immigration Republican joining the bandwagon for the Democrats’ favorite Republican. Crist supported the Teddy Kennedy/McCain/Mel Martinez shamnesty. Crist also supported driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.

Read it all

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh for this one! There are some great lines in here about the nature of McCain’s changes.

CAMPOS: McCain’s the real flip-flopper

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News 

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

One of the curiosities of American politics is the media’s ongoing infatuation with John McCain. A bit of this is based on things such as McCain’s opposition to torture (unfortunately we can no longer treat opposing torture like opposing child molestation, i.e., something one assumes is standard equipment in a presidential candidate rather than a luxury upgrade). Yet most of the journalistic love affair with McCain is based on other factors.

Consider this typical endorsement from The Orlando Sentinel: While McCain “has stuck to his principles at the risk of sinking his campaign,” Mitt Romney “has abandoned positions that would have alienated his party’s conservative base.” (Indeed I checked a computer database and discovered that, in the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain).

This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here’s just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk’s recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances:

* On abortion rights, McCain has done a 180-degree turn, from favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to supporting an almost total ban, while advocating that the Supreme Court reverse Roe immediately.

* McCain has transformed himself from a deficit hawk who mocked supply-side economics, into someone who sounds like he’s drunk deeply from the wackiest vats of supply-side Kool-Aid, to the point where he now claims raising taxes decreases revenues (a claim so wildly in conflict with the facts - for example federal tax revenues almost doubled in real terms after the Clinton tax increases - that it’s either a shameless lie or a product of astounding ignorance).

* In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork, to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland.

* Six years ago McCain sternly condemned Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance.” Eighteen months ago he gave the commencement address at Falwell’s university, while openly embracing one of the most noxious figures of the religious right.

These are just a few examples from a far longer list. On topics ranging from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to gay marriage, to accepting support from various sleazy characters he previously shunned, McCain has either completely reversed his views, or seriously equivocated regarding what they are this week.

Yet the media continue to lavish him with worshipful paeans to his supposedly uncompromising commitment to principled leadership no matter what the political cost etc., etc.

Part of this is accounted for by lazy autopilot journalism, which stops people from bothering to check whether the story line they’ve repeated for years still has any relationship to reality.

But part of it is something worse. When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn’t even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor.

All this would be merely amusing if McCain were not a genuinely tragic figure. The young man who showed such exemplary courage in the face of his North Vietnamese tormenters has become an old man whose courage abandoned him when subjected to the more subtle tortures of worldly ambition.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Here are some latest news bits about Mitt.

Top Thompson Fla. fundraiser joins Romney

By The Hill Staff

Mitchell said she decided to go with Romney after she was contacted by the other GOP campaigns. She said she will likely start raising money for the former governor after she meets with him Sunday.
Mitchell said she thinks “a lot of the people I brought to the table for Fred will go with Romney.”

Scoring Mitchell and her considerable Sunshine State connections could prove to be invaluable for Romney in Florida’s Jan. 29 primary, as poll after poll continues to show a tight race.

Duncan Hunter endorses …. Mike Huckabee?!  Hmmm…

Hunter backs Huckabee

Hunter’s endorsement could help Huckabee with his credentials on illegal immigration and border security. The congressman’s presidential campaign never caught fire and ended Saturday, following the Nevada Caucus.
 

Louisiana results - Mitt gets another bronze - well, probably…

Louisiana Caucus: McCain wins, Paul second, Romney third

State party officials cautioned that the results were preliminary. In order for a voter to be eligible to participate in the Caucus they must have been registered with the state Republican Party by November 30 2007. Party official are still verifying provisional ballots for newly registered voters which may boost Paul’s numbers a little since most of the newly registered voters supported his candidacy.
The delegates elected at the Caucus will attend a state convention on February 16th where they will elect national delegates. As a result it is unclear at this time how many delegates each candidate will receive.

Finally, on a McCant, McCranky, McCain note - Ann Coulter says it like only Ann can.  Hat tip to reader Louise for this one!

‘Straight Talk’ Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth

 

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most “electable” Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn’t lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.

It’s good, keep reading …

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Michelle Malkin tells it like it is in her article entitled “Geraldo Rivera Republican” over at National Review. Read the whole thing, but here are some nuggets of pure Malkin gold.

…how can McCain cure citizens’ distrust when his own credibility on the issue remains fatally damaged? He doesn’t believe his own election-year spin. And he knows we know it. This is cynicism on steroids with a speedball chaser.

Not all of us have forgotten how the short-fused Arizona senator cursed good-faith opponents in his own party (“F**k you!” and “Chickensh*t” were the choice words he had for Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn during a spat over enforcement provisions). Not all of us have forgotten that he voted against barring felons from receiving amnesty benefits under his plan. Not all of us have forgotten the underhanded, debate-sabotaging manner in which McCain, Kennedy, Lindsey Graham, and Harry Reid conspired to ram their package down voters’ throats.

His admission of the shamnesty failure is grudging and bitter. While he now tells conservative voters what they want to hear about the need to build the southern border fence, he takes a contemptuous tone toward physical barriers when talking to businessmen. “By the way, I think the fence is least effective,” he told executives in Milwaukee, according to a recent Vanity Fair profile. “But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.” Straight talk? Try hate talk.

Share on Facebook

Share This

This excellent article speaks for itself.

It is important for us to remember McCain’s track record of sticking it to Conservatives.

The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

Share on Facebook

Share This

“Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.” – Sen. John McCain (C. T. Revere, “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)

Sen. McCain “Still Dogged By Immigration Issue”:

Many Considered McCain-Kennedy “Tantamount To Amnesty.” “For many of those same voters, McCain — co-sponsor of the immigration bill that died in Congress earlier this year — is on the wrong side of the issue. The McCain-Kennedy bill — there’s nothing like coupling your name to Ted Kennedy’s to automatically enrage some conservatives — would create a path to so-called earned citizenship for some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. To some voters, earned citizenship for someone who came into the country illegally is tantamount to amnesty.” (Ron Claiborne, “McCain Still Dogged By Immigration Issue,” ABC News, 12/26/07)

Voters Still Doubt Sen. McCain’s Position On Immigration. “Often, his questioners tell him to his face, they just aren’t buying it. ‘I just think it’s not fair to all the people who came here legally and went through the process and now all the illegals, you’re gonna give ‘em citizenship?’ said a woman in Durham, N.H., after hearing McCain explain his stand. ‘That’s not fair.’” (Ron Claiborne, “McCain Still Dogged By Immigration Issue,” ABC News, 12/26/07)

Sen. McCain Hasn’t Renounced McCain-Kennedy:

Despite Using Careful New Language On Immigration, Sen. McCain Still Hasn’t Renounced McCain-Kennedy. “He hasn’t exactly renounced the bill he championed in the spring, but he has fine-tuned his position and changed the emphasis to assure the skeptics and critics — and there are many — that dealing with the fate of those already in the country only occurs after the borders are secured.” (Ron Claiborne, “McCain Still Dogged By Immigration Issue,” ABC News, 12/26/07)

Sen. McCain Still Won’t Admit He Supported Amnesty:

At The Recent CNN/YouTube Debate, Sen. McCain Claimed, “We Never Proposed Amnesty.” CNN’s ANDERSON COOPER: “Senator McCain, let me bring you back to the question that was asked by the YouTube user. Would you willing to veto any immigration bill that involved amnesty for those who have come here illegally?” SEN. MCCAIN: “Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty.” (CNN/YouTube, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, St. Petersburg, FL, 11/28/07)

Sen. McCain’s Political Director Recently Claimed That Sen. McCain Has “Never Been For Amnesty.” “‘Obviously when John McCain is attacked with un-truths, we are going to set the record straight,’ Dennehy told The Telegraph. ‘He’s never been for amnesty. That’s the bottom line.’” (Kevin Landrigan, “McCain Launches Direct Mail Attack,” The [Nashua, NH] Telegraph, 12/18/07)

Yet As Early As 2003, Sen. McCain Was Specifically Calling For Amnesty:

In 2003, McCain Declared, “Amnesty Has To Be An Important Part.” “‘There are jobs that American workers simply won’t do,’ McCain said. ‘As long as there’s a demand for workers, workers are going to come across.’ An amnesty program is vital to any immigration legislation that includes a guest-worker program, he said. ‘Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it,’ he said. ‘How can we have a temporary worker program if we’re not allowing people who have been here for 30 years to hold jobs here?’” (C. T. Revere, “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)

In 2003, McCain Also Said, “I Think We Can Set Up A Program Where Amnesty Is Extended To A Certain Number Of People Who Are Eligible…” “Immigration reform that was put on hold after the 9-11 terror attacks must be a priority when Congress reconvenes next week, Sen. John McCain said yesterday. While national security remains a crucial concern in light of the war on terror, lawmakers should pass a guest-worker program that includes amnesty for some illegal workers now in the United States… ‘I believe we can pursue the security programs and at the same time set up a system where people can come here and work on a temporary basis. I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country,’ he said.” (C. T. Revere, “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)

And For The Last Few Years, Sen. McCain Pushed For Legislation Widely Derided As Amnesty:

Union Leader Editorial: McCain-Kennedy Proposal “Would Encourage Border Jumping.” “Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy have a bill that, surprise, includes a generous guest worker program that would encourage border jumping. Illegals who register would have to pay a fine and taxes, but they would get to stay here and apply for permanent residency. That sure beats waiting at the border and hoping to be let in.” (Editorial, “Turnstile Security,” The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 3/27/06)

Mark Krikorian: “The McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill Has Been Unveiled, And It’s The Same Hoax We’ve Fallen For Before.” “The McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill has been unveiled, and it’s the same hoax we’ve fallen for before. Like the telemarketer who bilks a widow and then comes back in a different guise to charge a fee to ‘help’ her get the original money back, the anti-borders crowd created today’s immigration crisis and is now offering as a solution the very policies that got us in this mess in the first place.” (Mark Krikorian, “Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me,” National Review, 5/13/05)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Said McCain-Kennedy “Actually Provides For Amnesty.” NEWT GINGRICH: “However, the bill you mentioned – the Kennedy McCain bill – actually provides for amnesty. And it provides for amnesty for millions of people whose first act in the U.S. was to break the law. I think amnesty is profoundly wrong. I think it sends exactly the wrong signal.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story,” 3/20/06)

Columnist Charles Krauthammer: 2007 Immigration Bill Supported By Sen. McCain Was “Amnesty” And “Vacuous Nonsense.” “The immigration compromise being debated in Congress does improve our criteria for selecting legal immigrants. Unfortunately, its inadequacies in dealing with illegal immigration — specifically, in ensuring that 10 years from now we will not have a new cohort of 12 million demanding amnesty — completely swamp the good done on legal immigration. … The amnesty is triggered upon presidential certification that these bureaucratic benchmarks are met — regardless of what is actually happening at the border. What vacuous nonsense.” (Charles Krauthmammer, Op-Ed, “One Short Amendment,” The Washington Post, 5/25/07)

Brian Darling, Heritage Foundation: “It’s Clear To Any Reasonable Person That This Is Amnesty.” “‘It’s clear to any reasonable person that this is amnesty,’ said Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. ‘It’s forgiving individuals for being present in the country illegally and working in the country illegally as recently as five months ago.’ That, he said, could come back to haunt McCain.” (Christi Parsons, “GOP Foes Trade Fire On Immigration,” Chicago Tribune, 6/5/07)

For those who think Senator McCain has seen the light on immigration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LbTSe6uLqI

QUESTION: “But fundamentally, don’t you still have the same plan for a path to citizenship that you fundamentally held months ago?”

MCCAIN: “Sure.”

Share on Facebook

Share This