Guardian WatchBlog breaks his blogfast to encourage conservatives to vote for Mitt Romney. As always, a great post. Best quote:
To paraphrase an old joke: one of them is an amnesty-granting, rights-limiting, global warming-believing, terrorist-coddling, industry-destroying Democrat. The other is Hillary Clinton.
McCain touts his rating with the American Conservative Union frequently, trying to prove that he isn't indistinguishable from a Democrat. American Thinker performed an analysis of McCain's ACU score:
First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year.
Hmmm, 47th out of 100 when the Democrats have a majority. He is far from the most conservative Republican out there. 39th isn't much better.
Further analysis shows:
So where did McCain differ from the ACU? The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues. He was more consistently conservative on spending and defense issues.
AT notes that in one third of the votes scored by the ACU, a swing of only two senators would have changed the outcome. In two thirds, a swing of only ten were necessary.
As someone remarked, McCain is like a baseball player who gets all his hits after two outs and no one on base, and all his outs with men in scoring position.
Money quote:
What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)
How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?
Exactly. And just how much will his presidency differ from that of a Democrats?
Ann Coulter concurs, observing:
The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility. . . .
At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.
A McCain administration will wreck the Republican party and do irreparable harm to the conservative movement in America. God help me, I may end up abandoning Root and voting Romney, just to stop McCain.
As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.
But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?
Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?
Where was I when Reaganism died?
With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning -- think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?
Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.
I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.
I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) 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." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain's poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.
I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I'm getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don't like much of it.
I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won't vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).
And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That's right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards' and Hillary's speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I'm joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can't find a militia then I'm going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.
Obama's speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.
One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).
My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]
You often hear people say that they didn't leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn't leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.
And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.
Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:
The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don't think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination. I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let's see if we can't have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.
To which Advised by Wolves responds:
Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.
My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together -- a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary's side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won't come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.
Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.
Justin Wax from the Tennessean supported Huckabee, even to the point of sending him an early campaign contribution. But then he started learning the facts:
I was completely shocked when I read an Arkansas Leader article stating Huckabee issued more than 700 commutations and pardons during his tenure, more than Arkansas' six neighboring states combined. I was even more repulsed when I learned the list of pardons and commutations included convicted murderers and rapists.
As a fiscal conservative, I was annoyed with Huckabee's protectionist-sounding rhetoric and particularly his name-calling, labeling the conservative group Club for Growth, the "Club for Greed." His immigration policies as governor also gave me cause for concern, but I pushed all of Huckabee's faults to the back of my mind, instead choosing to dwell on his pro-life record and position on the war. However, when I studied the Wayne Dumond story and Huckabee's "desire" to see the convicted rapist released into society, alarm bells went off. After reading the Arkansas Leader article on Huckabee's shocking propensity to side with convicted murderers and rapists over victims, I meekly pulled off my Huckabee bumper stickers.
Wax then lists his problems with the rest of the "conservative" candidates:
As nice a summation as I have seen, although I have problems with McCain that aren't listed, primarily the fact that he hates both the First and Second amendments.
Now go read Wax's excellent reasoning as to why Thompson is his choice for president. Money quote:
Thompson "hands down" possesses excellent judgment, and he will win because he is the most reliable, consistent, principled conservative in this race. Unleash the Fredmentum.
Nice.
The Washington Post addresses some of the tales that politicians tell:
Mitt Romney says he "saw" his father "march" with Martin Luther King Jr. Rudolph W. Giuliani claims that he is one of the "five best-known Americans in the world." According to John McCain, the Constitution established the United States as a "Christian nation." Ron Paul believes that a "NAFTA superhighway" is being planned to link Mexico with Canada and undermine U.S. sovereignty.
On the other side of the political divide, Sen. Barrack Obama says there are more young black males in prison than in college. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton claims she has a "definitive timetable" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. John Edwards insists that NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- has cost Americans "millions of jobs." Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. boasts about his experience negotiating an arms-control treaty with Leonid Brezhnev.
All those claims, made over the past four months as part of the presidential campaign, are demonstrably false. . . .
When a candidate is caught making a clearly false statement, embarrassment or ridicule often ensues -- and over time a reputation can form. But the electoral rewards derived from stretching the truth or distorting a rival's record just as frequently outweigh the fleeting political costs.
One would hope that the political cost of telling a lie would be long term and the electoral rewards would be fleeting.
On the good side, however, WaPo also says that blogs, YouTube, information databases such as LexisNexis, and the 24-hour news cycle has resulted in mistakes and inaccuracies (and outright lies) are being identified quicker than ever. The most recent example is Huckabee's claim that "we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border."
Journalist Deroy Murdock observes that:
Murdock, of course, is trying to make the case for Giuliani.
Rumor has it that the thought of raising taxes once lingered in Rudy's mind overnight. When Rudy finally noticed what his brain was doing, he got so mad that he thimply thlapped himthelf thilly. Which explains why he supports other notions like taking away our guns.
Mitt Romney addressed the Conservative Leadership Conference today. His main themes revolved around:
I caught all of his 25-minute speech on video except the first sentence and the final wrap-up remarks. To view the 2 MB movie, click here (you'll have to download it, I don't have the software to stream it).
To read about a speech Mitt gave earlier today, Ed Morrissey live blogged it (the big boys get invited to all the cool events).
Some memorable excerpts from the speech I watched:
On Hillary's ideas:
Hillary Clinton said she has a million ideas for America, but the country can't afford them all. Think of that. There are now a million good reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
On responsibility:
Adam Smith said each individual pursuing their own dreams in their own free way would lift the entire nation. He recognized that Bill Gates being rich didn't make up poorer. That in fact the nation was probably going to do better. That was his vision. [Hillary] said it was time to change all that. She said instead we need to become a shared responsibility, we're all in it together society. So from her standpoint, it's out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx.
On Hillary's tax stance:
[Hillary] wants to raise taxes on individuals, she wants to raise social security taxes, she wants to raise taxes on corporations. Look, France and Germany have just elected conservatives as their leaders. I don't think she could be elected president of France, let alone president of this country on that platform.
On taxes:
Let me tell you where I stand on taxes. I want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I want a lower marginal rates for all Americans. I do not want to raise social security taxes. I want [one big?] medical premiums deductible whether you're getting your health care from your company or you want to do it yourself. I want to stop the inflation creep of the alternative minimum tax. And yes, I want to lower corporate taxes as well.
And one more thing. You know, it's just not fair that you get taxed when you earn your money, taxed when you save your money, and taxed when you die. So let's make the death tax gone forever.
And I have my own special tax rate for savings. My view is that if you make $200,000 a year and less -- so basically, 95% of Americans -- that there ought to be a new tax rate on your interest, dividends and capital gains, and that tax rate ought to be absolutely zero.
On big-spending Republicans:
When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. And this party has got to stand for reigning in excessive spending.
On fixing health care:
I'd like to fix our health care system. Not with a government take over. Not with Hillary Care. Not with socialized medicine. I don't want the people who ran the Katrina clean up running our health care system.
When we've got a problem in a sector of our economy, like health care, you don't say 'How do we put more government into it?', you say 'How do we get government out of it? How do we get it to work more like a free market?'
Big patriotic wrap:
But I believe very deeply in the principles of this country. Principles of freedom. Principles of individual initiative. Principles of individual responsibility. I like keeping government small. Taxes low.
And if you want to see a grand, prosperous future just call the American people to stand up and make a difference. I'm confident in our future. . . .
When I'm in South Carolina I'm asked, "Do you have Southern values?" "Oh yeah, I do." When I'm in Iowa I'm asked, "Do you have heartland values?" "Oh yes, I do." When I'm in Michigan I'm asked, "Do you have mid-Western values?" "Oh yes, I do." Because I've found that they're all the same.
These are the values that say that we believe in hard work, we believe in education, we believe in the sanctity of life, we believe in marriage, we believe in God. Even those of us who don't believe in God believe in something greater than our self. It's what Rick Warren calls a "purpose driven life".
We believe in America. We believe in the future of this great country. We're willing to sacrifice for it. We're people of opportunity. This is the land of opportunity.
Listen to the whole thing. There was a very nice story about economies being like the first day of basic training in the Israeli military. He bragged about his ability to turn a burdensome state deficit into a surplus by cutting spending (something to brag about in a state with 85% Democrats in the legislature). He promised to use the veto power whenever necessary. He mentioned fixing schools and health care.
In the few follow-up questions (which I missed recording), he unequivocally stated that he was against medical marijuana -- somewhat courageous in front of a majority-Nevada crowd (Nevada allows medical marijuana). This is the only thing he said in 25 minutes that I disagreed with. His saying it's a gateway drug is pure bunkum -- there are lots of gateway drugs (like ecstasy). Besides, do you really see cancer patients giving their pot to their grandkids?
One final note. Romney started late, which wasn't unexpected (what politician doesn't?), but just before he came on there was quite a conference going on at the stage about the placement of flags. A second American flag was brought on stage and arranged such that there was an American flag on each side of the Nevada flag, which stood directly behind Mitt. I know appearances are important, but I was somewhat irritated at the additional delay. But in review the pictures that I took, the reason is obvious. Taking a picture from either side results in a shot of Mitt with the American flag over his shoulder. Taking a picture from the front results in a picture of Mitt framed by American flags. Appearances are important.
So Mitt handily wins the Iowa GOP straw poll. Of course, fellow front-runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson didn't even bother to participate. And Mitt spent two million dollars on television ads alone, far outpacing anyone else.
On Politics does a cost-benefit analysis of the Iowa straw poll:
More than a thousand dollars a vote? Do we really want someone who throws money around like that to be in charge of our tax dollars?
On the other hand, what kind of guy do we want? Laura Ingraham ponders that question as she notes that Huckabee is a really nice guy, but:
Which brings me to the question: Do we really want a nice president? I kind of want a mean, tough S.O.B at this point — who can cut the legs out from underneath the Dems and the dinosaur media who are invested in America's defeat. Someone who seems pleasant on the surface but who knows how to send in the daisy-cutters when al Qaeda or Taliban thugs are sleeping.
Evidently Ms. Ingraham isn't the only one that feels that way. Byron York notes that fourth-place Tancredo received the biggest applause of all the candidates:
The unexpected thing was that Tancredo’s applause-getter wasn’t about immigration. Instead, Tancredo told the story of Danny Dietz, a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan in circumstances Tancredo blamed on restrictive rules of engagement. “When I am president, I will never, ever, ever send anyone into harm’s way with a CYA memo drafted by a Pentagon lawyer,” Tancredo told the crowd. “The only rule of engagement I’m going to have in a Tancredo administration is this: We win, you lose!”
Right on, Tancredo! I'd have applauded too.
While Huckabee's second place finish was a surprise, so was Ron Paul's fifth place. Blog Critics exclaims:
Wow. He's not polling under 1% anymore, now is he? Everyone is just going to have to come to terms with the fact that Ron Paul really does have a significant base of support, as evidenced by his impressive fund-raising and his strong online presence. He won't win the nomination, of course, but I do expect him to be the last candidate to concede, and to give one helluva interesting speech at the GOP Convention (assuming they let him come within 100 meters of a microphone).
In spite of some very dedicated Fred Heads, Fred Thompson garnered only 1% of the vote. Still, he hasn't even announced or started marketing himself, yet he came in ahead of well-known candidates John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Barely, but that's got to mean something.
(Jeez, McCain came in behind Duncan Hunter. Who's he?)
Fred won in one way: Tommy Thompson said that he would quit the race if he didn't come in first or second -- and he finished in sixth place. If he keeps his promise, this should put a stake in the heart of his campaign. So when Fred Thompson announces and starts running in earnest, voters won't be confused by having two Thompsons to try and keep straight.
But the real question is, "So what?" Captain Morrissey thinks that the low turnout is meaningless (there were 40% fewer votes than the one in 1999).
Personally, I think a poll that is mainly a fund-raising event for the GOP party in Iowa and that is held this far in advance of the primaries is fairly meaningless. On the other hand, W won the '99 Iowa GOP straw poll with about the same percentage as Mitt did today, so maybe it means something after all.
Nah.
Forbes polled voting age Americans and asked them to match attributes to presidential candidates:
It's not clear how "activist" might describe a president. Presumably, all holders of that office would pursue their own agendas vigorously. But it does seem to indicate a perception among voters as to how engaged in important issues a candidate is, rather than simply issuing position papers or repeating a canned stump speech. At the same time, however, Gore also happens to be rated as the most boring candidate of both parties.
There's more information at the link, but here's the high-level data:
| Candidate | Percent |
| Al Gore (D) | 51 |
| Hillary Clinton (D) | 36 |
| Barack Obama (D) | 36 |
| Dennis Kucinich (D) | 28 |
| John Edwards (D) | 24 |
| Bill Richardson (D) | 21 |
| Rudy Giuliani (R) | 19 |
| Newt Gingrich (R) | 19 |
| Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D) | 19 |
| Christopher Dodd (D) | 19 |
| John McCain (R) | 18 |
| Mitt Romney (R) | 13 |
| Michael Bloomberg (I) | 13 |
| Tommy Thompson (R) | 13 |
| Fred Thompson (R) | 10 |
McCain's Straight Talk Express seems to be going in reverse. Only 8% of likely Republican voters in Nevada support him, according to the most recent Mason-Dixon poll.
Even worse, he is also polling in single digits in two key early-voting states: 6% in Iowa and 7% in South Carolina.
If he fails to pump up his fundraising and continues to poll badly, rumor has it that McCain could pull out of race by autumn.
It's a little early to count him out, but the writing seems to be on the wall. According to Mason-Dixon:
Expect Edwards to be declared unelectable now that his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, has come out in support of gay marriage.
You have to admit, Rudy is doing pretty good for a guy whose South Carolina campaign chairman was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute last week.
And you have to give Fred Thompson props for running the most effective non-campaign in history.
While answering questions last Tuesday, Mitt Romney apparently tried to pass himself off as a life-long hunter:
"I support the Second Amendment," he told the man [wearing an NRA hat] who had asked about his views on the constitutional right to bear arms. "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life. I've never really shot anything terribly big. I used to hunt rabbits."
Then things went south as it came out that Romney had only hunted twice in his life: once with his cousins when he was 15, and again last year on a fenced game preserve with GOP donors.
Does that really qualify as "life-long"? Yeah, the press didn't think so either, so the campaign staff started damage control on Wednesday:
"Gov. Romney's support for the Second Amendment doesn't come from the fact he knows how to handle a firearm; it comes from his appreciation of the Constitution and the rights enshrined in it, including the right to keep and bear arms," said campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
Strange. In a 1994 Senate race he said that he supported the Brady gun control law and a ban on assault rifles:
"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," he told the Boston Herald at the time. "I don't line up with a lot of special interest groups."
Slap! In Massachusetts you don't need the NRA's support. As a matter of fact, it's probably something of a liability.
But the tactic worked so well that he did the same thing in the 2002 Governors race by saying:
We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them. I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.
Slap! Take that, NRA!
But now Mitt is running for president and he needs the heartland. Suddenly he's concerned about the Constitution. Which explains why a "life-long hunter" finally joined the NRA last August. It also explains why he did a couple of marginally gun-friendly things towards the end of his term (just before he started running for president).
And it explains why Mitt spoke to the press today in an attempt to do some damage control to undo the damage done by his campaign spokesman when he was trying to do damage control:
"I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear," [Romney] said. "I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times."
Ooh, "More than two times." That makes up for the Brady pandering and the bad-mouthing of the NRA and the "assault" weapons ban. Right?
Yeah, I don't think so either.
Human Events interviews Mitt Romney, who hasn't yet announced his presidential intention, about the items that will be important if when he finally announces.