Sarah Palin: 2012 The Year?

The following comments are from CPAC section on Team Sarah, and they raise the question whether Sarah should run in 2012? I'll respond to them tomorrow (Thursday). Short version: I believe she should plan to run for the presidency.

Comment on Points Made in the Following piece by John:

John makes excellent points (below in italics), and I tend to agree. . . . But I'm not so sure about their ability to rack up a Super Majority in Congress in the off year elections. Traditionally, the President's party does not do well in the off years.I view the off year as an opportunity for us to drill into their existing majority. If that happens significantly, then I think Sarah should go for it. If it doesn't happen, then I think she should cool it, and build her resume.

john.md said:

And Mitt Romney is worth 100 million, doesn't and never will have to work to support his family or his presidential ambitions.Huck falls into the same class. They can afford to put every political operative in Iowa on retainer. The simple fact remains if Obama has 50 % or better favorability no one will beat him no matter how much money or how long they campaign. He already has 200 mill for the next election and I saw on a dem web site they expect to have a 2 billion war chest for 2012 plus the incumbent advantage They are already counting the additional seats they are going to pick up in 2010 for a super majority; they are that confident. I personally think that she needs to be re-elected in 2010 and then take a look at it in 2011. The more leadership experience and getting re-elected will go a long way in the public eye. If the great one has fallen there will still be plenty of time. If he has not then Huck and Mitt can waste their money and they will be labeled as unelectable for what will be what the third or fourth time. Remember Sarah Draws big crowds , Mitt and Huck don't come close to generating that kind of excitement. 2011 will be soon enough to start if the conditions are right and if not 2014 will be just right . Unless the One gets the Constitution changed it will be a level playing field. Two full terms as governor , two years to campaign unrestricted plus the time in between to gain international expertise and build one helluva grass roots organization. Remember it has taken 8 years for the dems to get back in the white house.

Palin: McCain's Most Compelling Choice

NOTE TO BLOG BUNKER LISTENERS ON SIRIUS (BUT NOT TOO SERIOUS) RADIO: This is my main, national blog. The other blogs I'll mention are the Hillary Supporters site (http://hillarysupportersformccainb.blogspot.com and the Pennsylvania site: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Other blogs I'll try to mention include:
the main Palin web site: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com
the Moms4McCain site: http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com
the Bev Perlson military moms site: http://thebandofmothers.com
the Tom Manion web site: http://votemanion.com.
the primary McCain discussion site: http://mccainnow.com.

If you have any questions, e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Thanks!

You will read things here that the national media will start covering next month. On my Hillary Supporters site and on my PA site, I talk about a national group of Hillary supporters who are targeting for defeat "SuperDelegates" who gave Sen. Clinton the shaft (voting for Obama against the wishes of their constituents. Such individuals include John Kerry of MA and Jay Rockefeller of WV, among many others.

Can't go to bed tonight (Monday) without asking you to check out my Hillary Supporters for McCain site. It contains information about the most amazing political movement I've sene in my lifetime: Hillary Supporters who "mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore." Fascinating . . . I will be on Sirius Radio from NY at 5:30 p.m. (ET) on Tuesday.

On my Pennsylvania blog I've received an important request from Tom Manion, Republican congressional candidate in PA's 8th district. It deals with an important online poll. Manion, a Marine Corps veteran, lost his son Travis in the Iraq War. Please visit the site for information. http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.



Sarah Palin sorrounded by veterans of the Vietnam War. Sarah's son, Track, age 18, is an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army. She's widely regarded as the frontrunner for the GOP's V-P nomination.

"Sarah is not an ordinary mortal. She truly has no downside."

I proclaimed to the world yesterday that prominent national security writer Jack Kelly (who writes for major newspapers in Pennsylvania and Ohio) has strongly endorsed Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska for the GOP ticket. Kelly is an unusual combination - a former Marine, a former Special Forces soldier and a former candidate for Congress (he lost, alas).

In his column, Jack Kelly says "most [presidential candidates] will settle for a veep who isn't a drag on the ticket, as Dan Quayle was for the first President Bush." He might have added, "Or, as Dick Cheney apparently was on the second President Bush."

Kelly adds, "The potential [McCain] running mates most often discussed have downsides nearly as great as their upsides."

He adds, "Gov. Tim Pawlenty helps only in Minnesota, and not enough, according to current polls, to make a difference there. Mr. McCain's friend, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, would bring in some moderate Democrats but could further antagonize conservatives already suspicious of Mr. McCain.

"Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts would have little appeal to working-class whites unhappy with Sen. Barack Obama, and evangelicals fret about that Mormon thing. A Mike Huckabee nomination would irritate economic . . . conservatives as much as it would please evangelicals. Louisiana Gov.

Bobby Jindal is a rising star. But he's only 36, and he's been governor for less than a year."
The men - key word - Kelly mentions are all people of talent. One of them (Jindal?) may end up as President someday. But Jack Kelly is right about their downsides.

According to pundit lore, Pawlenty could help McCain win the "battleground" (sorta) state of Minnesota. However, he won re-election there by only 21,000 votes out of 2.3 million cast. He was lucky to carry Minnesota himself. Bulletin to John McCain: you aren't going to carry Minnesota with or without Pawlenty.

Mitt's Romney's problem is that he strikes many people as inauthentic. They don't believe his latter-day conversion to pro-life and anti-illegals views. They see him as ambitious to a fault. Also, in the primaries, he seemed to win only states either dominated by Mormons (Utah) or characterized by the fact Mitt Romney grew up there (Michigan).

Bobby Jindal is a mixture of ability and oddness. A few months ago he was interviewed on CNN, and the questioner couldn't get him to say whether he endorsed John McCain . . . or Barack Obama. With Jindal around, McCain might need a food taster.

As Kelly implies, Joe Lieberman - a fine man and a patriot - would be an awful choice. He came close to losing his seat in Connecticut. Most Democrats despise him, and most Republicans would rather see someone else on the ticket.

Mike Huckabee is a candidate whose campaign was almost as tenacious as Hillary Clinton's He's chronically underestimated by the national media. However, it's hard to see what he could bring to the ticket that Sarah Palin can't.

She's just as "Christian" as Mike, but has less of a tendency to wear it on her sleeve. Also, she has pro-life credentials (having opted to give birth to a Down Syndrome child) that no other politician can match.

What works against Sarah is tradition - specifically, the Republican tradition of making very bad choices for Vice President. Barry Goldwater chose William Miller, an obscure (and deservedly so) Congressman from Lockport, New York. Nixon chose Spiro Agnew specifically to help him carry Maryland - which didn't happen - but lack of popularity turned out to be the least of Agnew's faults.

George H. W. Bush famously chose Quayle, who struck most people as a simpleton. Bob Dole chose Jack Kempt, but the wretched Republican campaign could have been won if Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were on the ticket.

George W. Bush chose Dick Cheney, supposedly a "solid" pick. In fact, Cheney - holed up mainly in his "undisclosed location" (the Bat Cave?), turned out to be the Darth Vader of contemporary politics.

The only "problem" with Sarah Palin is that she's such an obvious choice. As my friend in Boston puts it, she's a no-brainer. Some people invent shortcomings, such as the fact that she's beautiful and was - and is - a great athlete, the kind of person who runs - and finishes - marathons.

In my previous column I listed the groups for whom Sarah has great appeal: young people, military families, working mothers, women professionals, pro-lifers, hunters, working-class voters (her husband being one), fitness and health advocates, and ethics-in-government people. I didn't add Alaskans, where Sarah's approval ratings hover around 90%.

She's also a ferocious campaigner. In her race for Governor, she first unseated the incumbent Republican, Frank Murkowski. Then, she in the general, she beat a popular former Governor (and Democrat) Tony Knowles. That was in 2006, which was generally a very bad year for Republicans.

If John McCain doesn't choose Sarah Palin, he might have to plead temporary insanity. As I've said, "Sarah Palin is no ordinary mortal." I've also said that she's "Mt. Rushmore material." I certainly hope John McCain takes the first major step in proving me right.

Link to Jack Kelly's column: http://post-gazette.com/forum

Why Conservatives MUST Back McCain

All onliners who want to know how to help John McCain should go to an important resource: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com/. On that site, Kathy Morrison has many suggestions on how you can help build you own small (or large!) coalitions for Senator McCain. I'll review some of her points here on Monday -- with specific emphasis on New Jersey. Hope you all had a great weekend!

NOTE: For those of you interested in the Republican Veepstakes, take a look at Sunday's piece by super-columnist Jack Kelly. He likes both Chris Cox, former congressman and current head of the SEC, and Mitt Romney. You can find Jack's column at: http://post-gazette.com/forum. Scroll down to his name. (My guess is that Romney will get the nod, partly because of his electoral strength in his home state of Michigan.)

For Sunday and Monday, I'll be reprinting Larry Perrault's fine essay on why conservatives need to support John McCain. My comments will appear at the bottom of Larry's piece, which you can find at: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com.

Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.

But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.

It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain.

Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out.

But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:

First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility.

America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.

Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall.

Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now. For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability.

Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance.

Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.

Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century.

I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.

However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter.

I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentations. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.

But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.

McCain Palin Ticket, Texas Revelations

Rush Limbaugh put the graphic above up on his web site yesterday. As many of you know, I have been a strong supporter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, often called "the nation's most popular elected official," as the best choice for for V-P on the Republican ticket.


A person of impeccable honor and integrity, Sarah is a dedicated Christian, a fiscal conservative, pro-life and a Life Member of the NRA. Beyond that, she's the mother of four children, the oldest of whom, Track Palin, age 18, is an infantryman in the U.S. Army. Track enlisted on 9/11 in 2007.


If Senator McCain does choose her, it's highly likely that, in either 2012 or 2016, she will become America's first female President.


Here's the link to Limbaugh's homepage: http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Also, the person who, one year ago, launched the Draft Palin for V-P movement is Adam Brickley, an extremely talented college student from Colorado Springs. He has written extensively about why Sarah Heath Palin should be the V-P choice. You can find his outstanding blog at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com. I was the second blogger to join Adam's movement.


I have never supported Sarah merely because she's a woman. I support her because I believe she would be a caring, intellectually and politically gifted vice-president and, at a later date, a great President. She's one of those principled conservatives who isn't angry at everybody. She's a great listener, someone who understands that our government is one "by, for, and of the people."


I hope all McCain supporters will urge the Senator to select Sarah Heath Palin, Alaska's favorite daughter, as his vice-presidential running mate. She would be Barack Obama's worst nightmare -- and America's best hope for the future. She's a younger, female version of Ronald Reagan, and she's the most exciting political personality to come along since the "Gipper."

Texas Revelations on McCain, Obama

I received the following e-mail today from one of the finest, most knowledgeable political operatives in the Oklahoma-Texas area, Sharon Caliendo, of Norman, Oklahoma. Sharon has lived and worked in many states, always for Republican causes. She's close to Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Both of those men are ardent supporters of Senator John McCain.


Steve --

Been in and out of Texas this week but in my spare time I have put up the two blogs.

I would say that McCain will have no problem winning TX no matter who the Dems put up and if it is Obama, you can put TX in the win column before they even vote. Learned that the people fainting are following the campaign around. One of the guys told me that an Obama rally in some areas has been made up of whites and blacks who are on the government take better known as welfare. He was saying they are talking about college students but he thinks they are more like middle and high school. He was at a rally where the Austin birdcage paper said a lot of UT students were there but he disagreed because he saw very few UT shirts and they always wear them to rallies. He saw kids some getting off buses coming into the area which would not have been UT students.

Huckabee shot himself in the foot today. Gov Perry asked Huckabee to withdraw from the race and Huckster basically asked why he would take advice from someone who had endorsed Rudy when he was wrong about that. Never did get the exact quote as Rick's aide was so mad when he called. Someone from McCain had asked Rick to ask Huckabee to please withdraw from the race and join to defeat the Dem in November but Huckster was too arrogant for that. Set off a firestorm that is not going to end any time soon.

I told our State Chair if Huckabee is the keynote speaker for the OK Convention I am not going to sit and listen to the windbag and will walk out as he starts to speak. He said, "you wouldn't" -- bet me I wouldn't!

Mark and I were complaining the blogs that were anti-Obama were not exactly on McCain's side so we decided to add another one with that in mind. We figured running them as Republicans and McCain supporters would make a difference rather then 'conservative' owners who don't like McCain much better then the Dems in some cases.

Thanks for the info on Iraq -- I am getting people to help me out with the 2nd blog -- they are not big McCain supporters but they detest Obama and Hillary and will definitely support him in November. This gives them a way to get involved and we can all help McCain.

All I need is more hours in my day and everything will work itself out!

Take care!

Sharon

NOTE FROM STEVE: IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHO PRECISELY BARACK OBAMA IS, PLEASE READ THE ALARMING -- BUT ACCURATE -- STORY BELOW.

McCain Wins Nomination by Christopher

Christopher at http://youngrepublican.townhall.com, a superb blog, wrote the followingt piece on Monday -- prior to Super Tuesday. He titled the column "McCain Wins Nomination." Like all of Christopher's work, the column is a model of sanity and logic. I urge you to visit Christopher's great site.

Get used to the title because on Wednesday it will become a reality. I am being completely and totally presumptuous and yes I know the danger of this. Just last night, when the Giants won the Superbowl with a touchdown in the last thirty seconds of the game. I looked at my brother and said "All across this nation everyone is saying "Wow...I just lost a lot of money". And of course anything is possible. But the results from tomorrow are clear with McCain with double Romney's numbers nationally and Romney's doubling Huckabee's. In the Republican race, McCain will win and Huckabee and Romney will drop out on Wednesday morning. [Note: Got that wrong, Christopher, but nobody's perfect.]

If I have egg on my face so be it (if it doesn’t happen Tuesday night the end result will be the same), but we need to get over the primary discussion and move on to the general election.

The first emotion I feel with McCain winning isn't happiness or relief, it's nervousness. I love John McCain and as long time readers know, I have supported him consistently through this entire race. Now many good Americans who supported a national hero Rudy Giuliani have given their support to the Senator making him unbeatable to get the nomination. The good news is that we as a party will have time to heal from the division that a primary (and to be fair it does so by design) invokes. Friends who supported Bush and local Republicans in 2002, 2004, and 2006 became competitors and some enemies. A sad effect, which is why I hate primaries. Democrats no matter how big a happy face they put on it are very much in the same boat.

Their race will go on past Super Tuesday, the division will continue. And the general election question posed to the GOP is now this. Do we let the division continue past the primary or do we rally to the most conservative legitimate candidate in the general election? Yes McCain is no Reagan and as a moderate Republican I like that.

But I also liked Reagan and to that note Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr., and Bush. Each one changed the party and the country with a mixture of liberal and conservative thought that formed their presidency, their legacy. The reason for this is that a Republican is not in the White House to represent only conservatives in this country. He is there to represent every American and while the solutions he proposes and enacts are more likely to coincided with the beliefs of a certain people, they affect everyone. Not to mention the fact that the solutions he enacts are not only his to make but also a shared responsibility with the members of Congress and the Supreme Court.

And so that is my whole problem with the false conservative litmus test being used by a few in the party and many more in the conservative media. The belief that only a conservative, their conservative, should lead this country. If it were up to me only moderate to liberal Republicans should lead this country. But "should" is the wrong word, because it exists only in the abstract. The word that is correct is will. Someone will lead this country. “Should” is our choice and it is over. Our next president will either be one of three people John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And if you are one of those very conservative people who say that McCain is not a conservative. That is not the argument.

For the very conservative, though they may have a list five feet tall of disagreement with McCain, it is undeniable that the list doubles in size with either Clinton or Obama. So the question to the most conservative of voters with McCain getting the nomination is this: Will you pick the leadership that best fits your beliefs or let your pride (and be honest that is what it is) engulf you and betray your duty to pick the best legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

Mike Huckabee's Flag-Waving Racism

SARAH PALIN: I know you're at Ft. Benning for your son's graduation from infantry training, and that you've visited this site. You and Track are much in our thoughts and prayers. Please keep "tuning in." As young American patriots, your son and his friend John Bates are in exactly the right place.

My next column will appear tonight (Saturday), after the South Carolina Primary. If John McCain wins in SC, he probably will end up as the GOP's nominee. If he doesn't, then things will continue to remain very complicated. The Florida Primary occurs in 10 days and "Super Tuesday" will be in 17 days. Will we have a nominee by Feb. 6? Anyone who knows the answer to that question should let the rest of us in on it. Also, is it just me, or does Obama look like someone who's going to be nearly impossible to beat in the general election? As the saying goes, "we live in interesting times."


One of my biggest problems with "Mike" Huckabee is his embrace of the Confederate Flag, a symbol of the nation's darkest days to many in S.C. and the nation. A little good ole Arkansas racism seems to be the way to get some vote from the Pavlovian "evangelicals," who make up most of his supporters. A little offense against Black folks isn't going to hurt him in in the heart of Dixie.

Of course, the Confederate flag means different strokes to different folks. To African-Americans, a group that doesn't "like Mike," the flag stands for racism, slavery, segregation, and humiliation. To the group that drives dusty pick-ups and drinks throws Blue Ribbon cans out the window, the flag reflects a time when Black people "knew their place."

Mike Huckabee claims to be a Christian -- a claim for which I see no evidence. I don't take him at his word, because I don't see any deeds. I see another Southerner out conning the boobs.

Of course, many politicians in the Republican Party (including Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham) have made the faith claim. But I have no earthly (or heavenly) idea what Mike Huckabee believes -- if anything. He exemplifies the stylistics of a backwater form of what passes for Christianity in rural areas of the Deep South, but I don't see anything more substantial. He seems to love his neighbors, but not the ones two streets away.

As I've tried hard (but failed) to explain to Larry Perrault, a big backer of Pastor Mike, people can claim to believe anything, and of course some of them believe nothing. I increasingly tend to think Mike falls in that category. And I'm beginning to wonder about Larry, who seems to have two issues: abortion and gay marriage, which happen to Huckabee's key issues. For someone like Larry, disagreeing with him constitutes a deviation from "The Word of God."

Huckabee knows (and so does Larry) that the chances for a constitutional amendment on either issue are about the same as polar bears migrating to Miami. (The last effort at an amendment on abortion was in 1983, and it fell 18 votes short of passage in the Senate.) Mike knows there's no chance for such amendments, but if that waves his rhetorical version of the bloody sheet in front of the primitives, some grunt and some drool.

The only way we can determine an individual's beliefs -- be it Larry or Pastor Mike -- is by their acts. "By their fruits ye shall know them." If the fruit is rotten, well . . .

Mike's "fruits" right now seem to be confined to cozying up to the Primitive Baptists and racists crawling out of the S. Carolina swamps. The push-polling on his behalf is Exhibit B of the racism and foulness that afflicts his campaign. There has been an effort in 2000 and another one this year by Huckabee supporters (Christians all, one presumes) to make false statements about John McCain. Pastor Huckabee could stop this, but he chooses not to.

The claim made in the sewers of South Carolina politics is that John McCain "faithered an illegitimate Black child." As I've explained, John McCain and his wife Cindy adopted a dark-skinned orphan in BanglaDesh, and she's been their daughter for many years. As I mentioned, Mike Huckabee could stop the slurs about the McCains, but he chooses not to.

Are there enough good Republicans in S. Carolina to repudiate Mike's tactics? I guess we shall see soon.

The admonitions of Jesus Christ are difficult ones, and the "evangelical favorite" is falling far short of living up to them. He's Goomer Pyle with an attitude -- and not a good attitude.

Regarding another Huckabee supporter, Triva, of Greenville, SC, she and I have had an interesting "relationship." She made many comments on this blog, and I reprinted all of them. I made a few comments on her blog, and she reprinted none of them. I guess that struck her as fair.

Triva is a homeschooler, a group that strongly backs Mike Huckabee. She doesn't send her children to public school in Greenville, SC, because, as she explained, "the schools aren't good enough." In the Deep South, the "not-so-good schools" are code words for having too many people that don't resemble "us."

I told her that her views on the free exchange of information didn't augur well for preparing her children -- many pictures of whom she prints on her blog -- for life in a diverse world. She didn't appreciate the advice, mainly because she hasn't yet grasped the fact that some people disagree with her! There are occasional signs that Triva could actually be a good person, but somehow that doesn't look like a realistic possibility. Self-righteousness and goodness don't go well together.

She doesn't like me, and right about now the feeling has become mutual. As for Mike, he reminds us why so many people continue to view Southern Baptists as symbols of narrowness, sexism, meanness, and intolerance.

In the 2000 SC Primary, John McCain backed off on criticizing having the Confederate Flag fly above the capital. In 2008, McCain called his earlier position "an act of cowardice." Of course, John McCain is a 20th century model of American heroism.

Somehow, I have the strong feeling that terms like cowardism and heroism have little meaning to Mike Huckabee, who is the former but not the latter.

FRED THOMPSON; HISTORY'S WORST CAMPAIGN

I wrote the following in response to a Yahoo "conservative" group where one member was asking where Fred Thompson's headquarters were in states like MI, MN, SD, and ND. You'll note that I'm not a big fan of Fred Thompson.

When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.

Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).

When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.

In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won. I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives.

What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.

Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards.

As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.

Good riddance, Fred.

McCain: American Hero, Patriot, Christian

Mike Devine, who posts under the name "Gamecock" sent me an article that's critical of Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and just about everybody other than Fred Thompson. It centers on the South Carolina primary, and you can see it by clicking on: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109d.html

The article may tell you more about SC politics than you want to know, but you won't find anything better between now and the Palmetto State primary. I expect Larry Perrault and SJ Reidhead can't wait to respond it -- especially SJ (Cindy), who hails from SC.

I think all the article's criticisms, including those of Mike Huckabee, are somewhere between petty and totally unfair. For Huck fans, the accusations are mostly "inside baseball" stuff about the conservative wing of the So. Baptist Church and the VERY conservative wing. In the mind of some Baptists, Mike chose the "wrong" side in a denominational struggle. Talk about arcana.

I like Mike Devine (Gamecock) a lot, but his support of Thompson, like the Fred Campaign itself, is embarrassing. Fred is the laziest of candidates, and he's the worst when it comes to raising money.

After 9/11, Fred said, "Now is not the time to leave [the Senate]." Shortly thereafter, he left -- to join the cast of a television show (Richard Wolf's "Law and Order") that missed few opportunities to bash the military and the GWB segment of the country. Frankly, Fred should be ashamed of himself.

"Yes, we have no bananas," when bananas is an analogue to perfect candidates.

I criticize Mike Huckabee myself, but anyone with sense will see that he, like several other candidates, is a good one and a man with some remarkable political achievements.

As for John McCain, yes, he is a "maverick," that is, someone who thinks for himself -- wow, how exotic. He has been pro-life and pro-military for his entire life. He is a Christian, which is a term that does not and should not have a narrow meaning. Of great significance, he's an American hero who underwent torture for many years.

Of great note, he has tackled issues (including immigration and campaign finance) where others have relied on pandering to an increasingly clueless "base." That's a group which believes the answer to real, pressinging problems is to "just say NO."

On campaign finance: it has turned into a vehicle for re-electing incumbents (Pelosi, Murtha, Obey, Waxman, Rangel) unto perpetuity. McCain's approach may have had its flaws, but anybody who doesn't see that the current system is a nightmare for representative democracy has not been paying attention.

For Huck supporters, they need to see that -- in many ways -- McCain is a lot like Mike Huckabee, although without the Southern accent. Mike and John both get criticized at least as much for their virtues as their faults. At times it appears the only people who like them are voters (and not just in states like Iowa and New Hampshire).

My point is that we need to recognize that candidates who disagree with us on one or more issues are not therefore beyond the pale. Heck, even in my case, I'm not always right.

May the best man win.

HUGH HEWITT'S MITT ROMNEY PROBLEM

"Hugh Hewitt, a reputation is a terrible thing to waste."

Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.

When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.

As a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS. It means outlining where a candidate is weak -- and where he's strong.

In fact, Mitt Romney is not a strong candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney squandered big early leads in the polls and ended up finishing a distant second. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens. There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.

Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and stop the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.

On this blog, I note the candidate(s) I favor and don't fail point out their warts. Romney is spending a lot more money than his opponents, and his performance is not good. It would strengthen Hugh's credibility if he showed some basic signs of balance, which he doesn't when it comes to Mitt Romney.

So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).

steve maloney

FAIR-TAX A NON-STARTER?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowd
Questions for the Fair Tax Crowd
by Jerry Bowyer

Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?

When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment. Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process? Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?

Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?

The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?

Does it apply to non-profits? [And if not, why not?]

If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?

Are used goods, non-taxable?

If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?

What about the transition period?

Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought? If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.

[Other big questions follow]

Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?
And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.

How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?

If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.

If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates?

That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.
______________________________
Mr. Bowyer [of Allegheny County, PA] is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a [frequent] CNBC contributor.

IOWA CAUCUS: BAD GOP OMENS

Single issue voters are destroying the GOP's chances of winning crucial elections -- including the presidency. That's true whether the single issue is abortion, gay marriage, or immigration. Ironically (sadly?), the single-issue voters are also undermining their chances to win on their issue of choice.

In fact, abortion, gay marriage, and immigration are NOT big issues with most American voters, as we found out once again in almost all-white, politically moderate Iowa. All three of the Democratic candidates hold views the opposite of GOP single-issue voters, including the evangelicals who cast their votes for Mike Huckabee.

Look at it this way: the number of Iowans who participate in the Democratic caucuses totaled an amazing 239,000. That was nearly twice the number in the Republican caucuses. In terms of registration, Iowans are roughly one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third "0ther" (most Independent).

Iowa is a "light Blue" or "light pink" state, with Bush losing narrowly in 2000 and winning narrowly in 2004. It's one where Republicans should at least be competitive on a statewide basis. Right now, Republicans are nowhere near being competitive in Iowa.

Look at the Caucus this way: ONE Republican, Mike Huckabee, won by a fairly comfortable margin.

However, THREE Democrats -- Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary -- all got MORE Caucus votes than Huckabee. If he'd been running for Democratic votes, he would have finished a fairly distant FOURTH.

Of course, many Huckabee supporters -- Larry Perrault being a prominent one -- have announced that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, they will sit out the election. That should make it much easier for either Obama or Hillary Clinton to win the general election.

Generally, Democrats generally like their choice of (extremely liberal) candidates. Republicans don't like their choice of (mainly conservative) candidates.

If what happens in New Hampshire and South Carolina resembles in any way what occurred in Iowa, Republican candidates -- many of them superb human beings -- are in for a drubbing. Democrats are united, while Republicans are fractured.

Whoever the Democratic candidate for President turns out to be, bet your money on him -- or her.

Tomorrow's column (on Tuesday) will be about the candidacy of Melissa Hart trying to regain her seat in PA's 4th Congressional District.

Later this week I'll write one of my last pieces on the Russell-Murtha race. After analyzing the race carefully, I believe -- sadly -- that the race is not currently winnable by a challenger; however, any Republican candidate that can chalk up 100,000 votes would be in a good position to win the seat when Murtha retires/passes away.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN IOWA

Hi: If you're visiting from Eric Dondero's libertarian radio show, this blog is one where I cross-post. Most of my regulars visit at my other site: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. You're always welcome here (or there) -- and so are your comments.


"Life is a terrible teacher. First, it gives you the test -- and only then teaches you the lesson." (Anonymous)

NOTE: I'm going to wait until the organizational "dust" settles in the Russell Campaign before I write about it again. I'm going to spend the month of January writing about several other campaigns that I believe are extremely important, including Melissa Hart's effort to regain her congressional seat in PA's 4th District (where I live).

The following is an e-mail I wrote to several conservative and/or Republican members of Yahoo Groups. I am a very strong advocate of involving conservative and moderate younger people (the "Children's Crusade") in campaigns to elect Republicans.


I wrote awhile back to a couple of Yahoo Groups stating my strong disagreement with the gentleman who observed that Young People (17-30) aren't very important in politics, etc., etc. To me, that was a classic example of a know-everything who knows nothing. In Iowa, Obama won a smashing victory with 57% of the young (Democratic) voters.

In the campaigns I'm working on -- especially Melissa Hart's effort -- I intend to seek out every conservative or moderate young person I can. I've used that approach in the past, and I see no reason not to repeat it.

We cranky (mostly older) conservatives don't like dealing with young voters, so we pretend they don't exist. Obama did not suffer from that illusion. He recognized that young people going to college in Iowa (including out-of-staters) were a key to victory. He got thousands of college students to return EARLY to campus and vote in the caucuses. And he won big.

Apparently, we Republican conservatives aren't that bright. We write off one group after another (Blacks, Hispanics, young people, female professionals) and expect somehow that our ideological fervor will save the day. It won't.

Immigration was a big issue with the relatively small number of Republicans who caucused. It was not a big issue with the huge number of Democrats who participated.

The tremendous Democratic turnout in Iowa (239,000!) is an ominous development. Iowa is a swing-state, and guess which way it's swinging? The results in 2008 could make the 2006 disaster look like the good old days.

Huckabee? He carried a large portion of the heavy evangelical vote in Iowa. I don't really have a lot else to say about it.

I don't believe Huckabee has any chance of launching a national strategy to win in a general election. Evangelicals are a mere one-third of the people who call themselves Republicans. I foresee a vote for Huckabee in a presidential election of about 35%. That kind of poor performance would cost Republicans many, many seats in Congress.

JAMIE SPEARS'S PREGNANCY: A "TRAGEDY?"

JAMIES SPEARS'S PREGNANCY: A "TRAGEDY?"
In my previous column, mainly devoted to John McCain's, I wrote about Mike Huckabee's unfortunate comment that Jamie Spears's pregnancy was a "tragedy." Now, my comments seem to be controversial with some Huckabee supporters (of whom I'm not one). Here's my additional comment.I wrote a column today with two parts, one about John McCain, the other about Mike Huckabee's criticism of Jamie Spears, who is pregnant at age 16. Mike called the pregnancy a "tragedy," which is a rather wild misuse of that word. He then apparently complimented Miss Spears on not choosing to have an abortion. Which is it, Mike? A good thing or a bad thing? Is she being irresponsible -- or is she demonstrating real courage.Later, I heard that Nikolodeon (which run Jamie's show directed to pre-teens and young teens) was planning to have a special (with Linda Ellerbee) on teen pregnancy. I wish Mike had suggested something like that approach, rather than being the clueless Southern Baptist minister we all have come to know and love. I've been on the scene with several teen pregnancies (including two in my own family) and the very last thing you should say to any mother-to-be is that being pregnant is a "tragedy" or even the the result of "bad behavior." Frankly, most young girls who are "with child" don't regard it as a tragedy but more like a blessing from God. That's the way members of my family looked at it, and abortion was never a consideration. Why does Mike Huckabee regard it as some terrible developing? Characterizing a teen pregnancy or any kind of pregnancy as some awful, tragic event is a great way to induce young women to have an abortion. Frankly, when a woman (or a girl) is pregnant, the "horse" has left the barn, and decent people (even Baptist ministers) have to move into a supportive role. If Mike is this easily horrified by something that happens 800,000 times per year (teen pregnancies), he needs a basic course in reality. The time to condemn Miss Spears ended at the moment of conception.Parents and friends who tell pregnant children that it will be the ruination of their lives are a major cause of abortion in the U.S. Pregnancy is NOT a tragedy. So, wake up, Mike. What I hope Jamie Spears will do is to advise other teens to avoid becoming pregnant when they are 17 or younger. At the same time, I hope she'll urge those teens who do become pregnant to carry their child to term -- and to bring him or her up with the support of family and friends. I also hope she'll take courses in parenting. In the past, she's been the rational, practical member of the Spears family, and I hope those qualities manifest themselves in the future.

As always, comments are welcome.
steve maloney

Addition on Abortion:

I've written a couple of times on the issue of abortion (and the related issue of embryonic stem cells), and I'm very impatient with candidates, like Huckabee, who are members of what I call "Pro-Life, Inc." Those who people who identify themselves as "pro-life," but propose no practical solutions to the problem.

Huckabee proposes a constitutional amendment, apparently to overturn Roe v. Wade. There will never be such an amendment in our life. The last serious Human Life Amendment (see Wikipedia) was in 1983. It needed 67 votes to pass, and it got 49. It's doubtful that such an amendment would get more than 40 votes.

There are practical ways to reduce the number of abortions -- and increase the number of adoptions -- in America. The candidates who seem most likely to do such things are Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

Mike Huckabee's comments about Jamie Spears irritated me. He seems to have little understand of WHO gets abortions and WHY. Until we grasp such facts, little will be done to confront the conditions (such as poverty and parental pressure) that cause women and girls to have abortions.

What happened -- see Christopher's perceptive comments -- is that abortion is for many people, including Hollywood starlets, the approach with the fewest consequences. Some evangelical (not all of course) with a highly judgmental approach actually encourage pregnant women to have abortions.

If women, especially teenagers, are told that the worst possible thing that can happen to them is get pregnant, then they'll "take care" of that in short order. A child is either a gift from God -- or not. I choose to believe that "is" is the correct answer.

LAST WORDS:

My experience has been that when girls get pregnant at a young age, they need support -- sometone to turn to who won't judge or verbally attack them. Often, they get the opposite from family and "lovers." Learning how to take good, basic care of a child isn't brain surgery or rocket science, but it's not something people know by instinct.

Many of the problems with teens in our society -- abortion, crime, poor performance in schools -- are not beyond solution. Most young people appreciate someone who's there to listen to them and to answer questions. They need a friend, not a persistent critic.

I believe Jamie Spears's mother loves her -- and that she loves her sometimes irritating older daughter. However, the evidence suggests she probably won't win the Parent-of-the-Year Award.

Teenagers like people to listen to them, although they often don't reciprocate. I wish parents and teens spent more time talking to each other -- and not at each other.

Anyways, I wish all mothers well. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it, and they're that "someone."

John McCain's Christmas Story

A view of downtown Pittsburgh, with the Monogahela River on the right and the Allegheny River on the left. As the two come together near Point State Park (bottom left), they form the Ohio River.

My Christmas Story

As a POW, my captors would tie my arms behind my back and then loop the rope around my neck and ankles so that my head was pulled down between my knees. I was often left like that throughout the night.

One night a guard came into my cell. He put his finger to his lips signaling for me to be quiet, and then loosened my ropes to relieve my pain. The next morning, when his shift ended, the guard returned and retightened the ropes, never saying a word to me.

A month or so later, on Christmas Day, I was standing in the dirt courtyard when I saw that same guard approach me. He walked up and stood silently next to me, not looking or smiling at me.

After a few moments had passed, he rather nonchalantly used his sandaled foot to draw a cross in the dirt. We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas, even in the darkness of a Vietnamese prison camp. After a minute or two, he rubbed it out and walked away.

That guard was my Good Samaritan. I will never forget that man and I will never forget that moment. And I will never forget that, no matter where you are, no matter how difficult the circumstances, there will always be someone who will pick you up and carry you.

May you and your family have a blessed Christmas and Happy Holidays,
John McCain


As many of you know, I'm giving John McCain another look. I continue to believe that he and Rudy Giuliani would be outstanding presidential choices. I'm also hopeful that both of them would lean toward Gov. Sarah Palin when they're considering vice-presidential choices. Finally, on the basis of their past performance, both McCain and Giuliani would be willing to campaign for Melissa Hart and William Russell in their efforts to win congressional seats.

Mike Huckabee and Jamie Spears

I heard on CNN that candidate Mike Huckabee described the pregnancy of 16-year-old Jamie Spears (Britney's younger sister) as a "tragedy." Frankly, that's a misuse of the word "tragedy," which is not a synonym for every unfortunate event that occurs in the world.

The sad thing is that there's no solid evidence that young Miss Spears is ready to have and care for this child. Huckabee did salute her -- and wisely so -- for apparently never considering an abortion.

I wonder if her responsible behavior in choosing to have the child doesn't over-ride the irresponsible part: getting pregnant at age 16. At this point, all we can do is wish her and child well -- and provide whatever support we can for this young-mother-to-be.

The untold story in this event is what steps, if any, Miss Spears and her family are willing to take to ensure the child is loved and well-cared-for. Is she, like her older sister, intends to continue "partying" and devoting her life to a series of pointless activities, then the child truly will need our prayers.

I hope Jamie decides from this point on to be a role-model for the 800,000 American teenagers who become pregnant annually. In avoiding the easy way out of having an abortion, she may in fact be off to a good start.A

s for Mike Huckabee, he needs to read up on the concept of tragedy. I suggest he start with Aristotle's "Poetics." Also, as a Christian minister, he needs to emulate Jesus Christ in staying away from judgmentalism. "Nor do I condemn you . . . Go and sin no more."

President Hillary Rodham Clinton?

As a Party we Republicans must get to a point where a very good candidate (a Giuliani or a McCain) has a fighting chance in the general election to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. I don't see Huckabee winning any of them.

Huckabee is the "candidate of the evangelicals." The problem is that evangelicals make up one-third of the REPUBLICAN voters. What a Hillary Clinton or an Obama would be targeting would be the other five-sixths of the vote (two-thirds of the Republicans, plus the Independents and Democrats).

What exactly is Huckabee's appeal, say, to young professional women (teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, journalists, MBA-types)? His personality and policies are are going to a problem with younger voters, young female professionals, urban "Yankees," gays/lesbians, union members, Blacks, and Hispanics.

We hear a lot lately about the high "unfavorable" ratings Hillary Clinton has. But that view can be very misleading.

If you remember the 2004 poll situation, there was a great deal of discussion about how Bush's approval rating never got above 49%. Well, even with high disapproval numbers, he won the election by nearly 3 million votes (although the electoral college was close).

Kerry won NY, NJ, PA, and CA -- and they add up to a huge total in electoral votes. Mrs. Clinton would have a good chance of winning those states, plus IL, MI, and MN, in addition to MA and all the other New England states. She should also do well in the Pacific Northwest.

In presidential years, we Republicans can't keep riding on the razor's edge and expect to keep winning. We're now hearing how Hillary's favorable rating is only 47%-48%, etc. Well, that's about where Bush was in 2004. Hillary has very high negatives in states the Republicans would be expected to win (GA, UT, ID, AL, MS, and the like).

However, in many of the largest states, her favorability ratings are not that bad. The Republican candidate will have a tough time in the states where the Hispanic vote will be significant, including Colorado, Arizona, NM, and NV.

To get the nomination, Mrs. Clinton will have to win at least one of the early primaries -- IA, NH, or SC. She should be able to do so -- probably Iowa.

The problem with conservatives is that they tend to be egocentric. They say, "Well, I can't stand Hillary, therefore she has no chance of becoming President." What I think (or you think) is not translatable into national attitudes. Tens of millions of Americans think Hillary Clinton is just fine.

The upshot? If Mrs. Clinton can win the Democratic nomination, she has a good chance of becoming President of the USA.

NOTE: IF YOU GO TO MY OTHER SITE (HTTP://CAMP2008VICTORYA.BLOGSPOT.COM) AND LOOK AT THE BLOGROLL, YOU'LL DISCOVER A RAPIDLY GROWING NUMBER OF "BLOGGERS 4 RUSSELL." IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN, PLEASE LEAVE YOUR BLOG'S NAME ON THE "COMMENTS" SECTION OR E-MAIL ME AT TALKTOP65@AOL.COM. THE BLOGGERS ARE GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN RUSSELL'S WINNING. BE SURE TO VISIT HIS WEB SITE AT: HTTP://WILLIAMRUSSELLFORCONGRESS.COM.

The Case for John McCain

. . . and The Case Against Mike Huckabee

In the December 8 - 14 issue of The Economist (http://economist.com), the publication makes the case for John McCain as Republican nominee for President. It's a compelling case.

The publication notes: "Mr. McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner of war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered . . . that they had 'other priorities.' He has repeatedly risked his politicla career by backing unpopular causes."

In addition, "Mr. McCain's qualifications extend beyong character. Take experience. His ranges of interests as a Senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign and military issues as anybody in public life."

As The Economist also points out, McCain may be the only Republican who can prevail in a general election over either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.

On the other hand, what does The Economist have to say about Mike Huckabee, who's become the flavor of the month? It says, "Mr. Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate -- a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly."

The publication continues: "A presidential debate between Mr. Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout."

Right now, there are two outstanding candidates on the Republican side, and Mike Huckabee is not one of them. If Republican voters are wise, they will see that the race should come down to two individuals: Rudy Giuiliani and John McCain. And may the best man win.

Huckabee: Beginning of the End?

Like all other fans of Senator John McCain, I congratulate him on the endorsements by the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe. In many ways, the quasi-endorsement of McCain by The Economist of London might be the most important. I'll discuss tomorrow The Economist's assessment of the Senator -- and its equally important insights on why Mike Huckabee is not an appropriate nominee for President. The many people online, especially Brad Marston and the other members of Team McCain, have impressed me deeply. Would John McCain make a good President? Frankly, I believe he'd make an excellent one. I believe the same about Rudy Giuliani, and the nomination of either man would please me greatly. -- Steve Maloney

Note: The following (in italics) is a comment by the Rev. (?) Don Spitz, a strong Huckabee supporter, to my column below. The Rev. Spitz is one of the first supporters of a major candidate to endorse mass murderers (Paul Hill and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph). I believe he helps me make my point. By the way, I'm personally opposed to abortion in just about all its forms, but unlike the Rev. Spitz, I don't confuse myself with God Almighty. I believe that constiutionally, abortion is a matter for the states to decide, which would happen in the unlikely case that Roe v. Wade is overturned, a point lost on Mike Huckabee and Don Spitz, a leader in the Army of God Terrorist Organization.

Rev. Don Spitz said...
Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph did the right thing in stopping those babykilling abortionists. You on the other hand, support the murder of helpless babies. You are much worse.SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.


I see that Larry Perrault, a staunch supporter of Gov. Mike Huckabee, has begun attacking me again on his blog. Larry generally spends his time writing endless columns devoted to establishing that Gov. Huckabee didn't really say what he said and didn't do what he did. Larry despises every other Republican candidate and has said that if Mike doesn't get the nomination, he will sit home on Election Day cuddling his blankie and his binky.

I don't think Mike Huckabee is a bad man, but he's a careless individual. He tends to surround himself with supporters, such as Larry, who are theocrats, people who would be much more comfortable in John Calvin's era than in 21st century America.

Some of Huckabee's supporters are anti-Catholic, such as Rev. Rude of Iowa, who denounced Sam Brownback for being too, well, "Catholic." Most evangelical Protestants have made a peace, perhaps an uneasy one, with Catholicism, but many have not.

As Mike zipped up the lips of Rev. Rude, he failed to make any sort of definitive statement about evangelicals who are strongly anti-Catholic. I have no idea what Mike's specific thoughts are on Roman Catholicism, and that's something he must address. He certainly needs to speak forcefully about what he's done, if anything, to eradicate the Rev. Rude types from his campaign. Saying that he's pleased Rude "apologized" is not enough -- by far.

Huckabee has recently made anti-Mormon statements, directed at Mitt Romney, in an interview with the New York Times. Mike doesn't seem to understand -- or care? -- that Mormons are an important element of the Republican Party in states like Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and California. Mike needs to apologize for raising the canard that Mormons believe that "Satan and Jesus are brothers." Remember, Mike, there are six million Mormons in America, and almost all who are of age vote.

One of the biggest problems Mike will face is his support from America-haters like Dr. Laurence White, a Lutheran pastor in Houston. (Dr. White is Larry Perrault's favorite preacher.) In his essay "God and Caesar," White talks at length about how contemporary America is as bad -- or worse? -- than Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. White suggest that he is like the German preachers (he doesn't mention Catholic Germans) who were persecuted and executed by the Nazis.

On September 25, 2007, on his blog, Mike Huckabee reprinted Dr. White's column entitled "The Election Cannot be About Electability," which used some material from "God and Caesar." Huckabee's supporters chimed in with responses about how America is rapidly descending into Hades.

Frankly, it's not possible to understand an important segment of the Huckabee constituency without reading "God and Caesar." It's an amazing political document, and it's not something Huckabee will be sending out with his Christmas cards.

In a previous column about "God and Caesar," I said the following: "I quote the piece extensively, and my conclusion is that White is (1) basically calling for a violent revolution by Christians against American civil society; (2) encouraging "pro-life-killers" like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph; (3) writing a document that sounds uncomfortably like an American Mein Kampf in targeting certain groups and institutions -- including homosexuals and the public school system -- for supposedly destroying the moral core of society."

If a Rudy Giuliani, a John McCain, or a Mitt Romney were associated with someone as odious as Dr. White, their campaigns would soon come to an end. A Laurence White is the equivalent for a candidate of an anvil around the neck.

What Laurence White and Larry Perrault fail to understand is that this is in fact a "government by, of, and for the people." Sometimes, the people will disagree with us on important issues, including abortion. That doesn't mean we can ignore them -- or treat them with contempt.

It means that politics in a free country is a dialogue that goes on . . . and on . . . and on. The kind of contempt for others -- even those who are "wrong" -- that went on during Calvinism and the Inquisition is not appropriate in 2007.

If Mike Huckabee wants to win the nomination and the presidency, he needs to outline exactly where he stands on other religions, including not only Catholicism and Mormonism, but also Judaism and other faiths practiced in America. He also needs to repudiate -- to condemn -- people like Rev. Rude, Rev. Laurence White, and Larry Perrault. Otherwise, he will be carrying around the political equivalent of a time bomb.

I know where serious candidates like Giuliani, McCain, and Romney stand on such issues -- they're in favor of tolerance, respect, and basic decency. But do we really have any idea where Huckabee stands? Mike, it's put up or shut up time.

Let me add this about the Rev. Don Spitz: he exemplifies the kind of craziness that's gathered at the edges of the Huckabee candidacy. The Don Spitzes, Paul Hills, Eric Rudolphs -- and their intellectual mentors, such as Rev. Laurence White -- are just plain dangerous.

"DOWN GOES MURTHA, DOWN GOES MURTHA"

"DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER" (From a famous boxing match between "Smokin' Joe Frazier and Muhammed Ali.) Lt. Col. Russell will play the role of Ali.)


I sent the following to Chris at http://thehotjoints.com/, the most recent person to join “Bloggers for Russell”

Chris, Thanks very much for joining the Bloggers for Russell. On William's web site there will be a steady stream of releases and comments over the next 11 months (yikes! that's a long time). It's critically important at this early stage of the campaign that everyone who supports Russell make at least a small contribution.

I'll have everybody up on The Bloggers for Russell-- there are about 40 now -- within the next week. Much appreciate the support. As is happening with Huckabee in Iowa, the bloggers are going to be William Russell's secret weapon in defeating Murtha.

Chris, you’re right that Murtha’s comments on Haditha were outrageous. For political gain, he damaged our soldiers and provided propaganda for our enemies in Iraq.

My suggestion -- and I'm working on the "outside" and NOT a member of the Russell Campaign Staff -- would be with Issue #1 to rub Murtha's nose in Haditha on every possible opportunity. His comments were totally self-serving, designed to get support for him as Majority Leader among far-left, anti-military Democrats. Supporting our troops does not mean making statements that put their lives in danger.

Another big issue is that he's done nothing for 90% of the 12th congressional district (outside his home county of Cambria). As I’ve pointed out in previous columns, the Median Household Income in the 12th is one of the lowest in Pennsylvania.

A major reason for this is that Murtha has relied almost exclusively on government handouts – “earmarks” – and has done nothing to stimulate the growth of private business. Even in his favored place, Johnstown, Murtha’s actions have led to a steady population decline. The area is beautiful and the souls there are hard-working, good people, and I’m happy to live among them, but Murtha has done little for them.

On October 30, 2007, The Wall Street Journal had an article about how Murtha's earmarks had "rebuilt" home town. However, the Journal is wrong. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources show that Murtha's "rebuilding' is an illusion -- a case of self-promotion.

In this century, the population of Johnstown, PA, has gone down by more than 7%. That's NOT the sign of an economy and a community that growing and thriving. Yes, unemployment in Cambria County has gone down, but that's because so many people who couldn't find jobs left the area.

The third issue is that he’s done everything possible to advance the power of Nancy Pelosi and others just as bad, which totally conflicts with his bogus image of being a "conservative" Democrat. Pelosi and her main supporters in Congress stand for everything that's detestible to voters in the 12t District. Murtha managed Pelosi’s campaign for the majority leadership and was one of the Democrats who voted for her as Speaker of the House. When the voters of the District figure out that Murtha and Pelosi are joined at the hip, they will react with revulsion.

A congressman can't be a complete backer of Pelosi and a supporter of things that matter to voters of the 12th District. He says one thing to his constituents and something else in Pelosi's quarters.

Pelosi believes that Murtha is “a good man.” Well, he might be a good something but he’s not a good MAN.

Is the approach I suggest “too negative?” Actually, it’s important for a congressional candidate – William T. Russell in this instance – to indicate both why he should be elected – and why his opponent should not. It's NOT negativity to tell the truth about Jack Murtha’s many failings, and that’s exactly what I’ve done. (Scroll down to see fact-based criticisms of Murtha.

One thing Democratic guru Joe Trippi says that I agree with is that the essence of a campaign should be on a single three-by-five card. The three issues I highlight will fit on that card. I hope the Russell Campaign focuses on basic points that emphasize exactly WHY Murtha must go.

Haditha, the Economy, and Pelosi: if Russell gets these three points across we all stay up very late on Election Night.

____________________
HOW TO WIN A CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION: ADVICE FOR WILLIAM RUSSELL

People keep asking me: "But how William Russell win against a powerful incumbent congressman (John Murtha) who's sold out to everyone with a huge handful of cash (lobbyists, basically)? And I keep telling them exactly how William Rusell can win -- and, I believe, will win. Russell symbolizes everything that's good and wholesome about American society -- being a soldier, a husband, a father of young children, and a thoroughly principled man.

In the 12th District, there are approximately 650,000 people and roughly 320,000 registered voters -- most of them, admitedly, Democrats. But they don't invariably vote for Democrats. George Bush, not the most popular guy in Pennsylvania, carried Murtha's home county (Cambria) in 2004. And Bush came close to carrying the entire 12th District (getting 49%-plus of the vote). p

To win the 12th District, William needs to identify at least 100 very influential individuals. Only a few of these people will be affluent people who will make large donations to his campaign. Trust me, most of the rich people in the 12th will support John Murtha, because he's the person who's played a major role in making them rich. Basically, he's helped funnel your tax money to them, and they reciprocate by giving him hefty campaign "contributions." In reality, they're giving him a cut of YOUR tax money. In contrast, the influential people making small donations to William realize that he's not for sale.

(Go to http://opensecrets.org/, plug in the name "John Murtha" and you can see how much money he's raised -- a year before the election! You'll also see exactly who's given it. They're mainly lobbyists and influence-peddlers, people described by John Brady (author of "Bad Boy") as "overpaid people who made their oversized livings with retainer fees based on influence rather than ability, people who could not explain what they did for a living in less than a paragraph.")

If you track Murtha's "contributions" carefully, and I hope you will, you'll find that most of his contributions are coming from DC, VA, and MD. That's where the lobbyists ply their questinable trades. Many of the Murtha contributions that appear to come from Johnstown actually have their origins in companies solidly embedded in the Washington Beltway.

So, since William is going to have a lot less money than Murtha, he has to rely heavily influentials that are real residents of the 12th District and are keys to victory. Here's how Internet guru Joe Trippi describes such people:

"In a place like Jones County, Iowa, you get Jimmy Hogan [a well-liked family farmer and local Democratic official] and you were halfway to delivering the whole [darn] county."

Trippi continues, "This is something not everyone realizes about our political system. Not all voters are created equal. Some people carry more influence."

"In his book on consumer 'epidemics,' The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell writes, '. . . the success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.' Gladwell calls these influential people, people like Jimmy Hogan, 'connectors.'"

Trippi adds, "In the [Howard] Dean campaign, we called them bloggers."

As I've explained in my discussion of Bloggers 4 Rusell -- now up to 40 and eventually to reach 400 -- the blogs will be a key NATIONAL factor in building support for William. Dozens of bloggers are making contributions to William's campaign -- and hundreds of bloggers will do so in the future. Many of the tens of thousands of people who will visit such blogs will do the same.

In terms of connectors -- people who are very social and seem to "know everybody," I've only been in the 12th District for about a day, but I've found four "connectors" -- and will find many more.

One of the connectors is Melanie, a greeter at a restaurant. Another is Rhonda, the outspoken sister-in-law of a soldier killed in Iraq. Yet another is the head of a local Republican Party. A fourth is an obvious choice, Diana Lynn Irey, who ran against Murtha in 2006 -- and garnered nearly 80,000 votes.

A tremendous blog effort is going to be an important factor, but by itself, it's not enough. There also must be an intense effort to find "connectors" and commit them to the Russell cause.

Connectors are people like ministers, priests, and rabbis, as well as barbers/hair stylists, local officials, police personnel, heads of organizations like the American Legion, and many others. They spend a lot of time talking about events of local significance, especially political campaigns.

Get the bloggers and the connectors -- and then you win the election. And you've struck a major blow for good government.

(Note: Material on this blog is NOT copyrighted. You're welcome to use it on your own blog or other outlet. Just be sure to give credit where credit is due. Thanks.)