Why Congress is Critical This Year

From CQ:

Between now and November, John McCain can make all the speeches and do all the reaching out he deems necessary to assuage the concerns of the conservative base of the Republican Party. He can even turn his considerable skills at political combat against the Democrats. It might help get him elected, or it might not. If it does, come next January he still will have to begin governing in the face of wider Democratic majorities in Congress, and he still will have to choose between success and failure.

In that instance, he will choose success. And it will be an easy choice for him to make because on a whole range of issues, both substantively and stylistically, he and the Democrats will measure success in the same way.

That, neighbors, is why we need to get as many conservatives in Congress as we can. No matter who wins, we'll have someone in the Oval Office who is just fine "working with" lefties, and that is bad news for the country.

Read the whole article... link, as usual, in the title.

New Thoughts on McCain

I have just finished reading the text of McCain's speech, and some commentary from those I trust, and I've come to a conclusion.

He hasn't sold me on voting for him. But I am now open to being sold. A lot of it will depend on who McCain picks to surround himself with. I am still concerned with the former Mexican official that is in his campaign.

However, in his speech today, he did acknowledge that he needs conservatives to win, and made some concessions, especially on immigration, that would be hard to weasel out of without everyone realizing that's what he is doing... and, thus, destroying his chances for re-election. So at least in a prospective first term for President McCain, we shouldn't have any amnesty bills signed.

We will see how things go.

Why McCain Cannot Win

Okay, so he's now the official frontrunner. Senator John McCain still cannot possibly win the Oval Office.

First of all, he has devoted far too much time and energy into attacking--yes, attacking--the values of those whose votes he now needs. From deriding opponents of his immigration bill as racists to his embrace of socialist rhetoric (i.e. using "managed for profit" as an insult), McCain has done his level best to push the base of the GOP away from him.

Second, he currently enjoys favorable media coverage, because out of the GOP candidates, he is the one closest to the media's own views... something which should open any true conservative's eyes. However, once it comes down to him vs. Obama or Hillary, the media will turn against him. If McCain thinks Romney's "attack" ads are bad, wait till he sees what the media will dig up on him once the conventions are over.

Third, a large portion of his support comes from Democrats and "independents" voting in open primaries. The idea that these people would vote for him over Obama or Hillary fails the laugh test... one-on-one against a real Democrat, McCain's support among Democrats will disappear faster than an ice cream cone in a Phoenix summer.

Simply put, nominating McCain is a recipe for defeat, just like nominating Bob Dole was. It seems that every few elections, we need to remind the GOP what happens to those who stray too far from the conservative base, and it looks like it's gonna be this election.

1996 All Over Again

It's kind of surprising, when you look at it, how much the McCain candidacy of 2008 matches up with the Bob Dole candidacy of 1996.

War hero, running largely on war record? Check.

Has run for President before? Check. (Dole tried in 1980 and 1988.)

Has been in the Senate long enough to grow moss? Check.

So-called "compromise" candidate coming out of a crowded field? Check. Dole's '96 run was against such notable Republicans as Lamar Alexander, Phil Gramm, Alan Keyes, Dick Lugar, and Dan Quayle.

Was considered to be the "electable" candidate? Check. See my earlier article on this.

Did not excite economic or social conservatives? You betcha! Check!

It didn't work for Dole, why the heck does McRINO think it will work for him?

I think we are heading for a November where many conservatives sit at home, and another Clinton gets elected.

McCain's Latest Endorsement

Fellow conservatives, do you want your next President to have been officially endorsed by the New York Times?

No?

Then don't vote for John McRINO McCain.

It would be hard to imagine a worse thing for Sen. John McCain as he tries to convince the Republican grass roots he's not a liberal. The Times, which for decades has attacked virtually all the policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, on Friday endorsed McCain as "the best choice for the party's presidential nomination," calling its decision "an easy one."

-snip-

The paper also cited McCain's liberal stances on government regulation to combat climate change and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as his willingness to co-write major legislation with far-left colleagues such as Sen. Ted Kennedy.

-snip-

Other positions also make McCain Times-friendly. He supported the heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory regime now making it a nightmare to operate a publicly traded company. He voted to increase CAFE fuel regulations. He opposed a repeal of the "death tax." And he expressed support for raising Social Security payroll taxes on the middle class.

Moreover, while McCain may claim he opposed Bush's across-the-board tax cuts because they weren't paired with spending reductions, his arguments then were classic class-warfare rhetoric about "the most fortunate among us" not getting taxed enough. As Senate Commerce Committee chairman a decade ago, McCain even sponsored and voted for a near-tripling of cigarette taxes.

And the best part of this IBD article:

Heading toward Tuesday's Florida primary, the GOP nomination increasingly looks like a two-man race between Sen. McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney. Now Romney has a weapon that will resonate deeply with Republican voters who resent the establishment media's longtime crusade against Reagan Republicanism:

"Vote for me, not the candidate of the New York Times."

Indeed.

Let's see McRINO's supporters spin this one.

UPDATE: Looks like Rudy's already using it.

Voice Over: “Rudy Giuliani is not endorsed by The Tampa Tribune. Not endorsed by the Orlando Sentinel. Not endorsed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. In fact, he’s not endorsed by any of the liberal newspapers. When you’re responsible for cutting people’s taxes by an incredible seventeen percent …”

And, near the end...

Voice Over: “… you’re the last person on earth to be endorsed by the liberal New York Times. Rudy Giuliani. Tested. Ready. Now.”

Bad news for McRINO, I think.

McCain and Mexico

Okay, this speaks volumes about McCain's illegal immigration stand right here:

McCain's "Hispanic Outreach Director" is the same guy who held that job for Mexico's President Vicente Fox! U.S.-born dual citizen Juan Hernandez was in Fox's cabinet as Director of the Office for Mexicans Living Abroad and is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"

Now, can anyone reading that truly believe that McCain has decided to actually secure the southern border?

If he truly has, as he claims, let's see him offer a bill to do that--and only that--in the Senate during the next session.

Don't hold your breath, tho.

On War Heroes

I want to begin by stating, for the record, that Senator John McCain's service to this nation and sacrifice for it is both laudable and honorable. He is certainly a Genuine American War Hero.

But, I wish to take issue with those who apparently think that somehow qualifies him for the Presidency. And I can do it in two words, with explanation to follow: Max Cleland.

Like McCain, Cleland was in Vietnam. Cleland was also grievously wounded in Vietnam. To be sure, the circumstances differ (Cleland was injured by an accidental grenade activation), but Cleland's sacrifice of two legs and part of an arm in service to America would also seem to qualify him as a Genuine American War Hero.

So, here's the question... would all you self-proclaimed "conservatives" who are supporting McCain based on his war record also support Cleland?

1995 Redux

Here's a blast from the past to think about... from Time, 13 Nov 1995:

It certainly isn't enough to protect Dole's status as heir apparent. Polls last week were indicating that while Dole would narrowly beat Powell for the Republican nomination, only Powell could beat Clinton in the general election. That scenario leaves a gaping hole in Dole's game plan, which depends, among other things, on his being able to argue that he's the most electable Republican candidate in a field of unknowns and extremists. If Powell doesn't run, Newt Gingrich has often said he just might. Last week in an interview with TIME, he repeatedly hinted that Dole may not be comfortable as the leader of the revolution. "I think he's effective at it,'' Gingrich said. "Whether he's comfortable, you'd have to ask him, but he's certainly effective...There seems to be a relaxed, comfortable effectiveness, which is very real. Now whether or not, inside himself, that fits his zeitgeist, I haven't a clue.''

My, my, don't we hear a lot about who is the "most electable" these days? And wasn't Senator John Kerry (D-Christmas in Cambodia) picked by the Party of the Donkey last time based on "electablity"?

Hmmm... food for thought, methinks.

More Number Crunching

This time, Jed Babbin of Human Events takes a good long look at some numbers:

According to a Fox News exit poll, 32% of the Michigan Republican primary voters identified themselves as independents or Democrats. Another Fox exit poll showed 20% of the South Carolina Republican primary voters said they were either Democrats or independents. In Michigan, Gov. Romney won with 39%, Sen. McCain was second at 30% and Gov. Huckabee third at 16%. In South Carolina, John McCain won with 33% of the vote, Mike Huckabee had 30% and Fred Thompson had 16%. Given those margins, it’s pretty clear that the Dems and independents controlled the result in both states.

Now, why would so many Donkeys vote for McRINO? Maybe because he follows their philosophy?

Doing Some Number Crunching

I've been looking over the results of the primaries and caucuses (caucii?) so far, and I've discovered something about media darling McCain. First, the data:

Of the six contests held so far, Romney has come in 1st in three, 2nd in two, and 4th in only one (South Carolina). McCain, on the other hand, has been 1st only twice, 2nd once, 3rd once, and 4th twice... and one of those was a tie (at zero) with Rudy, The Huckster, and Paul in Wyoming--so that might as well be counted a last place finish.

Now, the analysis of the data. What this tells me is that Mitt has appeal to people across the country, from New Hampshire to Nevada. McCain does not.

So why is the media so enthusiastic to anoint McCain? Simple: he hates tax cuts, wants to impose Algore-like environmental restrictions on business, quashes free speech, and wants to let illegal immigrants into the country and give them official status within 24 hours! McCain is loved by the media because he agrees with them on so many issues.

McCain is really McRINO. He should have switched to the Party of the Donkey when he had the chance after the 2000 election.

Conservative Enough?

So, McCain is now the media-anointed front-runner for the nomination. His supporters are saying that he is conservative enough to lead the GOP.

I beg to differ.

We thought Mr. Bush the elder was conservative enough. Then he went and broke his "no new taxes" pledge, and nominated the liberal David Souter to the Supreme Court. In his defense, he also nominated Clarence Thomas, and stood with him throughout the Anita Hill kerfuffle, and Gulf War I was run relatively well, except that he didn't take care of Saddam once and for all.

We also thought Bush the younger was conservative enough. That was, however, until No Child Left Behind, which Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) sponsored in the Senate. Any bill that Teddy sponsors is hardly a conservative bill. Then there were the--fortunately stymied--proposals to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and grant literally millions of lawbreakers amnesty--I refer, of course, to illegal immigrants. And don't get me started on the huge expansion of the federal government. Again, in his defense, I must admit he did push through tax cuts, and has so far prosecuted the Iraq War with relatively few mistakes.

However, we need to get past this idea that "conservative enough" is enough. Each of the post-Reagan Republican Presidents has been considered "conservative enough," yet has pushed through some very liberal programs... and not, as President Reagan did, only when they had no choice. No one was pressuring Bush 43 to ram No Child Left Behind through; there was no huge public outcry for amnesty for illegal immigrants--in fact, quite the opposite!

For those who think that rock-solid conservatism cannot win, I point you back to The Gipper. He won, and won easily, in his re-election bid carrying 49 states. Democrat-Lite he was most assuredly not, yet he won with no problem.

Be warned, McCain supporters... history shows that conservative enough isn't.

Ruminations on the Nomination

Okay, here's the results of my ruminating so far. I reserve the right to change my mind at a later time... say, any time more than 30 seconds after posting this.

Fred has to bring his "A" game to South Carolina. Fortunately, South Carolina's culture is a lot more similar to Tennessee's than Iowa's or New Hampshire's, so if Fred is going to shine anywhere, it will be in SC. I am cautiously optimistic that Fred will do well there, especially if he and others start really pointing out Huckabee's dismal record on taxes and other issues.

Giuliani also has to bring his "A" game, but to Florida, not SC. That's the first state where Rudy has a halfway decent chance of winning, IMHO. Fred could do well there, but so could Romney or McCain... Huckabee probably wouldn't sell well in Florida.

Others have suggested this and been pooh-poohed, but if Fred takes SC and Rudy wins Florida, a brokered convention is a real possibility. Note that there's a lot of ifs in that statement, but the chances are better than in any election since I've been watching elections.

I think a brokered convention could be a good thing. With the popularity of "reality" TV, a brokered convention might just draw more eyes to the TV than a convention usually gets, and give the GOP a real opportunity to explain who they are and what they stand for. Of course, if the GOP screws it up, they could end up turning off a lot of prospective voters, so it would have to be handled with care... and rule number one should be to remember that the media (with the possible exception of Fox News) is not their friend.

Well, that's my take on it. Your mileage may vary, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, coffee is hot, and all the rest of the usual disclaimers apply.

Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, McCain

That's the current running order in the only "poll" that really matters... the results from the states that have already chosen their delegates... and did you know that there's more delegates pledged than just the ones from Iowa?

Anyway, here's the breakdown as of right now (subject, of course, to change)

Romney: 26 delegates.
Huckabee: 20 delegates.
Thompson: 6 delegates.
McCain: 3 delegates.

Since 1,191 delegates are needed for a majority, you can see that everyone still has at least a statistical chance of making it.

This one is still way too early to call, folks.

Mitt's Dirty Tricks

I can't say I care much for this report from Robert Novak:

Published reports that Fred Thompson soon will withdraw from the Republican presidential contest and endorse Sen. John McCain have been traced in part to Mitt Romney's campaign, trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson.

That is, I think even Mitt supporters would agree, hitting below the belt.

I just lost a lot of respect for the man from Massachusetts.

More Alleged Push Polling

Here we go again...

Presidential candidate John McCain asked yesterday for an investigation of thousands of calls to New Hampshire voters disparaging the Republican senator and supporting rival Mike Huckabee.

In a letter to the New Hampshire attorney general's office, McCain's campaign accused a Colorado-based nonprofit, Common Sense Issues, of illegally conducting push polling, which is asking questions intended to influence voters while pretending to take a poll.

"This push poll disparages John McCain, while, at the same time, urging support for Governor Huckabee," McCain adviser Chuck Douglas wrote. "We demand a full inquiry into these distressing and illegal calls."

Common Sense Issues responded that New Hampshire law doesn't apply to presidential primaries, only to other elections.

"This law isn't applicable to us," said Patrick Davis, the group's executive director. "This is a headline-grabbing release. I'm not surprised this is coming from the McCain campaign. . . . This is pretty straightforward. They didn't read the law."

The state law regulating push-polling says the caller must identify the candidate he is working for or against. Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch said the law specifically exempts primary campaigns.

Common Sense Issues favors Huckabee but does not explicitly say so in the calls, which are similar to ones being made in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.

Voters are asked if they know that McCain was part of a group "that derailed the nominations of 14 conservative judicial nominees." The callers also ask voters if they know McCain limited the free-speech rights of anti-abortion groups and pushed for campaign finance legislation.

First it was anti-Romney calls, now anti-McCain calls... Huckabee has been all over Romney for his religion (which is interesting when one considers how Huckabee responds to questions about his own record), which raises a suspicion in my mind... is it truly the Huckabee campaign behind this, and if it is, was it also Huckabee behind the anti-Romney push-polls?

This one is far from over, folks, and could really destroy the Huckabee campaign. Unfortunately, the failure of Huckabee could cause future problems for Christian candidates... I'm still ruminating on those effects, so more on that later.

McCain: Courage or Foolhardiness?

Yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote a piece on NRO praising the "courage" of John McCain (R-AZ) in bringing forward the amnesty immigration travesty bill.

It saddens me that so many commentators will judge Senator McCain’s actions by how his role in this debate will impact the next poll or fundraising report. Survival is not the highest virtue in politics. Sacrifice is the highest virtue. In battle we don’t ask which soldier was a success — the one who charged the hill and lives a long life or his friend beside him who falls and leaves a widow and children behind. Whether this week helps or hurts Senator McCain politically is not the point. What matters is that without courage, we all lose.

I've been doing some ruminating, and I think I must respectfully disagree with Sen. Coburn. I see it not as political courage but political foolhardiness.

Coburn relates McCain's courage in military terms, so I will follow his example.

First off, McCain was fighting for the wrong objective. If we go with a military parallel, he was attacking the third house on the block when the objective was the fourth house. He was pushing a de facto amnesty, regardless of how the supporters spin it, and that has been shown by past experience (see 1986 Amnesty bill) to be of little help and probably much harm. As has been pointed out by many others, at the time of the '86 amnesty, we had an estimated 6 million illegals. Now the number is estimated to be two to over three times as many, 12 to 20 million. I don't call a 200-300% increase in the number of illegals a "success." By pushing a bill that would effectively grant all of these people amnesty, McCain showed that he was fighting for the wrong objective.

Secondly, McCain was using the wrong tactics. He was using sneaky closed-door bill-writing, playing fast and loose with the rules of the Senate, bypassing key steps (i.e. committees), and even stooping to tossing around insults about opponents of his bill that are reminiscent of the farthest left wing of the Party of the Donkey (i.e. racist). In military terms, this one is hard to find a parallel for, but we could say that he was relying on a plan that wasn't really kosher and above board, if you see what I mean.

Third, McCain's timing was way off. Doing something this controversial while running for President is ill-advised at best, and the factors above make it an almost sure-fire guarantee of political suicide. In military terms, he's hitting the house at high noon instead of in the dead of night when the US Armed Forces' advantage in night-vision systems would have given a great advantage (yes, this metaphor breaks down a bit when you consider that much of his political maneuvering was "in the dark"--work with me, here). If he could have waited until he was no longer a candidate, for whatever reason, he might have had more success, both with the bill and with his campaign.

Fourth, and finally, he's assaulting an objective that didn't need to be taken. There are laws already on the books that cover everything except his desired amnesty. The proposed bill would have authorized 370 miles of border fence... last year they passed, and Bush signed, a bill authorizing 700 miles of border fence (note that the proposed bill would not have added another 370 miles to the fence). The proposed bill offered another guest worker program... there are already five guest-worker programs in operation. So we really didn't need this bill. Continuing the military metaphor, McCain is assaulting a building that has nothing we need or really want at this time.

Wrong objective, wrong tactics, bad timing, and an unnecessary fight at that. That's not political courage, Senator Coburn. That's political foolhardiness.

McCain Camp Lashing Out

I know it's not straight from the candidate's mouth, but an anonymous source in the McCain camp had this to say to the WaPo:

A top fundraiser for the Arizonan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk for the campaign, was more blunt: "It's hurting with the main money guys. Overall, it's definitely a negative."

He added that the constant barrage of criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh is making it difficult to raise money from the conservative wing of the party.

"Like it or not, our base listens to that stuff," the fundraiser said. "Whether it's a good bill or a bad bill or an indifferent bill doesn't matter. The folks who are listening to that stuff, it's hard to persuade them with facts."

Uh, Mr. Fundraiser, don't you mean it's hard to persuade us with spin? Because the facts are very clear about what that bill would have done, and we want no part of it; nor McCain, who was pushing it; nor arrogant fundraisers like you.

With staffers like this, it's no wonder McCain's campaign is going under for the third time.

Views on the Immigration Fiasco from Outside the Beltway

Human Events went around the country to talk to GOP officials about this travesty called an immigration bill, and what they heard wasn't pretty:

Some state chairmen declined comment, perhaps out of deference to the Republican President. “They want to support the President on this, but need to be convinced those who’ve broken the law are not being given a pass” says one chairman. Others who did agree to speak were clear: conservatives, indeed voters in general, are not pleased. Benkiser says that Texans are “angry and disgusted.” She says that whatever the subject matter of state party communications to voters the answer comes back: “unless you secure the borders and enforce the laws we don’t want to talk to you.” Hoffman reports that “voters can’t understand why such a simple solution and an overwhelming majority” doesn’t lead to a far different proposal stressing border security. He notes that GOP headquarters has been “flooded” with angry calls. Saul Anuzis of Michigan is more circumspect, saying voters are “cautious and concerned” while Republicans (and all voters) in Maryland are “very upset” according to Pleura. Priebus also confirms that voters in Wisconsin are “not happy” and have “grave concerns” about the Senate compromise. Pitney agrees that in California “GOP activists are upset about the Senate bill.” A western state chairman says one thing is clear: the base is extremely frustrated with President Bush.

Opinions are mixed on how this will impact Mr. McCain, given that most anti-illegal people weren't really in his camp to begin with. However, I believe that this underestimates the number of registered Republicans who don't pay attention to politics on a day-to-day basis that will nonetheless be very dissatisfied with this bill. Expect McCain's opponents to hang this albatross around his neck every chance they get.

Don't call the moving company to take your stuff to the Oval Office yet, Mr. McCain.

More on McCain's Immigration Plan

Here's some of the details on that "comprehensive" immigration package that's being pushed through tout de suite, the better to keep the American public from learning the nuts and bolts of it:

Title VI of a draft copy of the bill breaks down amnesty visas into three categories:

• Z-1 — Illegal aliens present and working in the United States up to Jan. 1, 2007.
• Z-2 — Parents and spouses of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.
• Z-3 — Children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.

These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.” They also would be able to get Social Security numbers and benefit from some welfare programs. Shockingly, there is no cap on the numbers of amnesty recipients in the draft language. The only thing the Z Visa holder can’t do is vote — until, that is, a liberal judge declares this limitation unconstitutional or until a liberal president can railroad through a “technical corrections” bill.

Let me highlight part of that: These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.”

This is what the Republicans in Congress that voted for this bill don't want you to realize. What the Z Visa does is grant immediate and permanent amnesty to essentially every single illegal alien in this nation at this time. Even the terrorists!

And Mr. McCain has decided not only to support this bill, but to try to convince conservatives that it's a good deal.

And people wonder why I absolutely refuse to support McCain.

Immigration Reform? Yeah, Right!

This stupid, idiotic, foolish so-called "comprehensive" immigration package is bound to be bad news for the GOP, who simply cannot get it through the blocks of stone that they (laughingly) call "heads" that people are sick and frickin' tired of borders that just about any Juan, Jose, or Carlos can walk across.

Fred, as usual, nails it:

The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens — securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.

See why I like Fred so much?

Anyway, this probably spells the end of McCain's campaign, because he's supporting this monstrosity masquerading as an answer to a problem.

And Fred once again looks like another Great Communicator, which we need very much.