Barack Obama - Savior of the Republican Party

I'm going to blaspheme a bit, but stick with me here.

Regulars here know that in the last two elections, I voted - reluctantly - for John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither were my first choices, I was a Giuliani and Pawlenty guy, but as I have a natural aversion to leftists, entitled snobs, I could not even think of voting for President Obama. Oh well, such are the glories of democracies.

It wasn't long after the 2008 election - actually it started for me before the election - that it became clear that a President McCain would be the one could put the Republican Party in the bin with the Whigs.

He liked nothing more than sticking it to those who were supposed to be closest to him, and it seemed his second joy was to the the one who showed how awesome he was by being the one that let the other political side win.

That would have been what would have destroyed what little loyal Republican base he should naturally have. What would have brought the rest of the country naturally against him and further destroyed the Republican brand, would have been his desire to put American boots on the ground hither and yon.

Our nation is tired of foreign wars. Though I think Obama has been too detached - imagine the political left of this nation with a killer drone policy even more robust than it is now, along with thousands of American forces across the swath of the Maghreb and the Levant from Tripoli to Aleppo and who knows where else.

No.

Then in 2012 we have Mitt. Mitt would have been a much better leader and President than either McCain or Obama - especially in foreign policy - but he would have been the death of the Republican party, as his tendency to act in a way that delights his enemies and confounds his friends is well outlined by John Tamny at RCM;

Perhaps what's most offensive about Romney's flip flop is that he no doubt knows the minimum wage is superfluous for the majority, while harmful to a small, impoverished minority. Romney's hardly a fool, and having revived sick businesses on the way to great wealth, he surely knows wage mandates help no one, and certainly don't help businesses.

All of this is offensive because it speaks to a politician who will say anything to curry favor with voters; the real world implications of his views be damned. Looking back to 2012, Romney was no doubt similarly aware that his professed policy of getting "tough on China" was not only an economically illiterate stance, but also one that, if implemented, would bring about global economic harm, a stock market crash, and if world history is any guide, perhaps war.

When we consider Romney's overtly political utterances in a broader sense, what's increasingly apparent is that the former candidate is rather self-unaware when it comes to winning votes. This matters because despite what we hear, the electorate in total isn't stupid. Not only has the electorate historically tuned out politicians running on economy-sapping protectionist planks, but the electorate is increasingly wise to politicians so public with their lack of conviction.

Considering the Republican Party itself, members of it should view the 2012 results with relief. Not only were Romney's promises about what he would do about China easily more economically crippling than anything President Obama proposed, it should also be said that Obama's re-election was the best thing that ever happened to the freedom movement. Indeed, the electorate got to see up close the horrors of big government in the form of Obamacare's implementation, and the long-term result will be a more skeptical electorate about politicians who define themselves through promises made with the money of others.

The Republicans dodged a bullet in 2012 with Mitt Romney's aimless candidacy. This was obvious back then, but was made even more obvious last week in light of his latest utterance. The former candidate will truly "Say Anything," and because Romney's that way, the GOP would have lost ground had he won.

Part of me believes that both the Republican party and the nation are better off with McCain being elected. I have grown to think that with Romney, the nation would have been better, but the Republican party would have imploded.

Doesn't really matter - we have President Obama until early 2017.

Oh, in case you are wondering who Salamander of Lost Causes prefers at this point - Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI).

de Blasio needs a Page-13

OK Shipmates, we've all seen or been this Sailor before;

Bill de Blasio might need to invest in a better alarm clock if he wins on Tuesday.

The Democratic mayoral candidate admitted that he overslept this morning, keeping dozens of supporters, elected officials and reporters waiting more than an hour for a get-out-the-vote rally on the Upper West side that had been scheduled for 11:30 a.m.

“Did I what?” he responded this afternoon at a second, delayed event, when asked by a reporter whether his tardiness had been the result of over-sleeping. Asked the question again, he said that he’d had a particularly “challenging night.”

“I got a call at five in the morning that threw off my sleep cycle. But other than that, it’s all good. So I wouldn’t say I typically overslept, I’d say it was a divided sleep,” he answered, refusing to share any details about the call.

Politicker reported earlier this week that, as public advocate, Mr. de Blasio often had trouble waking up in the morning, keeping staffers who were supposed to pick him up waiting for hours and showing up late to events.

The candidate today admitted that, unlike the current mayor, he’s more of a night owl.

“I am not a morning person,” he said. “I think we should reorient our society [to] staying up late, but I don’t think that’s happening right now.”

I'll say it; Bill where were you last night? Unless you've left your credit card at a bar in the West Village and woke up this AM still wearing your shoes - you have no excuse.

We all understand a good Liberty Call now and then, but if you can't make a simple 11:30am meeting because some pogue called you at 5am, then you can't be the LPO of the Admin Office, much less mayor of NYC.

If your initial instinct isn't to accept responsibility, but to blame the larger culture for your failures, then screw the Page-13, you're going the NJP route if the CMDCM can't knock some sense in to you via the DRB ... oh, wait ... we don't let Master Chiefs be Master Chiefs much anymore, and the Chief's Mess is probably terrified of an IG if they hurt your feelings ... so ... yea - maybe NJP. No, you are "one of those" types who might make a hotline call ... so ... ungh. Forget that scenario; I digress.

I have intentionally avoided blogging at all about the NYC mayoral campaign because I know most of you don't care, and the whole thing just depresses me.

It isn't so much that we have as the clear front runner a Communist fellow-traveler in Bill de Blasio. Just as a reminder, anyone who in 2013 cannot bring themselves to speak against the complete horror and evil of the Communist governments from the Soviet Union to Cuba to Nicaragua  to the blood soaked Communist rebel groups El Salvador and Colombia - well - they are just stupid or still willing to line people up against wall and be shot for reasons as simple as political debate.

Anyway ... it depresses me for something that may surprise my readers - I love NYC. Yes, I am an unabashed Southern partisan with right of center libertarian tendencies - but I love that city.

The reason are complicated and derive from my own weirdness I am sure, but let me try to help explain part of it for you. If you recall, my candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008 was Giuliani. If I had a bag of pixie dust, he would be in the White House right now ... but we don't live in that universe. I consider him one of the closest living examples of the best of Churchillism that we have in this country - he did something many thought was impossible; he brought NYC back from a nightmare of its own creation.

NYC if you define it broadly, had a population of 8,336,697 in July of 2012. It is a nation-sized entity. For reference, the population of Denmark is 5,580,500, Austria 8,443,000, and Sweden 9,482,900.

I first went to NYC when I was about 10. That would have been in the mid-1970s. In the blink of an eye, the kind of leftists like de Blasio took NYC from a flawed but highly functional Gotham of Rear Window to a dystopian Taxi Driver. My parents did not just take me to the nice places, they intentionally showed my little mind the very gritty parts. It still sticks in my head.

The cause of NYC's fall was one thing; leadership. Great societies can find themselves with poor or toxic leaders who can drag something great into a sewer in a flash. In the Navy we've seen it in commands and it scales up to the national level just as well. Also, a society in crisis and decay can be brought up by an outstanding leader; a Giuliani, a Churchill, a Cincinnatus.

When I brought my young children first to NYC a decade ago, it was amazing; a totally different place. I was able to go places and show things to my daughters that would have been unheard of when I was their age.

Decline isn't inevitable  and can be reversed. Success isn't granted or permanent either. It requires constant work, effort, and dedicated leadership. In a democratic form of government, ultimately the success or failure of a society derives from those leaders the people elect. So, NYC, it is your call and you will have no one but yourself to blame or praise. What does history, your history, tell us about putting someone like de Blasio in power?

Is that who you really want running things? If so, you are not only willfully ignorant of your own history, you are spoiled and once again - you will have to drag yourself out of a hole you dug for yourself at some point in the future after much misery, tears, treasure, and blood. Sad.

And the all important Salamander primary ....

Just for the record - I'm going to show my hand just so you know whose stands I'm sitting in; though I won't be a cheerleader.

I've kept quite since T-Paw left the stage; but it is time. Just like 2008 when my top candidate fell out (that time Giuliani) - this time I am with my #2; Romney.

I'm not going to talk down anyone else and I will keep my reasons simple; we need a fixer. Romney is a fixer. We don't need to repeat the 2010 mistakes of Delaware and Nevada either.

I'm not going to be pushing Romney every day either. If you want to argue about it - feel free to in comments, but I won't play.

There goes my guy ....

Well ... time to look again.

After spending much of his money to finish a distant third in the Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty ended his presidential bid Sunday.

"We needed to get some lift to continue on and have a pathway forward and that didn't happen, so I'm announcing on your show that I'm ending my campaign for president," the former governor said on "This Week."

The Minnesota Republican revealed his decision on an early morning conference call with supporters, an aide told POLITICO.

"I wish it would have been different, but obviously the pathway forward for me doesn't really exist, so we're going to end the campaign," Pawlenty told ABC's Jake Tapper.

Back in 2008, at least my guy made it to the Primaries (Giuliani). Last time my #2 was Romney - but for now I am going to stay in my whaleboat for awhile until I decide which ship to shift my flag to.

My basic requirements, not that different than 2008:

- First, I need someone with a successful record as a leader and executive. That means a governor or mayor of a state-like city, re: NYC.
- Second, I need a fixer. Someone with a record of fixing existing problems lessor men/women would not fix.
- Third, I need someone with a thick skin who also realizes it isn't about him/her.

So, let's look at the rest.

Romney: meets all the criteria, but I don't know if I really trust him to stick to his guns. I like him, but I think his time may have passes.

Huntsman: only meets #1. When someone mentions country club Republican, he pops in my mind. I grew up in a country club; no thank you.

Bachmann: meets none of my requirements. More qualified than Obama was at this stage, but not really that much.

Paul: really? Now is not the time for the Republican Party to enjoy a hobby loss like this. Maybe the next generation.

Cain: should have concentrated to being elected to the legislative branch. Not ready for the job. Nice guy, but not ready.

Santorum: boutique candidate that meets none of my criteria. Next.

Gingrich: he isn't campaigning for President - he is on a book tour. He should play golf with Clinton or something. Anyway, someone in his middle-age who treats wives like a college junior treats girlfriends is all the I&W I need.

McCotter: I like him a lot, but only if we lived in a different country; he doesn't meet 2/3 of my criteria.

Perry: new kid on the block - but I say this as a Southerner - the next Republican candidate does not need a Texas accent. That being said, he meets 2.5 of my 3 criteria - that puts him at the top.

So, there I go - sitting there deciding which ship I can best fight from.

First Class: Romney, Perry.
Second Class: ungh. None.
Third Class: McCotter, Bachmann, Huntsman.
Others: yadda, yadda, yadda.

Hope & Change

Yea ... I like that better than this.

I guess it is easier and more fun to run for President than actually to be President.

---

BTW, I showed my cards early last time - and I'll do it again.

For review, in 2008 I went from Giuliani, to Romney, to McCain. For 2012, I've already marked my spot for reasons not too different than 2008.

Even more than 2008 we need a President who is not afraid of making hard calls, being called names, and has a proven track record as a Chief Executive. That is, after all, what the President is - a Chief Executive. If you have a President who does not have experience excelling as a Chief Executive, well, you now know what that looks like.

For the record; count Sal in T-Paw's corner.

The common sense of the census

From Weigel at Slate;

It's official: Here are the states gaining and losing seats (and thus electoral votes) in 2011. I've put states entirely controlled by Republicans in bold and states entirely controlled by Democrats in italics, although in some of these states there are backstops against total partisan redistricting -- Arizona, for example, has a nonpartisan panel. The gainers:

Arizona +1
Florida +2
Georgia +1
Nevada +1
South Carolina +1
Texas +4
Utah +1
Washington +1

The losers:

Illinois -1
Iowa -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Michigan -1
Missouri -1
New Jersey -1
New York -2
Ohio -2
Pennsylvania -1

This is about as bad as it could get for Democrats, and as good as it could get for Republicans. The next GOP presidential candidate gets six free electoral votes from South Carolina, Texas, Utah. The Democratic caucus in the House is about to see internal warfare in the rust belt and northeast, as their members are forced into Thunderdome battle for the diminished number of seats. Only in Illinois, I think, will the Democrats be able to create a map that hurts the GOP's newly elected members and takes back a seat or two.

People in a free society vote with their feet. What we all know instinctly we can see in the census data.People are voting with their feet. Not from bad to good weather, but from high tax to low tax. California vs. Texas is a perfect example. Not just taxes, but business climate as well.

One bad side of this is again California. They continue to trade out high-education, high-earning native born citizens for poorly educated, net-drain on the government immigrants. Their educated Leftists who leave the land they ruined are in many cases not changing their politics - they are taking it with them.

As a result, the shifting populations of economic refugees from CA and other Blue States are ruining politics from Wake County in North Carolina to King County in Washington as they leave CA, MA, NY and take their toxic poltics with them, soiling another nest - but maybe they'll learn. This time. Maybe.

You can see the clash though from the Duck Hunters off the Potomac other places they move to. Oh well - it is a free country. The greatness of our system is that different States can try different things. When one State fails, hopefully others will not repeat the mistake. When one State succeeds, hopefully others will follow.

Another truth comes out when you look at the census data in a long virew - one I ususally cover on Thursday. As any Ward Boss will tell you - one of the easiest ways to control a group of people and to stop them from being free thinking individuals is to have them act based on racial and sectarian lines.

That is why the whole Diversity bit is more political than anything else, and why I will continue to point out that by pushing a retrograde sectarian policy as pushed by the Diversity Bullies - the Navy is engaging in politics pure and simple. That is why it is well withing a standard deviation to use the moniker; "CNO Roughead (D-Navy)."

Via BaseballCrank;

“These numbers are an opportunity for Republicans, but also a challenge, since the main areas undergoing population growth are (with a few exceptions like Utah) growing mainly through a growing Latino population. Which explains why Democrats are so eager to try to divide off Latino voters to vote as a homogenous race-conscious bloc the way African-Americans do; it’s their only path to offset their shrinking deep-blue-state power base. There’s no future in being the party of the Northeast and the West Coast, and Democrats know this; liberal pundits and left-wing bloggers are quite open about the extent to which they bank on racial demographics as their salvation, and those demographics only benefit them if they can maintain very high rates of racial division in the voting patterns of Latino and African-American voters, far higher than you would find among white voters. Republicans don’t have to win the Latino vote outright to fend off that challenge, they only need individual Latinos to remain open enough to both sides that Republicans can persuade a decent percentage to vote GOP, as the Democrats still do among white voters. Frankly, it’s not a coincidence that the two states with the most population growth have had, for the past decade and a half, GOP governors starting with George W. and Jeb Bush who worked hard to cater to Latino voters and declined to join in the harshest anti-immigration (even anti-illegal-immigration) rhetoric or policies.

“Let’s look deeper at the map through the eyes of a Democrat, and you can see why the campaign of relentless racial division touted on a daily basis by left-leaning commentators and pursued by President Obama in some of his ugliest moments of the 2010 stretch run – calling Republicans the ‘enemies’ of Latinos who had to be ‘punished,’ asserting that Republicans were ‘counting on …black folks staying home’ – will only be exacerbated as Obama’s natural strategy for 2012, given how his performance in office has lost him much of the support among white voters (and some among Latino voters) that he enjoyed in 2008.”

Does that mean that if you believe that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin that you are a Republican? Does that mean that you think one should vote based on the judgment of upper brain functions and not the tribal instincts from the most primitive parts of our DNA - that you are a Republican?

No, of course not - you can find good people on both sides of the aisle. But if the Democrats want to make the logic train go there; so be it.

Hat tip HotAir.

---

Bad edit this AM - post now fixed.

---

UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini agrees,

Not only did the South and West win -- which liberals will dismiss as a function of weather -- but low tax states consistently beat high tax states. Not only did conservative states beat liberal states, most tellingly, the winners were almost to a man conservatively governed.

Consider this striking fact unearthed by political strategist (and former Giuliani adviser) Ken Kurson, posted on Facebook:

Avg tax rate in states gaining a Congressional seat: 2.8%
Avg tax rate in states losing a Congressional seat: 6.05%
People vote with their feet.

The answer is "YES," by Neptune's Trident "YES!"

As you may recall - he was my #1 pick last time. I think I said something about this nation needing a leader who will make tough choices and had executive experience ... maybe I was on to something .... from Politico,

... Rudy Giuliani just told me at City Hall at his portrait unveiling that "the door's not closed" on the possibility of him running for president again in 2012.

He said he won't think about anything until after the November midterm elections, and that he gets encouraged by people as he travels.

I asked, "So the door's not closed?" and he replied, "The door's not closed."

Giuliani-Pawlenty 2012; the unspellable ticket for unbearable times.

Why Giuliani was my #1 pick in '08

This quote should tell you a large reason why.

“Once you say something’s ungovernable,” Giuliani told me, “You remove accountability.”

He may be a SOB. He may be abrasive. He may be a gun grabber. I wouldn't want him to date my sister. He may be many things - but warts and all he is a scrappy leader with sharp elbows that gets things done. A street tough Romney.

New York would be blessed to have him Albany; I hope he ends up there.

Romney Redux?

As most of you know, in the last election I supported Giuliani, then Romney, and then McCain. (typical foam flecked wingnut, aren't I?)

While I was playing the role of Bull Conner with my firehoses and dogs yesterday, Mike Potemra put out something that has been bouncing around my nogg'n now and then over the last month.

Where can we find someone with a proven track record of fixing economic and programmatic cock-ups and has a track record of fighting spending and budget goofs?

Yep, Mitt Romney.

Four years from now, Mitt Romney will be president of the United States.

My reasoning is as follows. Point One: The Obama team, while still basking in honeymoon-level approval ratings today, has pointed itself in a direction that will result in disappointed hopes for the American people. They have drastically overpromised, and their policies—even if they are not outright disastrous—will end up inciting more passionate discontent than passionate support. Point Two: The Republicans always nominate for president the candidate who’s next in line, even if that person is deeply unpopular (e.g., the GOP base’s hatred for John McCain did not prevent him from being nominated; he was the guy who lost to Bush in 2000, ergo…). In 2008, the runner-up was Romney. Add to that frontrunner status the fact that Romney has credibility on economics and budgeting, and he’s the prohibitive favorite. Add Point One to Point Two, and the result is a Romney presidency.

A preemptive rejoinder, lest anyone dismiss this prediction as Romney propaganda: I supported McCain over Romney in 2008, and am nowhere near deciding whom to support in 2012.

Perfect? No. No one is. Right man at the right time to fix the fiscal house of disorder?

I can't think of anyone better - can you - I can't?

Enough of that for now though - 2010 first.

A Romney relook?

As some of you may recall, once Giuliani dropped out I shifted my flag to Romney. Back then, my number one reason was like Giuliani - I wanted a problem solver. There are always clouds on the horizon, and when you have a stressed ship in the roaring 40s, you don't put a non-qual at the helm while shipping water. I lost.

As so many start to have buyer's remorse and look for an adult - Mr. Hair doesn't look so bad now, does he?

For a while, it looked like Mitt Romney would become more a figure of ridicule than promise. Stiff, square, and allegedly two-faced, the former Massachusetts governor was a triple-punchline target of late-night comics.

But now, with a more statesmanlike bearing and some measured criticisms of the Obama administration, Romney suddenly seems like the only adult left standing among the 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls.
...
But the focus on economic issues that followed the campaign actually played to Romney's strengths. The former head of a private-equity firm, Romney has been one of the few Republicans to go beyond anti-pork rhetoric and talk in depth about economic issues.

Last month, he smartly cast his lot with his friend, former eBay impresario Meg Whitman, who is running for governor of California as an entrepreneurial savior. She's not a bad bet to win both the GOP nomination and the governorship, while test-driving Romney's message of economic growth.

And then, while Limbaugh and some other CPAC speakers were serving up cable-show vitriol, Romney made clear that he wished President Obama well and hoped for the best for the country. He then offered a more measured - and therefore more believable - critique of the new administration.

"Parts of the stimulus will, in fact, do some good," he averred. "But too much of the bill was shortsighted and wasteful.

"So far, the administration has been unclear on what it will do to address the huge decline in the pool of risk and investment capital," he said, arguing that an elimination of taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest could spur investment.

It will be a long four years - I think a lot of people will want a professional with a history in gov'munt and out of fixing problems.

We'll see.

Go right young man (or woman, or whatever)

A little more Republican belly-button picking.

This bit from Brendan Miniter in the WSJ is close to what I am thinking.

That Republicans are coalescing around these three governors is also revealing for who is not included. Several years ago Christie Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator, wrote a book called "It's My Party Too." She used that treatise to argue for the party to abandon its conservative roots. Even after two serious GOP drubbings at the polls, she has found no takers. Likewise, Lincoln Chaffee, the former Rhode Island Senator once labeled a "Republican in Name Only," was still complaining last week to the Washington Post that "right-wing talk show hosts and the Ann Coulters and that ilk" never understood that the GOP needs people like him.

Maybe that's because Republicans have looked closely at the election results. The country hasn't so much moved left as it has abandoned a GOP that abandoned its own principles. In Ohio, Barack Obama actually won about 40,000 fewer votes than John Kerry did four years ago. Mr. Obama took Ohio only because John McCain pulled 350,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did in 2004. Republicans and Republican-leaning voters stayed home.

That's not an endorsement of the ideas of the left. It's a lack enthusiasm for a party that failed to deliver the smaller government it promised in Washington. At least the GOP, in settling on future leaders like Governors Jindal, Sanford and Palin, seems to understand that.

On the other side, we have Christine Todd and the Funky Bunch,

While a host of issues were at play in this election, the primary reason John McCain lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry held just a nine-percentage-point margin among moderate voters over President Bush. This year, the spread between Barack Obama and McCain was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 2008.
ad_icon

In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama's vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president's numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) -- and lost the election. McCain didn't lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base.
...
In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same.

The thing is - I don't think the issue really is social conservatives. What brought out my cleaning posts starting before the '06 election and on has everything to do with economics, leadership, and the role of gov'munt. Why do you think I was a Giuliani supporter?

No. I think there is a bit of projection on Christine's part - social conservatism is a critical part of the Republican base - but it is not at the front of what is and should be the discussion on why the base stayed home. As for Palin - just speaking for myself and her other supporters I have talked to, and remember I am an Evangelical, her social issues were not what we talked about. We talked about leadership, corruption, and the role of gov'munt first. I don't know what Palin supporters she has been talking to - if any.

I voted last week

I really didn't think I would post about this, as I know how divisive politics can be and from Tin Foil Hat Left to the Buchanan Brigades right; I really don't want to lose too many of my readers over who I do or do not vote for. That being said, I do throw some elbows here now and then, so I shouldn't be such a puss about rubb'n someone the wrong way. Good people can disagree and still get along - at least that is how I think.

I voted by absentee ballot in FL. I voted for Giuliani.

I know that isn't where the trend is, but he is where I wound up about three months ago and I see no reason to change. I disagree with him on many things, but I never demand perfection. Yes, he does have personal issues, but don't we all?

I do know the world I live in. I do know what the President can and cannot do. I do know the type of personality we need in office.

I won't spend a lot of time trying to sell Giuliani to you - each person must make up their own mind and Giuliani's policies on the Federal level are well known. I will, however, outline for you what prevented the other candidates from getting my vote. Except for Ron Paul, I could support them all against Clinton or Obama - but for now, my vote is what it is.

In order of place:
- Romney: Once my top pick. Very smart, but only confident in those areas I consider of second and third importance.

- McCain: Freedom of Speech. Taxes. Immigration Bill. Good in Iraq; but that doesn't make up for the rest compared to Giuliani.

- Thompson: He would make a fine Attny. General.

- Huckabee: As a Southern Baptist myself - I do not want a Pastor as President.

Oh, best VP for me? Duncan Hunter.

Like I said, I am not going to write in detail why I am a Giuliani fan. I feel the man speaks for himself. Just watch at the 1:39 point when the Moonbat interrupts the Gold Star Mother in Jacksonville. That should help you understand a bit where I am. That is why I decided to tell you who I voted for.

Thanks to Capt. Ed for the video.

Powell - still a class act

Colin Powell shows again, even with a sub-par interviewer - that he is a class act. When you consider how well Giuliani is doing in the Republican Party in spite of his social views (roughly the same as Powell) - it is a shame Powell never gave it a shot.



Hat tip, President of Galrahn's Fanclub.

Dobson's shark circus

How many times can a man jump a shark? I think he did this a few times before, but I'll call it here. This has to be it, politically at least, for him.

Stand by; I'm calling fire on my own position. I am an Evangelical - albeit a libertarian one. That Free Will thingy and all. I will pray for you and your soul, but I won't judge your imperfections until I clear up all my own - and if you drink all I ask is you make mine a double. If you dance, I just ask you invite my wife to because I am a terrible dancer and would rather sit here and have a scotch with my unsaved friend.

Here is my problem with Dr. Dobson. The left side of the Republican Party has more or less supported the domination of the Party by the Right side. Good "big tent" Conservatives. There is now a leading candidate that may get the nomination that is on balance pro-"choice." Not an activists pro-"choice," but a conflicted one like many of his countrymen. He isn't perfect on gun rights either, like many of his countrymen. He isn't going to move the nation to the Left on either issue, and his taste in Judges will actually pull that branch to the right. I am not a single issue voter, but I understand that you have to make tough decisions some times to get the better of two imperfect outcomes.

What is critical at this point in our nation's history is national security and leadership. Holding back the growth of Socialist programs and high taxes. Those four things folded in with defending Freedom should be right there on your list - especially when you have Sen. Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Obama (D-IL) leading the pack.

Why would anyone decide to go the Perot route to push another Clinton into the White House? When you listen to him, hear all the "I" in that. It is about him, and he doesn't speak for me.

Here is another one who I think speaks for not-as-many as he thinks. Via TheCampaignSpot, Tony Perkins.

“Yes, there will be some evangelicals who vote for him. In my experience, it’s about half and half. … In the eyes of many social conservatives, there’s little distinction between [Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani]. Clearly there’s some distinction, they’re not identical. But when you consider those who have come into the political process on ideological path or issues path, not a party path… These are people who are not there to advance a political party. They are there to advance causes. If they’re indistinguishable on so many issues that are vital to these voters, it’s hard to see why you should vote for one instead of the other.”...We’re a third, roughly of the Republican party and we’ve had a good relationship with fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives over the past 30 years. We need a candidate who is acceptable on our policies, as well as fiscal policy and defense and foreign policy. We’ve tried to be respectful to the other members of our coalition by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of their priorities; now we’d like them to be respectful by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of our priorities.

You cannot make the perfect be the enemy of the good. If they think that there would be no difference in policy results between a Clinton and Rudy Administration, then they are acting stupid (not), blind (possibly), or like an ideological bully (probably). Judging them? No. Their actions? Yes.

Either way, I don't have time for that - at this time in its history - neither does the USA. I not voting for Deacon anyway.

Hat tip HotAir.

Giuliani's NRA moment

As what some would call a "gun nut" with an extensive arsenal (though not by some standards) - and also someone who has significant problems with the likely Democrat nominee in '08, one thing that has bothered me the most Giuliani has been his history on gun rights. Bothers me because is stops me from fully supporting a man I think can defeat Clinton - but only if he keeps the base on his side. A large part of the base is pro-gun.

Well, here is his chance to build a bridge - a bridge he needs to win the Republican nomination.

Rudolph W. Giuliani will go before the rank and file of the National Rifle Association on Friday, seeking support for his Republican presidential campaign from a group he once likened to "extremists" for its efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons.

But even as the former New York mayor strives to burnish his Second Amendment credentials at the gathering in Washington, a panel of federal judges in his home town will be hearing arguments on the lawsuit that Giuliani filed seven years ago aimed at punishing the nation's gun manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms.

I hope he does this right. My brain tells me that he is one of the best chances to keep the Junior Senator from NY away from the Executive Branch.

I'm willing to give him a chance. BTW, if you don't think guns are going to be an issue in '08, check out this from PowerLine.

My law partner Tom Goldstein previews the upcoming Supreme Court term from a political perspective. Tom's piece should be read in its entirety, not summarized. His basic argument, though, is that the Supreme Court isn't really conservative, it just looked that way on the surface last term due to the nature of the high profile cases it happened to decide in June. This term, the same phenomenon (a small number of cases driving public perception of the Court) is likely to work the other way -- making the Court appear liberal instead of centrist. Moreover, this would occur just in time for the 2008 election, giving the Republican presidential nominee a potentially powerful issue.

As Tom puts it:

There is in fact the genuine prospect that the Court will hold (potentially by a five-to-four vote each time) that the government may ban the possession of pistols (possibly guns altogether, if there is no individual Second Amendment right), that child rapists cannot be executed, that certain federal legislation regulating child pornography is unconstitutional, that the Administration's treatment of alleged terrorists is unlawful, and that sentences for crack cocaine should be reduced. In that entirely realistic scenario, it is conservatives who will be aggressively using the Court as a rallying cry - in particular, the cry of the urgent need to move the Court a single seat to the right with the likely retirement of Justice Stevens - in the 2008 election.

McCain is dead to me

I was actually going to write something nice about him again, actually having second thoughts and warming to him. No more.

MCCAIN: We can and must complete this legislation sooner rather than later. We all know that this issue can get caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible.

Senator, that "extracurricular politics" is called the people who elected you to office desiring their Constitutional Right to redress of grievance. But we know you already had issues with that. This is a huge wedge for Giuliani and Romney if they want to take it - in spite of what they supported in the past. McCain is done. Look at his weakness in the graphs from The Ides of May.

As for the immigration bill itself, I am close to Capt. Ed on this - it is probably as good you are going to get with GWB and a Democrat hold on the House and Senate. My major problem with Senator McCain (R-AZ) is his attitude towards the voter as quoted above. I have had enough of that. Kate O'Beirne is right in a large sense, this will push down the Republican base and pro-enforcement Independents and Democrats from supporting the Republicans in '08. And yes, you can put this in the lap of GWB.

I just talked with a veteran conservative activist whose group doesn't engage on the immigration issue but who is glum about the expected reaction of the conservative grassroots to the immigration deal. "We'll all be hurt. They'll just stay home," he predicted. "They'll figure they didn't support Republicans in order to federalize education, create a big, new entitlement program, and grant amnesty to illegals."

I will wait for the vote to see who up in '08 supports this growing bucket of FOD - but right now I am calling a Democrat pick-up of 5 seats in '08 at a minimum. The Republicans already have I think 7 more seats to defend than the Democrats - and they are just digging that hole deeper. In every Republican Senator's playbook "Top 5" should be; when in doubt, if Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) is a co-sponsor of a piece of legislation, oppose it. He gave us the present nightmare, in case you didn't know.

Oh, and if you want to stew in your anger, go over and read Mickey Kaus.

Why Rush is right....

Due to the fact I can't listen to a radio where I work - I don't hear Rush. It has been reported is a variety of places that Rush Limbaugh stated that given what we know now, and understanding that things can change on a dime in politics, there is a 80% chance that Sen. Clinton (D-NY) will be the next President.

You know, he is right. Here is why.

The Republican race right now is in a scrum and the core of the Republican party is not happy. The reason is that on average, the Republican care about the ideas of Conservatism. They feel betrayed by the former Republican Congress that went native - and have never been all that happy with GWB. They held their nose and voted for him, and they never really trusted him. That is without taking into consideration national security issues. They do not trust any of the "electable" candidates out there right now and it shows. Even the less than ideal Fred Thompson looks good when they look at the balance of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.

The Democrats, however, care about power. Sure, they have their ideas that they will chase down - but most of all they want power. They had the 2000, 2002, and 2004 election stolen from they by the cruel twists of history and an imperfect system of election leaders. 2006 made them feel better - but to get the power they want to make the changes they want to make to better mold this nation to their image - they want it all. Not only do they want it all, they want a leader that is not shy about taking power and using it for all it's worth.

There are more people who fear Clinton than respect her. They know she is an incredibly polarizing factor in politics - but they see a perfect storm in '08 in the likely event, in their eyes, Iraq ends in a humiliating defeat and they gain more House, Senate, and then Presidential power. Once they have all three branches, then they can take out the heavy tools and get to work.

That is their vision. In their heart, they like the clear Leftism and sooth feel they get with Obama - but they know he is a political carebear. They want what Hillary is offering - pure, brutal, direct power. She knows it.

She has the machine. She has the money. She is looking at the Republican field and is aching for a chance to destroy the poor naif that tries to run against her in the general election.

Hillary is not to be dismissed. She knows that she has 40% of the electorate sewn up. She knows 40% will never vote for her. She knows the the squishy middle is open to give the Democrats a try so that there will be some chance a change in the White House can make war and strife go away.

Of course, it won't - and Hillary knows it. She also knows that this is her one shot for what she has always worked for - higher and greater levels of power.

I hope you are not sick of the '08 election yet. This is going to be a long, hard, slog. This will be nasty, expensive and not for the faint of heart.

Prepare yourself - if the Republicans do not start to rally around a front runner in the next 4-6 months, they will be too weak to keep up. Hillary isn't all that worried about Obama. She has a plan A-Z to deal with him. One way or another, he will either become part of her team or will be destroyed.

One last thing, something I will perhaps post on another day - I will know when it will be a 95% chance that Hillary and/or a Democrat will be President; Labor Day.

Labor Day '07. And it is all about Iraq. How and why is for another day. I need to go to work.

One light at the end of the tunnel though is that Hillary could self-destruct - but I think that is less likely than the Republican front runner being destroyed.

I think though, I may start something new on May Day. First of Month Metrics and Campaign Assessment or something. I will have to ponder.

There goes the neighborhood

Heck, John Edwards doesn't need to travel the country to experience his "Two Americas" theme; looks like he created his own little version of it on his own street.

Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home...

Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.
Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated condition.

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression. He said he's spent a lot of money to try and fix up the 42-acre tract.

"I have to budget. I have to live within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

"I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."Johnson said he has put his property on the market, in part blaming the high property taxes for his decision to leave. He also wants to move for another reason.

"I don't want to live somewhere where someone's always complaining about me," he said.

And yes, because we are talking about the Silky Pony, you have to watch this; again.

Dobson jumps shark

I have never been a big fan of Dr. Dobson, perhaps he has jumped the shark before. The The Economist thinks so. I enjoyed listening to some of his radio programs years ago - but over the last few years I have not liked his tone in the political debate. BTW, this has nothing to do with Thompson, he could have said the same think about McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, or Clinton and I would feel the same way.

This just feels so wrong in so many ways. I find this very uncomfortable to read.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added...while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility."

I would have trouble finding a more narrow minded definition of Christian outside a cult fringe-group. WAAAAAAAYYYYYY over the shark. Just speaking as one Evangelical - Dr. Dobson has no influence over who I vote for, and he never has.

Hat tip Drudge.

Mark, Howard, and me

Talking Points at The Week summarizes the conventional wisdom on Ruddy.

When the word gets out that the man who stood tall in the rubble of the twin towers is also a thrice-married supporter of gay rights, gun control, and legal abortion, die-hard Republicans may find themselves less keen to make “America’s mayor” its president. His opponents’ negative TV ads will practically script themselves, said Michael Tomasky in The American Prospect Online. After Giuliani left his second wife, Donna Hanover, for his current wife, he briefly shared an apartment with a gay couple, Mark and Howard.

I think it misunderstimates the parts of the Rep. party that they simply do not understand. Let me explain; I am an Evangelical (albeit a dancing, drinking, cigar smoking, Libertarian leaning, exceptionally weak to my vices one), pro-gun guy. Gays don't bother me, so I don't bother them. Rudy's conflicted views on abortion are well known and shared by many. As a matter of fact - Rudy is a well known quantity. People know where he differs from them and I think are willing to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Given the odds of a Clinton, Edwards, or Obama on the Dem ticket - I think Rudy will look like a winner even the SBC would endorse.

Though I still like Romney - I could vote for Rudy without blinking an eye. Perfect, no. A wartime leader who at least I know where he stands 90% of the time? Yes.

Lets be realistic here as well. A President only has real control over National Security, spending priorities through the executive branch and the veto pen, and Judicial appointments in general. On those major areas, Rudy is right. The social issues will be fought in the States and the Legislative Branch on balance.