Love Does Not Conquer all in Washington.

Young George Bush, the inarticulate, with mom and dad.

Tuesday's debacle was some 8 years in the making. Or more.

American Thinker

Consider: Eight years ago, George Bush rode into town from Texas with one thing on his mind: bringing a "new tone to Washington." He was going to use his Texas charm and drawl to end all of the partisan bickering. This was a tad dispiriting to t some of us who had supported him frankly. We were thinking more along the lines of some partisan victories in congress to roll back some liberalism. Actually, only Bush wanted a new tone. Neither his supporters nor his opponents had even the vaguest interest in it, dooming it from the start.

(What does this have to do with McCain v. Obama? Everything. Stick with me.)

Nontheless, with the new tone, its architect Karl Rove was going to fashion a "permanent Republican majority" governing coalition. We're not sure what this new permanent coalition was going to accomplish exactly, since the operational foundation of the new tone turned out to be giving in on your principles so as to be universally loved. Nontheless, Bush and Rove were confident it would work. To ensure it, they were quick to "reach across the aisle" to let ultra-liberals like Ted Kennedy and John Edwards from time to time.

Well damned if Bush didn't pull it off after all, in a Bizzaro-world fashion. There is indeed a new governing coalition in Washington as of Wednesday, and they are determined to make it permanent. They have the numbers to give it a good shot, too. And that new tone? That is the clanking of widespread hatred of a President who was, above all else, determined to be loved. There is little partisan bickering on this issue, since his approval ratings prove most are in agreement on his performance. This is sad and unjust, since his tax cuts, the Surge and the war on terror are all vitally important successes.

Even last night, this new tone President who was almost nowhere to be found during the entire campaign, could peer out his window at the White House and see how well his eight year capitulation had worked. He had not thrown a single elbow in this entire election cycle, yet the hatred was running thick. This was a classic “in your face” demonstration against Bush. Forget the vapor in Chicago, there was red meat in D.C. These folks have no idea that his terror policies perhaps saved some of their lives.

The man from Texas is profoundly hated by the left. But that is not the point. The man from Texas is not hated alone.. The left has projected their hatred of him onto us. His refusal to fight back for his principals was not the personal individual "falling on the sword" that he has convinced himself it was. When he refused to fight, he let us all down.

The result has been a directionless party with no effective titular head. Too much liberalism crept into policy and caused problems. Those problems, with a new tone leader not willing to point fingers, got laid right at the undeserving doorstep of the Bush Administration. That is our doorstep too, however, and Bush never seemed to understand this.

(We are getting to McCain v Obama, I promise)

Remember that the attacks of 9-11 were dreamed up, planned, staffed, financed, practiced and set into motion during the Clinton Administration, but it was deemed to have "happened on Bush's watch." Hurricane Katrina exposed decades of corrupt and inefficient Democrat control of New Orleans, but Bush (and by extension, all Republicans) took the blame. Thirty years of liberal energy policy came crashing down on us this year with four dollar gas, yet Bush, Big Oil and free enterprise took the hit. Two decades of liberal political correctness, fraud and crony capitalism in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and took an over-leveraged economy with it. Again, Bush and free enterprise took the fall even though Bush actively fought the bad energy and lending policies. Interestingly McCain was at times quick to help this negative inertia with his public "straight talk."

Conversely, the Bush tax cuts have done a great job of undergirding the economy for nearly eight years and bringing us out of the tech bubble and 9-11. Bush and conservatism, however, received no credit for this. There had not been another terror attack on this nation since 9-11 -- an amazing feat no one thought possible -- yet Bush and his hawkish efforts were not recognized as the reasons for this success.

You see, all the new tone did was ensure that Bush received no credit when he deserved it, and he deserved it often. Yet, he often took all the blame when he did not deserve it. This led to a candidate like John McCain for the 2008 race.

Bush lavished his "a new tone" on the Republican left, supporting moderates in their primaries against upstart conservatives. But they would never return the favor when they got to Washington. Led by maverick John McCain, this wing of the party worked against Bush on almost every major legislative initiative. Some even say McCain took great satisfaction bashing Bush in the press, in retaliation for the 2000 primary season.

The result has been almost a total lack of conservative leadership anywhere. On the few occasions when Bush actually tried to practice conservatism, McCain and various permutations of the "gang of 14" were always there to torpedo the efforts. Meanwhile, the inarticulate Bush would often trot out some lightweight like Scott McClellan to occupy the bully pulpit, at least until the too-brief tenure of Tony Snow. There was no message, no leadership, no cohesion. There was, however, a 25% approval rating. Thus, when McCain emerged from the primary pack as the pundits' candidate of choice for the GOP, a run against Bush himself was the natural inclination.

This amounts to one of the great political ironies of all time, since in practice there is not that much difference between Bush's "new tone" and McCain's incessant need to "reach across the aisle." You can make the case that Bush's low approval numbers were to a degree the natural result of McCain's Bush-bashing plus Bush's new tone refusal to state his own case.

As we know, McCain made his willingness to work with Democrats a centerpiece of his campaign. He made a big issue of numerous pieces of legislation where he did so, and some of them are unmitigated disasters, chief among them is Campaign Finance Reform, which was going to take the money out of politics. Perhaps that did not go exactly as planned.

And neither did the flawed notion that McCain would swoop into the White House on this great wave of bi-partisan fever on the part of "independents." This is one of the great tea leaf misreads of all time. In my view, there is no great clamor for bi-partisanship, there is only the conceit that there is such a clamour. Surely, if such a public hunger existed, McCain would have won by double digits. He did not. He did not even win the moderates themselves. He lost them by 21 points. He also lost notable moderates like Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chaffee.

Reagan, on the other hand, carried the independents by convincing them he was right, not that he was one of them. Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America Congress won them by exposing the liberal Democrats as the corrupt political animals they were. There was no reaching across any aisle or any new tone with those successes. There was simply unabashed constitutional conservatism, proclaimed boldly and repeatedly (and at times with humor), and it resonated. You might even call it partisan.

Conversely, McCain would rarely mention conservatism or Reagan without quickly reminding us of times when he fought against them. Well no wonder it didn't sell. The salesman doesn't even like it!

Conservatism did not lose last night, as it was not on the ballot. The big winner was ignorance and the biggest loser was the Bush-Rove-McCain brand of watered down Republicanism. Yes, the Bush-Rove-McCain brand. They gave us each other. Much as the two men cannot stand each other, they are ironically much the same. And the result is indeed a new tone in Washington, and it is a scary dreary leftist tone.

We will never beat it back until the watered down bi-partisans are flushed from the system. Thomas Jefferson loved partisanship. Hugo Chavez does not. That should tell us all we need to know about this flawed path our party has been on for many years. Tuesday, our aisle reaching chickens came home to roost.

I wonder how Obama came so far? Lest we forget.

ABOARD THE STRAIGHT TALK AIR — Sen. John McCain on Wednesday blasted President Bush for building a mountain of debt for future generations, failing to pay for expanding Medicare and abusing executive powers, leveling his strongest criticism to date of an administration whose unpopularity may be dragging the Republican Party to the brink of a massive electoral defeat.

"We just let things get completely out of hand," he said of his own party's rule in the past eight years.

In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. McCain lashed out at a litany of Bush policies and issues that he said he would have handled differently as president, days after a poll showed that he began making up ground on Sen. Barack Obama since he emphatically sought to distance himself from Mr. Bush in the final debate.

more Washington Times

"Why isn't McCain 25 behind given what is happening in this economy?"

My Guy

Think about it. The debate that we were punished with on Tuesday should have ended two careers. Clearly the wrong anchor at NBC had the fatal heart attack. Tom Brokaw and John McCain reinforced the obvious, both have been around too long. Brokaw is a foolish old bore and can be switched off. McCain is not so easy. We need McCain.

McCain is in a viable position to become President, because there are many people, including this one, who believe Obama is far worse. Why is this race even close?

______________________

Polls: McCain On The Rebound
By Joe Murray, The Bulletin
10/09/2008

The mad dash to the White House has become a horserace again with a new poll showing John McCain closing the gap and coming within striking distance of Barack Obama.

A Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll, taken before Tuesday night's debate in Nashville, shows Mr. McCain trailing Mr. Obama by a 47 percent to 45 percent margin; well within the poll's 2.8 percent margin of error. Seven percent remain undecided.

"This represents a bit of a recovery by McCain, who had been sliding in some polls before his running mate, Sarah Palin, put in a strong performance in her one and only debate performance last Thursday," the poll read.

This, however, was not the only good news for a McCain camp trying to get out from under a dark cloud.

A CBS News poll released on the eve of the second presidential debate, showed Mr. McCain trailing Mr. Obama by a four-point margin. Mr. Obama led Mr. McCain 47 percent to 43 percent with seven percent undecided.

Among likely voters, Mr. Obama's lead shrinks to a three-point margin of 45 percent to 48 percent. This poll was also taken after last Thursday's vice presidential debate.

"Why isn't he (Mr. McCain) 25 behind given what is happening in this economy?" asked Pat Buchanan while appearing on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show."

"People's nest eggs are gone, jobs are being lost, companies can't borrow, it is a disaster, [President George W.] Bush is unpopular and he (Mr. McCain) is still hanging in there."
Mr. Buchanan, as well as folks at the RNC, credit Mrs. Palin for Mr. McCain's resilience and claim the American voter islooking beyond attempts to define the Alaskan governor as a liability.

"Barack Obama, with the assistance of the mainstream media, would love to caricaturize Gov. Palin to distract voters from her fresh perspective and proven record of reform," said Blair Latoff, spokeswoman for the RNC. "Last week, the American people saw Gov. Palin without the lens and editing of the mainstream media and once again Americans reacted very favorably to her running with John McCain."

But Mrs. Palin cannot win this election for Mr. McCain alone, especially in light of the economic crisis. Other factors, such as perceived economic ability and supporter enthusiasm, are equally pivotal.

Mr. McCain has made inroads rehabilitating his image on the economy, a sore sport for a Republican running during a time of economic crisis unfolding on a Republican president's watch and has continued to distance himself from President George W. Bush in the minds of voters.

Fifteen percent are "very confident" Mr. McCain would make the right choices on the economy, while 38 percent are "somewhat confident," the CBS poll found. Forty-four percent are "not confident" in Mr. McCain's economic prowess. The numbers changed little from the poll taken prior to the first presidential debate.

While Mr. Obama still leads Mr. McCain in terms of economic decision, he has lost some ground since the first presidential debate.

Twenty-four percent are "very confident" the Democrat could handle the economy, down from 29 percent pre-debate, while 34 percent are "somewhat confident." Those "not confident" Mr. Obama would make the right economic decision shot up to 41 percent, a seven point jump from the pre-date numbers.

And while the Obama camp has feverishly been trying to link Mr. McCain to the policies of Mr. Bush, whose approval ratings are now the lowest of any modern American president, the charge does not appear to be sticking among voters, a good sign for the McCain camp.

When asked what Mr. McCain would do if elected president, 38 percent responded he would continue the policies of Mr. Bush. This number is down from 46 percent in mid-September.

Mr. Obama continued to win out in terms of supporter enthusiasm. Though it dropped three points after the vice presidential debate, 58 percent of Mr. Obama's supporters enthusiastically support him, while 31 percent support him with reservations (up from 29 percent on Oct. 1).

Enthusiasm for Mr. McCain, on the hand, remains relatively mild as 38 percent of his supporters enthusiastically support his candidacy, while 44 percent support the maverick Republican with reservations.

Eighty-two percent of Obama supporters and 81 percent of McCain supporters responded their support cannot be swayed between now and Election Day, thus leaving only one in five voters uncommitted. The poll showed the number of uncommitted voters are down from the week preceding the vice presidential debate.

Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us

McCain Best Suited to Stand Against NeoSoviet Aggression

Over the past several years I have become increasingly wary and concerned over events in Russia and the cult of personality of Vladimir Putin. I have not counted how many posts have been made about Putin, but there have been many. The general tone presented Putin as a dangerous Soviet era thug.

Over the past three years, we have made a transition from the Schroeder-Chirac-Bush approach of inclusion with Putin, to one of increasing caution and now alarm. Europe and the US are once again reentering a twilight and dangerous period of adjustment with Russia and a Soviet revival. The "triumph of Democracy days" of the eighties and nineties is over. The world is once again devolving into spheres of influence and balance of power politics.

Putin is a tough, experienced and ruthless politician. He is leading a country that adores him and welcomes a resurgent Russia. The opposition to Putin has been crushed inside Russia. Outside of Russia is a different story. American power and leadership is once again necessary and will be appreciated. Iraq is over.

On Saturday night, I watched Obama and McCain at Saddleback Church. The comparison between an idealistic and inexperienced academic and a tough and battle-scarred veteran could not have been more obvious. You owe it to yourself to watch and compare. I enclose a brief video on the highlights of McCain.

________________________

David Cameron and John McCain are best suited to defy Russian aggression

By Janet Daley
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 18/08/2008

Telegraph

...In the United States, the story is taking a more predictable but no less riveting course. John McCain was always going to be the net gainer in a foreign crisis. Not only does he have precisely the experience - both personal and political - of coping with war and international threat, but his manner and his presence seem designed to be both reassuring and inspiring. This is a man who endured horrific torture as a prisoner of war but refused to be released earlier than the men who served under him, and who has had the political fortitude to put his own moral principles above partisan loyalty.

So if you are looking for a guy to stand up to the Russians - or anybody else, for that matter - without blinking, you are probably going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt over the very young, very untried Obama, whose experience on the world stage consists of a whirlwind series of speaking engagements.

Last Saturday night, the two contenders appeared on a platform together for the first time - not to engage in a formal presidential debate which would have been improper since neither has been formally nominated as yet, but to participate in a novel format staged by the Saddleback Church, one of the largest evangelical congregations in America.

Saddleback is a moderate outfit and its pastor, Reverend Rick Warren, is a famously benign and tolerant figure. He called his event a "civil forum" and stated specifically that his intention in chairing it was to restore civility to political discourse. He was scrupulously fair and courteous to both presumptive candidates, to whom he put the identical questions in separate interviews (out of each other's hearing). It was, as the commentator Charles Krauthammer said afterwards, a brilliant "controlled experiment" in which both men were subjected to identical examinations in identical conditions. I stayed up to watch the whole two hours of it between 1am and 3?am. It was as illuminating as any political event I have ever witnessed.

Mr Obama came first. He was, as we have come to expect, articulate, engaging and very relaxed ("comfortable in his skin", as is often said). He responded with charm if some ambiguousness to the tricky questions that arose on the evangelical heartland issues, most notably abortion, on which he is pro-choice. But the most interesting aspects of his performance (especially in retrospect when we had heard McCain) lay in what he did not say.

Asked whether he thought that evil existed and, if so, what should be done about it, he replied that it did and that we had to confront it "on our streets". The only international reference that he made in this answer was to Darfur. There was no mention of al-Qaeda, Russia or Georgia. In another answer, he described the most significant moral failing of the United States as not getting to grips with domestic poverty, racism and sexism. Asked to define the "rich" whom he has said should pay more tax so that government can improve society, he offered a figure of $250,000 a year. His performance was attractive and fluent in its own terms.

But within moments of McCain appearing to face the same queries, the Obama poise looked positively laconic and the Obama answers insubstantial. Where he had glided through the session with glib personableness, McCain electrified the hall. His answers were direct, detailed and full of the personal anecdote that his life experience has to offer.

Asked the question about evil, he cited al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism. (He would, he said, pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell if necessary.) America had a moral obligation to defeat genocide wherever it occurred, and he was "very saddened by Russia's re-emergence as an empire". Georgia had achieved democracy and deserved our support. On the definition of "rich", he said that he did not want to raise taxes for anyone in tough economic times. He made it clear, too, that he supported education vouchers to allow poor children greater opportunity.

Both men answered the question, "What is worth risking lives for?", with the word "freedom", but it was McCain whose memories gave it force. Ironically, the man whose age is thought to be a liability seemed more energetic and robust than his rival, whose cool sophistication looked somehow inappropriate for the times.

Obama Seizing Victory from Jaws

Call this the audacity of audacity, but Obama is poised to take credit for what appears to be a possible and at this stage likely win in Iraq. McCain through pique and barely repressed anger seems handicapped in adequately responding to the Obama strategy.

Obama is a bullshit artist extraordinaire. McCain supports the surge and Obama responds with the putsch. Bush, the architect, and McCain, the promoter, are caught flatfooted while Obama floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee.

________________________

An Emerging Victory in Iraq, Defeat for McCain

July 24, 2008, 6:37PM

By AUSTIN BAY
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

IT is ironic, but victory in Iraq could mean defeat for John McCain.

Crown the lucky Barack Obama, bury the courageous McCain — what a fate for a warrior senator who has played a key leadership role in Iraq's emerging victory.

I'll repeat that description: "emerging victory." Terror campaigns and insurgencies end with diminishing codas of violence.

In a recent column, I referenced the "Strategic Overwatch" video that appeared on the Internet the first week of June. "Overwatch" is a military term. At the tactical level, one soldier moves, the other "covers" him (overwatches), ready to suppress enemy fire. At the strategic level, allied nations "cover" one another.

"Strategic Overwatch" is also a term I encountered when I served in the plans section of Multi-National Corps-Iraq in 2004 — a desirable strategic condition I thought the coalition and Iraqis could achieve.

"Strategic Overwatch" is a limited victory for a United States willing to remain a reliable Iraqi ally. "Strategic Overwatch" protects the much more enthusiastic Iraqi version of victory. After his May 6, 2008, speech at Quantico, Va., I asked Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Hamid Al Bayati what would constitute victory for the Iraqi people. He responded viscerally, "Every day we have democracy is a victory for the Iraqi people."

How blunt. The Iraqis have earned their democracy, and we owe them a solid alliance.

The video summarizes "Strategic Overwatch" ( You can use the guest click in feature) in this manner:

Assumptions: The United States is in Iraq for the long haul; Iraqi political progress continues.

Time to Develop: Could emerge by mid- to late 2009, full-fledged by 2011.

Related Events: Iraqi army continues to re-arm and modernize; Iraq and the United States agree to a "long-range cooperation agreement" the Iraqi people see as advantageous to Iraq; ... Iraq begins to attract steady and sustained private investment; members of the Arab League begin forging stronger political and economic ties with Iraq.

Effect on Average Iraqi: Increased GDP ultimately means a wealthier society; Iraqi neighborhoods revive; Baghdad's business community revives and the city's nightlife returns.

Effect on Region: Increased internal trouble in Iran as Iranian people object to the corrupt mullocracy and to the lack of democracy in Iran; Iraqi-Turkish relations continue to strengthen; Iraq becomes more assertive in Middle East politics and economic affairs; more Shia Arab strife occurs in Lebanon (stoked by Iran) with the goal of distracting Iraqi Shias and-or "radicalizing" Iraqi foreign policy; Jordan re-emerges as a staunch ally of Iraq.

Eight weeks after the scenario hit the Web, we should change "could emerge" to "is emerging." Credit the Iraqis with accelerating the process. Operation Charge of the Knights (March-May 2008), which most so-called media experts immediately labeled the "Basra blunder," demonstrated that the Iraqi army's operational capabilities had improved and that the Maliki government could astutely turn security success into political solidification. Iraqi gains mean a significant reduction in coalition combat forces could come by late 2009, with complete Iraqi combat responsibility by late 2010.

So why the irony? Barack Obama wanted to withdraw because Harry Reid and the Democratic Party insisted we'd lost. As "Strategic Overwatch" develops, the United States can begin reducing its combat role because we are winning — and "we" includes the Iraqis. McCain ought to reap the reward, but given the national media's creampuff treatment of Obama, the next "instant truth" will be "see, we can withdraw."

But before Obama declares peace in our time, consider the "Effect on Region" paragraph. The Iraqis want an alliance. That means Washington must be prepared to back Iraq in a confrontation with Iran. We know McCain can handle that dangerous test. In the maelstrom moment when an Obama-advocated rapid military withdrawal would have devastated the Iraqis, McCain stood firm.

Bay, a nationally syndicated columnist based in Texas, specializes in military and foreign affairs.

September Surprise - McCain Drops Out (Huffington Post)

Arriana Huffington has always been the queen of the big top, but the queen's blog may have the top act of this election cycle. Step right up folks and be amazed.

When McCain Drops Out Huffington Post - Yahoo

When the Republicans choose their candidate on September 4th, there is a very real chance that they could throw the election into an unexpected chaos as they pull a genuine September Surprise.

I think there is every reason to believe John McCain won't be the nominee. Ok, let me say that again. McCain will not be the Republican candidate in November.

Here's how it could happen:

At some point in mid August, John McCain will announce that he has decided that he can not accept his party's nomination for president. The reason will be health-related, and that may turn out to be the truth. Anyone who's seen him on stage these days knows he looks like he's about to keel over. And anyone who's been on a presidential campaign knows the physical demands are grueling and can be a challenge for a young man.

But excuses or facts hardly matters. He won't be accepting his party's nomination.

The reasons are simple. He can't win. Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee -- the polls all show that McCain's pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November. That combined with soft stand on litmus test conservative issues make him an unpopular candidate among the base. I know some Democrats that think the Republicans are planning to let McCain lose and 'sit this one out' so that they can hang the democrats with a bad economy and a war that is a morass. But that just isn't how they play. They play to win every hand -- think about 2000 with a popular Democratic president and good economy and a solid VP running for president. Why did they put up Bush? And why did they fight so hard? Because, you don't ever throw a game. And they're not going to throw this one.

McCain won't be the nominee.

By August, they'll have done something to try and pick away at Obama's popularity. They'll emphasis race, or whatever they can to get him to appear less than perfect. Then, they'll bring out of the woodwork a surprise candidate who can shift the story fast. With just two months before the election -- the new candidate will have little time to be 'vetted' but will be shiny and new, and will get a lot of media attention as Obama's newness will have become -- by then -- tarnished or at least no longer the surprise that it has been as he unseated Hillary.

So, who will be the Republican candidate that faces Obama in the fall?

I've spoken to a number of friends who -- when presented with this set of facts respond: "but they don't have anybody else." That's simply not the case.

Joe Trippi, campaign consultant and most notably Howard Dean's campaign manager, said of McCain dropping out: "While crazy, this may be the best shot they have."

There are a whole list of Republicans who in many ways are more likely to energize the Republican base. One thing is certain -- there are candidates that will play to the core issues in ways that McCain simply can't.

Here's a list of names. Some you know, some you don't. But each of them knows their name is in play. Among them --

• Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State)
• Colin Powell (fmr Sec. of State)
• Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado Congresswoman)
• Mitt Romney (fmr Massachusetts Governor)
• Mike Huckabee (fmr Governor of Arkansas)
• Charlie Crist (Florida Governor)
• Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor)
• Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor)
• Mark Sanford: (Governor of South Carolina)
• John Thune (Senator from South Dakota)
• Dick Lugar (Senator from Indiana)
• Chuck Hagel (Senator from Nebraska)
• MIchael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor)
  

Ok, go ahead knock them down. One by one. See if you can really remove ALL these names from a list of candidates that are more likely to give Obama a run for his money. They'll come on the scene late, with a press corps that is looking for a horse race and a new story. Obama's frontrunner status will be upset, and there will be a set of variables that need to be calculated -- and tested against a weary electorate.

Is this supposition? Sure, but one grounded with enough history and observation to take it beyond conjecture and into the realm of the possible.

So -- before the Democrats go and game out how to beat McCain, it may be worth thinking about what happens when he says he won't accept the nomination. For the Republicans, a wide open convention would be both good theater and good politics.

In your heart you know she is nuts. Drove her first husband into light loafers.

Can McGician Win?

McCain. Is he the magician that can save the Republican Party? It is so absurd, you have to assume it is possible.

______________

Republicans forced to turn to their nemesis: John McCain

By Albert R. Hunt Bloomberg News
Published: May 11, 2008

The Republican political establishment is looking to the devil to deliver them, the man many have depicted as the incarnation of evil: John McCain.

Republicans in the U.S. Congress are petrified about a November debacle, a fear stoked on May 3, when they lost their second straight special election in a district held by Republicans.

The party's fundamental situation is terrible: Republicans are saddled with an enormously unpopular president, a war, a troubled economy and a Democratic opposition that's being energized by important constituent groups.

"The generics are as bad as anytime since I have been here," said Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican and one of the most politically astute members of Congress in either party. Davis, a 14-year veteran, is retiring this year, frustrated with his party's long-term prospects.

In a delicious irony, the one bright spot is McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. A few months ago, McCain spoke to the party's caucus in the House of Representatives and said that he would campaign in any district where he was wanted and stay out of any where he would be a liability.

"I don't know of anyone that doesn't want him in," said Representative Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican who is also retiring.

This is turning history on its head. Not long ago, the independent-minded McCain was vilified by his party's leaders.

Tom DeLay - the former Republican majority leader who was once the most powerful official the House had had in years - complained that McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of." Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert once suggested that McCain, a decorated prisoner of war in Vietnam, didn't understand sacrifice.

This year, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi said the thought of a McCain presidency "sends a cold chill down my spine." His former Mississippi colleague, Trent Lott, has endorsed McCain; eight years earlier, Lott's comments about the Arizona lawmaker were unprintable.

The czar of conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, said earlier this year that a McCain nomination would "destroy" Republicans: "He has stabbed his own party in the back I can't tell you how many times."

There is a situational element to these attitudes; McCain is fine when he's useful to them.

(keepin on)
Too good to miss. ht Doug ht meaningless hot air

Wake Up McCain. You Think Republicans are Tough?

Kardashian at party for Girls Gone Wild Magazine, endorses Obama.

"It wasn't just him and I. I was at an event,"said Kardashian.

"I had dinner with him (Obama) once, and he just seemed very firm about the change, and that's, like, his motto,"

Kim Kardashian Reveals Details Of Dinner With Barack Obama
By Brian Andrews Published 04/24/2008 Reality TV Star News
Barack Obama Hoping To Gain Democratic Nomination

Kim Kardashian has been seen in a sex tape which has made her the focus of many men. The one she is focusing on these days is presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The Senator apparently made an impression with her while having dinner together.

Kardashian revealed at a launch party for Girls Gone Wild Magazine, that she is endorsing Senator Obama for president. The move came at the party that was held in Los Angeles.

"I had dinner with him once, and he just seemed very firm about the change, and that's, like, his motto," she said. When asked about the dinner, she quickly pointed out that the two were not alone. "It wasn't just him and I. I was at an event,"said Kardashian.

She is not the only one in her family to be backing Obama in his quest to become the next president. Her stepbrother, Brody Jenner, also has come out in support of Obama.

Obama was hoping to lock up the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania on this past Tuesday. That did not happen, however, as Hillary Clinton defeated Obama by almost ten points. The battle now heads on, in search of a winner who will eventually battle John McCain to be the next president.

Our Guy Retaliates.

"If al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded, why did we invade?" Buchanan serves it up.

We have some real zingers from Buchanan this morning. Buchanan must have dined at the Palm for inspiration for this column. - Hat tip: Cutler

______________________

Onward the Revolution!
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Having cheerfully confessed he knows little about economics, John McCain is advancing himself as a foreign-policy president, a "realistic idealist," he told the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles.

But judging from the content of his speech, McCain is no more a realist than he is a reflective man.

Speaking of our five-year war in Iraq, McCain declares, "It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal."

Fair point. There is surely a great risk in a too-rapid withdrawal.

But if a U.S. withdrawal, after 4,000 dead and 33,000 wounded, and a trillion dollars sunk, runs the risk of a genocidal calamity, what does that tell us about the wisdom of those who marched us into this war?

What threat did Saddam ever pose comparable to the cataclysm McCain says we face if we pull out? Who, Senator, put American on the horns of so horrible a dilemma?

"Whether they were in Iraq before is immaterial," McCain warns, "al-Qaida is there now." And that is surely true.

But if al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded, why did we invade? And if al-Qaida is there now, what was the magnet that drew them in, if not the U.S. occupation McCain himself championed?

Like Condi Rice, who regularly disparages the policies of every president from FDR to Bill Clinton, McCain enjoys parading the higher morality of his devotion to democracy-uber-alles.

"For decades in the Middle East we had a strategy of relying upon autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family. ... We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these outdated autocrats is the safest bet." Speaking of self-delusion, does McCain believe the "democrats" lately elected in Pakistan will be tougher on al-Qaida and the Taliban than Pervez Musharraf, who has twice escaped assassination for having sided with us?

Does McCain think this new crowd in Islamabad will be more pro-American than the general, when the people who voted them in are among the most anti-American in the Islamic world?

From Richard Nixon to George Bush I, we expelled Moscow from Egypt, won the Cold War, brought peace between Egypt and Israel, and created a worldwide alliance, including Hafez al-Assad of Syria, that drove Saddam's army out of Kuwait.

What has the Bush-McCain democracy crusade produced, save electoral victories for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas? And if we dump the sultan of Oman, President Mubarak, and the king of Saudi Arabia, who does McCain think will replace them?

If undermining Arab autocrats is good for America, why is that also the goal of Osama bin Laden?

McCain proposes a "League of Democracies" to unite a hundred nations for peace and freedom. "Revanchist Russia," however, is to be black-balled from McCain's league and thrown out of the G-8.

What would this accomplish other than undoing the work of Reagan in bringing Moscow in from the cold, driving Russia into the arms of China, restarting the Cold War and recreating the Beijing-Moscow axis it was Nixon's great achievement to break up?

What McCain is proposing is a re-division of the world into the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Moral clarity at last! Has he forgotten the fate of that earlier rabbit warren of the righteous, the League of Nations?

Does our "realistic idealist" think a NATO of 25 nations that has mustered a piddling 16,000 soldiers, most of them noncombatants, to stand beside us in Afghanistan is going to confront a nuclear-armed Russia?

"Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests," said Lord Palmerston.

What is critical, especially in wartime, is not whether a regime is autocratic or democratic, but whether it is hostile or friendly.

Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy, while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes.

When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two brave U.S. pilots died as a result. When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us.

To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology. And policies rooted in ideologies, from Trotskyism to democratism, end up on the Great Barrier Reef of reality.

_____________________________

AMEN.

New York Times Hit Job on McCain

I am not going to link the story because when I read it, I found nothing. No names and scant details. The babe looks like a woman McCain would like. To me it is a big so what. I put this up before McCain talks to the press. Why would anyone want to be President?

McCain and Obama.

He ain't pretty but he can fight.

The talking point of the day from the Clinton camp is that the fire wall in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania will hold. That sounds familiar to many of us. It is the Giuliani strategy that utterly failed.

Nothing spreads fear faster than the moment when a critical mass realizes the game is over. It becomes fight or flight and when the fight is clearly being lost, it takes an unusually talented leader to rally support and turn a sure loss into a victory. Hillary is not that leader.

Hillary is going to take the fall. The only one that can stop that is Hillary and she does not have what it takes to do so. Hillary is a wonk and a Bureaucrat. She has no street skills. Obama is killing her. She is up against a showman and there is not enough time for her to develop the talent that she needs to defeat Obama. McCain is another story.

Seven weeks ago, his campaign hardly had a pulse. Where others like Joe Biden capitulated, McCain had the grit and the survival skills to hang in there, fight and win. It will be McCain and Obama.

Obama has not chosen to define who he is. McCain will force that on him. McCain has plenty of time to put Obama on the defensive and force him to get specific. He needs to draw blood and start showing Obama to be who he really is and not who people want him to be. There is plenty of time for McCain to win this contest.

Don't bet he cannot do it.

The Choice: McCain, Hillary or Obama?

Think about it.

It is a little late to be complaining that McCain is not Republican enough. For seven years the Republicans have not been Republican enough. The Republican oligarchs had an ample opportunity to discipline themselves in Congress. They did not. They failed miserably in some very important areas and none other than in way out of control government spending.

For seven years we had a Republican President that could not find his veto pen. It was a Republican Administration that failed to enforce US immigration laws, and it was a Republican Administration with no leadership skills that failed to maintain a Republican majority in Congress. None of that was McCain's doing. A US Senator is a party of one.

The choice is becoming very narrow and parochial. Who will serve your interests better, McCain, Hillary or Obama? The Iranians must be asking themselves the same question. I doubt any Republican can win, but I have no doubt as to what happens if the Democrats do. I have as much enthusiasm for McCain as I did for Ford and Bob Dole, but Romney just does not seem to have the horsepower that is still left in JMAC. A Supreme Court dominated by those chosen by Hillary or Obama will be a disaster for conservatives.

There are some others who will be even less happy to see a John McCain candidacy. Maybe the Iranians would even have a Reagan-Carter moment, when they released US hostages on Reagan's inauguration day. Look at the sunny side, eh Rat?

___________________

Talk radio impugns McCain's liberal record
By Donald Lambro Washington Times
January 30, 2008

Conservative talk radio is ganging up on presidential candidate John McCain, attacking him for joining Democrats to push liberal legislation and opposing bedrock Republican positions from tax cuts to immigration.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney appears to be the favorite of conservative talk-radio stars and stands to benefit from their distaste for the Arizona senator, who is running neck and neck with Mr. Romney in the race for the presidential nomination.

While most polls show the two men in a dead heat in key primary and caucus contests across the nation, the campaign battle on talk radio has turned into a lopsided offensive against Mr. McCain, whose positions on illegal aliens, President Bush's tax cuts, oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and campaign-finance regulation have infuriated conservative commentators.

"I don't think talk radio has changed their core views. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Mark Levin and myself, all center-right conservatives generally supportive of the Republicans," talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt told The Washington Times.

"I think if you were to poll that universe of talkers, you would find they would be anti-McCain-Feingold [on campaign finance]; anti-McCain-Kennedy [on immigration], except for Medved; pro-oil exploration in ANWR; and supporters of the Bush tax cuts," Mr. Hewitt said as he ticked off bills the Arizona senator has championed or opposed in the Senate.

"So the hostility toward the McCain legislative record shouldn't surprise anyone," the founder of the conservative Townhall Web site said.

Mr. Hewitt also told the Associated Press yesterday that "Senator McCain is a great American, a lousy senator and a terrible Republican. He has a legislative record that is not conservative. In fact, it is anti-conservative." He said he would support Mr. Romney "if I was voting today."

For weeks, Mr. Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, also has pounded Mr. McCain as a Republican who deserted his party's positions on core issues — from his earlier opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 to his support with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, for an immigration bill that would have given illegal aliens a path to citizenship.

This week, Mr. Limbaugh went after the senator for his alliance with environmentalists and his opposition to President Bush's push to open ANWR's vast oil reserves to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

"McCain has been an active promoter of the global-warming hysteria — for which he has been lauded by radical environmentalists — and he is a co-sponsor of a leftist scheme for energy rationing," the famed talkmeister told his more than 20 million listeners last week.

"If anybody has any doubts whatsoever, my differences with Senator McCain are substantive," he said. "When you boil this down, this really is between McCain and Romney right now."

Not all of the leading conservative talk-radio hosts oppose Mr. McCain, though even some of his supporters admit his anti-conservative positions often have pushed them to the edge of endurance.

"I've been getting a lot heat from listeners for defending McCain, even though I acknowledge the many disagreements I've had with him. I've been getting a constant barrage from my audience. It's getting really heated," Bill Bennett said yesterday.

"I admire the heck out of John McCain and disagree with him on at least half a dozen serious matters," Mr. Bennett said. "He is a war hero, he has been consistently pro-life, he put his campaign in hostage to the success of the surge in Iraq, he's been a consistent hawk on pork-barrel spending, and can win in November."

But the former drug czar and education secretary said the intensity of the anti-McCain calls to his radio program show he does not have the support of his party's conservative base.

"What rankles me the most is his tendency to criticize our side first. Why bash us, why not bash Hillary Clinton? He's got to have some of the fire that Democrats have for Republicans, but we don't see it," he said. "If he is the nominee, he's got to fix things with the base of the party, because you can't have a convention with these kinds of feelings."

Does he have a breaking point over the senator's candidacy? "Ask me tomorrow," he replied.

The Black Sheep and the Republican Cardinals

Looking for guidance

If there is a national conservative pundit that supports John McCain, someone will have to help me out. I do not know who it is. Romney seems wobbly at best and Rudy is a puzzlement. Is it possible that it will be Huckabee or McCain? It certainly appears that it could be McCain. Based on Hillary's victory speech in New Hampshire, she is going left and populist. The Democrats are going to fracture with the blacks feeling like their moment was taken from them. The Republicans will be faced with a breakup or a makeup. Steady as you go, interesting times ahead.

"If someone else has a better idea, I'd love to have them give it to us."- John McCain

... so said John McCain about the the immigration bill during the presidential debate. McCain may not be hearing from the American people, but the others who were on stage with him have. Amnesty ended McCain's political career. That much is obvious from the tone of the debate, but the others, who want to lead on the Republican side, have heard the American people. That is great news.

Caution!

Do not give up the fight to stop this foolish and defeatist bill. When it is stopped, it will be time to deal with the fools and knaves that tried to foist it onto to us. It will be time to give a lesson on representative democracy. It will be long past time to let politicians know that party loyalty follows principle, not the obverse.

And speaking of principle, will the knave in the oval office pardon his loyal jester, Scooter Libby?

Fate of Senate immigration bill in doubt
Tue Jun 5, 2007 9:53PM EDT

By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday accused Democrats of trying to rush a vote on immigration reform, casting doubt on the fate of the White House-backed bill that would tighten border security and legalize millions of illegal immigrants.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted to close debate on the bill by this week's end despite Republicans' objections, which could doom the fragile compromise legislation that backers say would help fix a broken immigration system through which millions of illegal immigrants have slipped into the United States.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said his fellow Republicans had a number of amendments they wanted considered before voting on the bill.


But Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Republicans were stalling.

"What we have heard today are buzzwords for 'this bill is going nowhere,'" Reid said in a Senate floor exchange with McConnell.

Reid said he planned to set a Senate vote for Thursday on his motion to limit debate, and it was unclear with Republican objections that it would garner the 60 votes needed in the 100-member chamber to advance the bill toward passage.

Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who helped broker the bill, said cutting off debate "would be a big mistake" that could "risk the bill not passing at all."

The bill, worked out by a bipartisan group of senators and the White House, ties tough border security and workplace enforcement measures to a guest-worker program and a plan to legalize the millions of immigrants.

It has come under attack from the right and left, with conservatives arguing it will give amnesty to people who broke U.S. laws and unions saying the temporary worker program will create an underclass of cheap laborers.

As Senate leaders argued over timing, the bill's backers sought to hold the bill together after senators returned from a week-long break having heard concerns from constituents and armed with amendments that could shatter the compromise.

Senators on Tuesday overwhelmingly accepted an amendment that would require employers to try to recruit American workers before employing someone from another country under the guest worker program.

But they rejected a measure that would have made it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain permanent resident status.

The bill faces other challenges, including an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, that would bar immigrants who ignored deportation orders and other felons from taking advantage of the legalization program. Democrats argued the proposal would exclude many farm workers and other immigrants whose only crime was to enter the United States seeking jobs.

Proposed Democratic amendments to change limits on family-based immigration could undermine Republican support for the bill, senators said.

The Senate debate is being closely watched by members of the House of Representatives, which will take up its own version of immigration legislation if the bill passes the Senate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, has said she wants significant Republican support, but that could be difficult.