Both Right

Grand Rapids Fireworks - 2007

2008-07-05T09:24:00.001-04:00

We've Moved!

2008-01-01T16:25:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year!

We've moved our blog site to: www.RightCuz.com

Be sure to check out our new digs soon!

dm & kn

Romney Unifies the Republican Coalition

2007-12-31T12:15:00.000-05:00

Here's a great article.

It sums up better than I could, why I think Romney has what it takes to be the face of the Republican Party and defeat the Democrats and win the White House.

Here's a couple of quotes from the article.

To hear the media tell it these days, one might think the three parts of the Republican coalition—military conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives—are distinct entities with irreconcilable agendas. In fact, the Republican coalition has worked together to propel GOP candidates to victory in 5 of the last 7 presidential elections—Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

and later....

In evaluating the candidates, I determined that Governor Romney is the best candidate to unify the Republican coalition—and therefore the most likely to defeat Clinton or Obama in November. He is a strong military conservative who has spoken eloquently and forcefully about the threat of radical Islam; he is a dependable economic conservative who wants to extend the Bush tax cuts and believes in the power of free markets and free trade; finally, he is a social conservative who understands the importance of family values and a culture of life. In short, he is a friend to—and a unifier of—all three parts of the Republican coalition.

Take a look at the "top-tier" candidates and you tell me who is all three "legs" of the Republican coalition (social conservative, economic conservative and military conservative).

Romney - Social Conservative, Economic Conservative, Military Conservative.
Giuliani - Economic Conservative, Military Conservative.
McCain - Military Conservative, Social Conservative
Huckabee - Social Conservative

And now the rest of the story:

The truth is, Mitt Romney will be anything you want him to be. He's a political chameleon who rivals Bill Clinton when it comes to pandering. If 51% of the Republican base wanted transvestites running the military, he'd be all for it after having flip-flopped from being against it while running for governor or senator.

With Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee, you may not agree with them on every issue. But you respect them because you know they really believe what they believe.

With Romney, we will never feel that way because the man has no core beliefs (with the possible exception of his Mormon faith). He'll say whatever he thinks will get him the most votes.

KN says: And you know this how????? You know this man via the internet? Not saying I know the man, just saying he's certainly saying the right things and those who get him elected won't let him forget it.

The truth hurts and that's the truth.

KN says: See below.... "just because you say it doesn't mean it's true"

dm

How Romney Won the Republican Nomination

2007-12-31T09:23:00.000-05:00

Hard work pays off. Spending a significant portion of your personal wealth works well too.

A few years ago, then-Governor Mitt Romney decided he wanted to be president. He laid out a map showing the exact route there. At that point, Mr. Romney had a track record for being an ardent abortion-rights proponent who recognized the legitimacy of equal protection for gays and lesbians, and who held Liberal positions concerning guns restrictions, high taxes & fees, and an open-door policy on illegal immigration. He prided himself as being to the left of Teddy Kennedy.

But there was simply no way the Republican base would nominate an East Coast "Rockefeller Republican" like Mitt Romney.

So with millions of dollars in hand, Mitt set out to transform his image from being a liberal lightweight to Mr. Conservative. He has reversed his positions on so many issues, many of us wonder if there is anything authentic about the man. Are there any deeply held principles Romney won't eschew once the going gets tough?

Mitt Romney is so transparently opportunistic, it makes any objective political observer wince.

But despite all that, Romney is on the verge of winning the Republican nomination. GOP power-brokers are resigned to the fact that he's probably the only viable option our party has this time around. The others either carry too much baggage (Giuliani), have irked the Republican base one too many times (McCain), or are just unelectable or uninspiring (Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter, Paul, et al).

As I've previously speculated, Romney will win the Iowa caucus. He will go on to win the New Hampshire primary. His barrage of nasty ads against both Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire will see to that. With those victories under his belt, the Romney juggernaut will pick up wins in Michigan and South Carolina. He'll most likely blow through Rudy Giuliani's former firewall that was Florida. At that stage, only Ron Paul will probably still be in the race.

The downside for Mr. Romney is that there's no enthusiasm for his nomination. Republicans are not eager to vote FOR Mitt Romney. Most view him as the best out of a slate of bad choices. And this lack of enthusiasm will quite possibly translate into a loss come November to Hillary Clinton.

(To be fair, there would be no enthusiasm, no groundswell of support among the base for any of the other Republican candidates either. Evangelicals might like Mike. But the rest of the party doesn't. They may respect him but no one actually likes McCain. Giuliani, while likable, does make the base uncomfortable with his more liberal stances on social issues and colorful personal life. And Fred Thompson has the same effect as Ambien.)

There is one way Romney can win the White House: If New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg gets in the race as an independent. Bloomberg is a big Lib and with his endless supply of money he will pull more votes from Hillary than from Mitt. So write a letter encouraging Bloomberg to run. It's Mitt's only chance and our only chance to avoid 4 more years of Clinton mellow drama in the White House.

dm

Ok... now my turn.

Cuz.... just because you write it doesn't make it so.......

KN: Your opening paragraph on Romney is riddled with inaccuracies. You've painted a picture that simply isn't true. It's not as if Romney woke up one day and said "wait if I want to be President I need to do a 180". Simply didn't happen.

DM: And you know this because...? Countless positions he held up until just earlier this year were left of center - abortion, gay rights, gun control, high taxes/fees, illegal immigration etc. Suddenly he's reincarnated as Reagan Jr. - just in time for the '08 presidential election! What fabulous timing.

KN: Like most people Romney's political philosophy has evolved. Was he a pro-choice candidate in 1994? Yes. Is he now? NO. Not hard to figure out. What you are really struggling with is that he changed his mind on a set of issues. Somehow in American politics that isn't allowed. If we change our minds because someone presented us with new information or a perspective we hadn't thought of before, we somehow have no principles. That's a load....

DM: 1994? Try 2002. Still very much pro-abortion:

1994: Mitt Romney was pro-choice
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." (Joan Vennochi, "Romney’s Revolving World," The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)

2001: Mitt Romney was not pro-choice
"I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)

2002: Mitt Romney was again pro-choice
"I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney’s Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)

2007: Mitt Romney acknowledges he was "effectively pro-choice," but says he "was always for life."

KN: Isn't the whole point of social conservatism and politics in general, to convince people that your position on a certain subject is the better position? Isn't that what happened to Romney? Someone or something convinced him that the pro-life position is the better position for our society. Why is that such a problem?

DM: Yes, that "something" was a burning desire to win the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

KN: Don't get me started on being an opportunist. Presidential politics is all about capitalizing on opportunities. As it stands in the Republican party no one was willing to take up the mantle of being a fiscal conservative, social conservative and strong on national defense. Romney had agreed to take up that cause and be the standard-bearer.

DM: Romney saw a vacuum and decided to fill it. Granted, he had to contort every important position on social and fiscal issues he ever held in the past to make it work. But you do what ya gotta do...

KN: Now come on... be optimistic. This pessimism doesn't suit you.

DM: It's realism, not pessimism.

A True Leader Speaks

2007-12-28T21:56:00.001-05:00

While Mitt, Huck, and McCain slash each other with nasty attack ads, a true leader clarifies what's most important.

dm

For McCain & Romney, It's War

2007-12-28T16:06:00.000-05:00

McCain and Romney go to war: Click Here.

dm

Iowa: Romney's Juggernaut or Undoing

2007-12-28T09:06:00.000-05:00

With the assassination of Pakistan's pro-western leader, Benazir Bhutto, yesterday, the ramifications - if any - on the presidential campaign have yet to be known. There's was speculation by chattering pundits yesterday that Iowa caucus-goers tend to be quite insular and isolationist. As such, it's presumed Bhutto's murder and the reminder that we live in a very dangerous world will have little impact on the Iowa caucus.

I tend to believe Iowans are as American as the rest of us. They were impacted by 9/11 the same as the rest of our countrymen and yesterday's terrorist attack in Pakistan will have some kind of an impact. No one knows but a logical assumption would be that Mr. Huckabee could see his support wane a tad.

Since Iowa is all about organization and Mr. Romney has poured millions of his own dollars into winning that caucus, it's my prediction he will win this contest. Mr. Huckabee will come in second (roughly 5-8 percentage points below Romney) and Mr. McCain will come in a surprisingly strong third place finish.

Romney and his friends will hail his victory as nothing short of miraculous. Huckabee will put the best spin on it he can realizing his moment in the sun has just ended. Having been written off as dead by me and many others several months ago, McCain should leave that contest feeling especially victorious.

Five short days later is the New Hampshire primary. Current polling suggests McCain and Romney are essentially in a tie but the momentum is said to be with McCain.

The margin of Romney's victory in Iowa will have a huge impact on what happens in New Hampshire. If Romney squeaks out a narrow victory and McCain places a strong third, Romney will be in serious trouble in New Hampshire. By contrast, if Romney wins decisively in Iowa (by 8 percentage points or more), I would expect Romney to win New Hampshire as well.

If Romney were to lose Iowa - even by only a percentage point or two - it could have a devastating impact on the rest of his race. McCain will be seen as continuing his surge and a win for the Senator in New Hampshire coupled with a loss for Romney in Iowa will effectively end Romney's campaign.

A Romney loss in Iowa assumes a Huckabee victory. But I really do not see the former governor of Arkansas winning too many victories after that (maybe South Carolina).

Next Thursday, January 3 might well be the beginning of a Romney juggernaut or the beginning of the end of his campaign.

dm

Pakistan: What's Next?

2007-12-27T11:21:00.000-05:00

Update: 4:39 pm, 12/27/07

With reference to the political impact here in America on the presidential campaigns, several pundits are chiming in on this issue now.

Of all the presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani was the first to issue an eloquent statement to help keep things in perspective. "The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. ... Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.”

Mike Huckabee made a bee-line for the cameras shortly thereafter and displayed why he really isn't ready for primetime. Huckabee wondered “what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan.” Considering martial law was disbanded almost two weeks ago, this statement makes clear Huck doesn't have a grasp of any kind on international affairs.

***************************************************************

With the assassination of Benazir Bhutto earlier today, we're getting reports that Pakistan has "erupted." Civil war there seems a greater possibility today than at any point in recent memory.
For those of you wondering why we should care, you might want to consider the 100+ nuclear weapons Pakistan has in its possession.

Should Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf lose control of his country and its nuclear weapons, the United States and the world would be in grave danger.

Since Pakistan is widely considered the home-base for al Qaeda, it's hardly a stretch to believe these weapons could end up in the hands of these blood-thirsty terrorists. And given our porous borders with Mexico and Canada, it is not paranoia to envision such weaponry slipping into this country and detonated in one (or more) of our major cities.

With the speculation of loose nukes originating from North Korea and the former Soviet Union already a concern, today's developments in Pakistan must have our security experts and officials on edge.

It's apparent that Mr. Musharraf will have to employ stiff measures to get his country back under control. It won't be pretty but it is necessary if there is any chance of maintaining stability in that country and keeping Pakistan's nuclear arsenal under tight control.

Today's tragic assassination of a woman considered friendly to The West also reminds us how important it will be to have a solid Commander-in-Chief in the White House who understands first-hand the serious threats we face for many years to come.

What impact, if any, will today's events have on the Iowa caucus one week from today or the New Hampshire primary the following Tuesday? It might seem a callous question to ask considering Ms. Bhutto was gunned downed just hours ago.

Nevertheless, will caucus-goers and primary voters take any of this into consideration? This is a stark reminder that we live in a very dangerous world in which Muslim extremists want to bring about the end of The West.

Will the thought of Islamofacists armed with nuclear technology wake up the voting public?

dm

Breaking: Pakistan Leader Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

2007-12-27T08:40:00.000-05:00

From The Sun/UK:

FORMER Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a bomb attack.

At least 20 people were killed when the bomber struck after opposition leader Mrs Bhutto addressed a political rally, witnesses said.

A witness at the scene said he heard two shots moments before the blast.

“As party leaders, including Bhutto, started coming out a man tried to go close to them and then he fired some shots and blew himself up,” said a police officer, at the scene.

Police said about 15 people had been killed in the blast.

Earlier, party officials said Bhutto was safe.

Body parts and flesh were scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park, in Rawalpindi, where Bhutto had spoken.

Police official Abdul Karim had said Bhutto had already left the area in her vehicle when the blast went off, just minutes after her speech to thousands of supporters.

Another police official, Saud Aziz, said it was a suicide attack.

The road outside was stained with blood. People screamed for ambulances. Others gave water to the wounded lying in the street.

The clothing of some of the victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies.

The Big Hoax

2007-12-26T12:11:00.000-05:00

Why do I get the feeling the past few weeks of headlines blaring the results of polling data showing surges for both Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama have been just a bunch of contrived - if not flat out false - hoo-eee?

By the way, I trust your Christmas was fabulous. At least I hope it was. Mine was great.

Now, moving onward and upward...

CNN is reporting the latest polling out of Iowa shows Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 point percentage lead over Barack Obama. How is this possible? We've been told by those whose interest it is to sell newspaper, radio, and television advertising space that Mr. Obama was surging in both Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina. Today we're told that Mrs. Clinton suddenly has a commanding lead in Iowa polling.

Likewise, we've been hearing for the past month or so that Mike Huckabee has been surging in Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, Florida, and California.

Given the motives of those whose prerogative it is to gin up interest in these campaigns, I'm beginning to suspect the validity of these story lines.

How many readers, listeners, or viewers would they have lost had the storyline all along been that Hillary was still inevitable and the Mitt would unquestionably win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan? BORING!!!

We will all know one week from tomorrow who won the Iowa caucuses and by how much. The proof is always in the pudding. I fully expect both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney to win their respective Iowa races by rather convincing margins. The only thing interesting will be on the Republican side and who came in second and third place and by what margin did Mr. Romney win his caucus? Beyond that, it'll be zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What Happens Next?
Expect Mr. Romney to win decisively in New Hampshire (despite McCain's reported surge in polling), Michigan, and with that momentum, quite possibly South Carolina and even Florida.

However, after Iowa and New Hampshire, which Republican candidates stay in the race and which get out will have a dramatic impact on the primaries that follow. I would expect Fred Thompson to get out of the race after poor showings in both Iowa & New Hampshire. But you never know. Maybe he's holding out for a miracle in South Carolina. After Michigan and South Carolina, it's probable Thompson and possibly Huckabee and McCain will be gone too. That leaves Mitt and Rudy. To whom will Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain's supporters go?

Since Mitt can write a check to buy this nomination and there are reports of fund-raising struggles for all the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul), I'd give the edge of winning this nomination to Mr. Romney. Unfortunately, this also means the Clintons will be occupying the White House for at least 4 more years. There simply is no way Mitt Romney will beat Clinton, Inc., next November. But at least you'll feel good about nominating the unelectable.

dm

2007-12-23T22:36:00.001-05:00

Merry Christmas to you and those you love,

kn & dm

When it Comes to Taxes, Giuliani's The Man

2007-12-21T23:09:00.000-05:00

Here's a review of the three top candidates - Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani - and how they compare on taxes: Click Here.

In summary:

As voters learn that Huckabee -- for all his poise and piety -- rarely met a tax he didn’t like, and Romney rarely met a fee he didn’t hike, Republicans eager for the GOP to revitalize its limited government, low-tax roots may elevate Rudolph W. Giuliani to supply-sider in chief.

Fun with (former) Terrorists

2007-12-21T15:51:00.000-05:00

Is this the missing terrorist interogation tape the Congress and media are so upset about?

Weekly Assessment of the Republican Race for President

2007-12-20T15:53:00.000-05:00

New polling this week shows a clear surge for Senator John McCain and a cooling off of support for former governor Mike Huckabee. Some polling is showing that former governor Mitt Romney has not only lost his huge lead to Huckabee in Iowa but he's also now tied with John McCain in New Hampshire. Huckabee apparently still leads the race in South Carolina as well.

The Iowa caucus is two weeks from today. The race there is still quite fluid and theoretically there's plenty of time for circumstances and polling for the candidates to change. However, we are heading into the Christmas/New Years holidays right now and one has to believe most caucus-goers will only commit so much attention to the campaigns between now and January 3. So barring the unforeseen, it's plausible Mr. Huckabee will win Iowa.

Yet, with the bloom apparently off the Huckabee rose and with Romney's significant organizational advantage in Iowa, I still expect Romney to win that caucus. Is it plausible Rudy, Fred, or John could unexpectedly surge in Iowa? While I wouldn't rule it out completely for Fred, don't plan on it.

John McCain is reportedly trying to pressure The New York Times to not run a story about "special interests" currying favor with the Arizona senator. Since the full NY Times story isn't out yet (should be tomorrow), there's no way to know what impact, if any, this might have on McCain's chances in New Hampshire. But if Romney loses in Iowa and then a few short days later loses again in New Hampshire with no prospect of winning South Carolina, it's hard to imagine he will spend any more of his own money to fight a losing campaign.

Conventional wisdom is speculating that Rudy is in "free-fall." As an ardent Rudy cheerleader, I must admit I'm disappointed with how his campaign is being run. Rudy has the money but has yet to spend a dime in advertising or (apparently) organization in Michigan where the last available polling indicated he held a statistically insignificant lead here. Meanwhile, Romney has cracked open his checkbook to buy both radio and TV ad time and is presumably doing direct mail pieces as well. Ron Paul seems to think he can do well here too. He's spending some of his contributed millions in Michigan advertising.

In all candor, I'm beginning to believe that The War on Terror needs to be the overriding central issue during the primary season in order for Rudy to win. The surge's success in Iraq and relative peace and tranquility elsewhere have meant that the focus has shifted to other matters - namely immigration and who's the REAL Christian candidate.

I'm not conceding anything and it is still plausible Rudy can make some (positive) news and go on to win Florida and most of the rest of the primaries. But it's becoming apparent that Rudy's strategy (win the big state primaries in late January and in February) is a huge gamble.

One of these three men will be our nominee: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee. And as others have speculated, the race is just too fluid to make anything more than a wild guess as to who it will be. But I am certain it will not be John McCain, Fred Thompson, ...or Alan Keyes.

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

dm

Finally, A Candidate We Can All Rally Around!

2007-12-20T14:36:00.001-05:00

Cynthia McKinney announces her run for president...of the United States.

I'm not kidding...click here.

Mr. Sactimonious in Trouble?

2007-12-20T10:58:00.000-05:00

In a Drudge Report exclusive, it appears Senator John McCain is trying to get The New York Times to spike a bombshell of a story concerning influence peddling. Per Matt Drudge:

"Thu Dec 20 2007 10:49:27 ET

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain."

Mr. McCain has spent much of his career and certainly much of his current campaign for president taking a rather sanctimonious tone concerning "special interest" influence in Washington. If this story turns out to be true (and by McCain's alleged furious efforts to get the story spiked one might believe the story has validity), it could well trigger the end of his campaign. Very poor timing indeed.

dm

The Liberal Wolf in Conservative Sheep's Clothing

2007-12-20T08:35:00.000-05:00

George Will nails it again (as he almost always does) in a column entitled "That 70's Campaign."

Among other great analysis, here's this little gem...

Huckabee's campaign actually is what Rudy Giuliani's candidacy is misdescribed as being -- a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs. Giuliani departs from recent Republican stances regarding two issues -- abortion and the recognition by the law of same-sex couples.

Huckabee's radical candidacy broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.

And consider NewHampshire's chapter of the National Education Association, the teachers union that is a crucial component of the Democratic Party's base.

In 2004, New Hampshire's chapter endorsed Howard Dean in the Democratic primary and no one in the Republican primary. Last week it endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary -- and Huckabee in the Republican primary. It likes, as public employees generally do, his record of tax increases, and it applauds his opposition to school choice.
Huckabee's role in this year's '70s Show is not merely to attempt to revise a few Republican beliefs. He represents wholesale repudiation of what came after the 1970s -- Reaganism.

Inexplicable

2007-12-19T16:42:00.000-05:00

I've been exposed to and aware of left-wing bias in the media my whole life. At times I don't even roll my eyes anymore since it's so pervasive.

But I have to say that today's announcement by Time Magazine that their Man of the Year award went to former KGB megalomaniac Vladimir Putin -- AND GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS CAME IN 4TH PLACE! -- made me want to spit!

These same vacuous, brain-dead liberal kooks have been screaming about the Iraq War since its inception. Since the amazing success of Petraeus' surge, you've heard less and less. And now, the one man who changed the direction of this war and will lead us to full victory in the liberation of Iraq and its citizens gets passed up by a former KGB henchman, Al Gore (God help us), and kids author J.K. Rowling! Are you kidding me???!!

Time's "honor" now has the equivalent legitimacy of the Nobel Peace Prize - which is to say it has none.

Wide Open Race = Defeat in November?

2007-12-19T13:26:00.000-05:00

Some new and interesting polling numbers are coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire. Rasmussen is now claiming that Mike Huckabee may be quickly fading as the flavor of the month and Senator John McCain may be picking up where Huckabee left off.

Rasmussen's latest robo-polling numbers out of Iowa suggest Huckabee has lost 9 points since December 10. Rasmussen now puts Huckabee in the lead with 28%, Romney at 27%, McCain at 14% (picked up 8 points since December 10) and the rest follow below that.

In New Hampshire, Romney's lead has been cut to 4 points. He's at 31%, McCain at 27% (picked up 9 points since December 11), Giuliani at 13% and Huckabee at 11%. If accurate, it would appear McCain is picking up steam and the bloom is off the Huckabee rose.

Meanwhile, Tony Blankley writes an interesting piece concerning the wide open Republican race for the White House and how we may be headed to a brokered convention. His contention is that such an event would likely lead to defeat in November against the Democrats.

Since we had no sitting president or vice president running in this election cycle, we all knew this was going to be an unusual primary season. There is no overwhelming favorite among all the candidates running. It's even plausible the lethargic Fred Thompson could see a sudden burst of support in the polls before the Iowa caucus begins.

Republican caucus/primary voters do seem less-than-enthused by any of the candidates. But I'm optimistic someone will emerge and, as we near the general election, that candidate will coalesce his support, GOTV, and win decisively next November. It might take a Christmas miracle, however.

dm

Scandals Brewing

2007-12-18T21:30:00.000-05:00

Scandals are a brewin' in the presidential race. The picture to the left features Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a 1994 Planned Parenthood fund-raiser. The president of the pro-abortion group's Massachusetts organization is pictured here with Mr. and Mrs. Romney with her back towards the camera.

Romney was running as the pro-abortion Republican candidate against Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy at the time.

Mrs. Ann Romney has donated to the pro-abortion cause in the past.

Mr. Romney has stated on several occasions that he has since had an epiphany on his road to the White House and has transformed into a staunch pro-life candidate. Revelations such as these only remind social conservatives of Mr. Romney's not-so-conservative positions in his recent past and raise questions of political opportunism.

Meanwhile, The National Enquirer is apparently running with a story concerning "John Edwards Love Child Scandal!" At this writing, no further details were available other than the headline here originally posted on Drudge. Salacious details are certain to follow. Of course, among Democrats, such "scandals" are actually badges of honor that make their candidates more viable to the party faithful. So we'll sit back and watch how all this plays out. Expect Mr. Edwards to win the Iowa caucus on January 3 as a result.

[UPDATE 12/19/07, 11:45 am]: There's now a link to the Enquirer story. Click here. Sure enough, plenty of salacious details here. What's interesting is when the Enquirer broke the original story that Edwards was having an affair with a then unnamed blond (who turns out to be Rielle Hunter), his only response to it was, "Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30 plus years." Kind of a non-denial, denial. Yes, you're in love with your wife but are we to then presume you would never, well, cheat on her? Did I mention salacious? Yep, I think I did.

dm

King: Endorse Romney, um, no...I mean Thompson

2007-12-17T13:26:00.000-05:00

What the...?

From NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann
And the endorsements keep coming... Congressman Steve King (R), one of Iowa's most strident critics of illegal immigration and a champion of the state's rural conservatives, has endorsed Romney.

With a mere 17 days until the Iowa caucuses, King's endorsement may resonate with conservatives in the western part of the state.

*** UPDATE *** King just announced that he's supporting Thompson. Team Romney is in the back of the room looking bewildered. They were all here, leading all the press to conclude that it was an endorsement for Romney...

*** UPDATE II *** Thompson just issued this statement on King's endorsement: "Congressman King's leadership in support of the sanctity of life and his efforts in the fight against illegal immigration have made him one of Iowa's great Republican leaders. He's a tireless fighter for the 5th district of Iowa and I'm honored by his support. I look forward to working with Congressman King over the next three weeks and into 2008 in support of the traditional conservative values he and I share."

Taking Its Toll

2007-12-17T08:47:00.000-05:00

I realize it's considered poor form to point out physical aspects of anyone - even presidential candidates. But this photo of Mrs. Hillary Clinton really emphasises the toll the daily grind of a presidential campaign is taking on her. Mr. Obama is having an impact. Maybe it's time for a Betty Ford-style nip and tuck, Hill.

An Endorsment from THE "strict construcionist" judge

2007-12-16T21:37:00.000-05:00

Remember Giuliani's promise to appoint strict constructionist judges?

Robert Bork is THE strict constructionist judge in America.

Here's a link to his endorsement of GOVERNOR ROMNEY.

Here's the quote:

"Throughout my career," the legal scholar says in a statement to be released today, "I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. …"

Rudy: Tested. Ready. Now.

2007-12-16T15:57:00.001-05:00

Huckabee getting his due....(thank you Mark!)

2007-12-15T22:50:00.000-05:00

Here's what happens when you become a tier 1 candidate. You get the good with the bad. You can't have all good press. You don't get a pass in Presidential politics and Huckabee is getting his due and will now start receiving his fair share of criticisms.

My cousin and co-blog author might have been right. Huckabee peaked too soon.

"We kind of felt abandoned as fiscal conservatives," said former Arkansas Rep. Jim Hendren, a Republican. Arkansas Rep. Donna Hutchinson, a Republican, criticized Huckabee for his ideas on immigration while in office.

Huckabee

Which Party is Huck In?

2007-12-15T09:20:00.000-05:00

The AP reports that Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee took time to blast President George W Bush and his administration as having an "arrogant bunker mentality."

In an upcoming edition of Foreign Affairs, Huckabee states, "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad."

That has a familiar ring to it. Hmmm, where have we heard this before? Oh yes! Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have all expressed similar thinking on several occasions. Perhaps Mr. Huckabee accidentally switched play books with one of the Democrats running for the White House. Or more likely, Mr. Huckabee is actually more closely aligned with their ideology than ours.

It's easy to re-write history years after the fact. Having been savagely attacked on 9/11 with the very real fear that another, more serious attack was around the corner, it's easy to forget that in the hours that lead up to the Iraqi liberation, the overwhelming majority of Americans - including liberals in Congress - were very much in favor of our efforts to protect the homeland. France double-crossed us at the UN and since they weren't there to support us, many liberals - including Huckabee - have re-written history to suggest we took a "go it alone" approach. Pure nonsense but since the liberal echo chamber has been drilling this re-write into people's heads for 4 years, perhaps it's understandable some might believe it. And perhaps it's understandable Huckabee's inexperience and naive understanding of world affairs could lead to such reckless statements.

Nevertheless, Mr. Huckabee is on a path to destroying his chances at the nomination by brow-beating President Bush on his foreign policy successes. While many conservatives have serious reservations and downright resentments with the President over spending orgies, immigration reform, signing McCain-Feingold, etc., most of us still admire his steadfast, sincere, and successful approach to protecting our country from further attack by Islamofacists.

Stealing liberal dogma and beating the Bush Administration over the head with it will, in the end, cost Huckabee credibility, votes, and hopefully our Party's nomination.

dm

Mr. Huckabee Would Prefer You Not Hear This Story

2007-12-14T18:11:00.005-05:00

Mike Huckabee has a long history of coddling criminals. This is one of the most distressing examples of his poor judgment.

dm

Huck-A-Files! Snap Out of It!

2007-12-14T15:26:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting piece from conservative columnist Rich Lowry concerning the disconcerting boomlet of Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee. Mr. Lowry makes the case as to why nominating Mr. Huckabee would be committing party suicide. He compares the current Huck-phenom to 2004's Howard Dean boomlet in the Democratic race for the presidency that year...

After many false prophecies, Dean circa 2008 has finally arrived. He is
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Not because he will inevitably blow himself
up in Iowa. But because, like Dean, his nomination would represent an act of
suicide by his party.

Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly
unprepared to be president of the United States. Like Dean, he is rising toward
the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of
his party. As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so
screamingly obvious that it's hard to believe that primary voters, once they
focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him.

The GOP's social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to
the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and
lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican
limited-government message appealing. That said, nominating a Southern Baptist
pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social
conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the
message in its entirety.

And Charles Krauthammer opines eloquently over the "Overdose in Public Piety" in The Washington Post:

This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it's only going to get worse. I'd thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN-YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" -- and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.

Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher. In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

2007-12-14T11:08:00.000-05:00

It's an odd feeling I'm hesitant to even admit: I'm rooting for Barack Obama.

It's an odd feeling because I can't think of a time I've ever rooted for a Democrat (especially one as blatantly liberal as Mr. Obama). Also, I realize the best chance Republicans have for winning the White House next November is if Hillary is the Democrats' nominee.

Yet I just can't help hoping Barack wipes the floor with that woman, Ms. Clinton.

And every day there are signs he might do just that. The RCP polling averages out of Iowa has Mr. Obama leading Mrs. Clinton by 2.3 points. In New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton's once huge lead is down to a measly and statistically inconsequential 1.4 points with a surging Obama nipping at her pumps. And in South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton is grasping to a weak 2.2 point lead.

Couple all that with the overall sense that her campaign is falling apart internally as well as externally. She has made a series of missteps since bobbling her debate answer concerning illegal immigrants getting drivers licenses several weeks ago.

Two campaign operatives in Iowa were dismissed after sending out e-mails warning voters of Mr. Obama's Muslim heritage. Then late this week, an operative high up in the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire was forced to quit after spreading rumors of Mr. Obama's past drug use and the possibility he was also a drug dealer. There have been several other mistakes made by both Mrs. Clinton and her husband over the past few weeks that remind people of what the first Clinton presidency was really like (nostalgia aside). Perhaps these voters are beginning to wonder if they really want to go back to the 1990's and the Clinton soap opera or if "change" is really what they want and will get with Barack Obama.

We'll see how this plays out three weeks from now but there's a growing sense that Mrs. Inevitable might get skunked. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

Mona Charen on Mitt Romney

2007-12-14T10:03:00.000-05:00

Ok... more info for you all to take another look at Romney.

Mona Charen makes some good points and one that I couldn't articulate as well as she did, but one I have thought about as well as to why I support Romney.

Here's the link: A Second Look at Romney

Here is her opening line:

Pretty much every election year since I can remember, a complaint
has arisen that goes like this: "Why are we stuck with these awful choices? In this vast country of highly successful individuals, why don't any of the best people run for president?"

Later she hits the punchline:

But then Romney has been masterful in everything he has attempted.
It is not insignificant that this cum laude JD/MBA graduate of Harvard guided Bain Capital to become a hugely successful private equity investment firm and rescued Bain & Company from financial collapse. Romney was brought in to save the 2002 Winter Olympics when the games were mired in scandal and $379 million in debt. Romney was able to turn the situation around completely so that the games actually turned a $100 million profit instead. (He also gave back his
salary.) That's not slick, that's substance.

When Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the state had a $1.2 billion deficit. Four years later it was in surplus. He boasts that fourth and eighth graders in Massachusetts achieved the highest scores in the nation in reading and math, though they were doing so
before he became governor as well. But his program of assessment, merit pay for good teachers, English immersion and a focus on math and science may have helped keep them at the top.

It is difficult to find any significant weakness in Romney. He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined,
clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base.

He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.

This is for you Ebo....

2007-12-13T11:03:00.000-05:00

My wife and I have been discussing some politics. She told me just yesterday that she isn't impressed with Giuliani or Romney (gasp!) and that she is leaning towards Huckabee. I told her I like him on social issues and his faith aspect, but we're not electing a chief priest and Mike Huckabee is no conservative.

She asked me what I meant..... here's the article.

To sum up Mike Huckabee take his faith to issues to his governmental policies. He believe government can solve problems better than individuals. He believe that government can do more for people than churches.

Here are some quotes from the article. These views are the antithesis of conservatism.

"Huckabee answers these complaints by pointing out that he 'cut taxes 94 times' while governor. True. But most of those tax cuts were tiny, like exempting residential lawn care from the sales tax. Some cuts reduced overall state revenues by as little as $15,000. On net, Huckabee increased state taxes by more than $500 million. In fact, Huckabee increased taxes in the state by more than Bill Clinton did."

"But Huckabee doesn't just embrace big government in the form of big taxes. He truly appears to believe that if something is a good idea it should be a federal government program."

"Huckabee is, incidentally, the only Republican candidate for president who opposes school choice"

kn

DM Chimes In

Anybody who's glanced at this blog knows Rudy Giuliani is my candidate. He's the man who will crush whoever the Democrats decide to nominate.

But I'm very concerned over the Mike Huckabee phenomonon - so much so, I'm actively rooting for Mitt Romney to put an end to the Huckabee-hysteria in Iowa.

As I've stated previously, it's my opinion the Mr. Huckabee is the Republican Party's Jimmy Carter. And it's entirely plausible he could win the Party's nomination. But out of the top tier Republican candidates (Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Huckabee), Huckabee is also the least likely to win the general election come next November. And if he does win our Party's nomination, his loss in November might be a good thing. Having a Huckabee presidency could do as much damage to the credibility of the Republican Party as Carter did to the Democrats.

As my cousin points out above, Huckabee is clearly one of those Republicans who believes big government is a good thing that should touch peoples' lives. He does not believe in smaller, less-intrusive government. He believes we just need to redirect funds from Democrat priorities to his interpretation of what Republican spending priorities should be.

Add to this the fact that the man has ZERO international affairs experience. His answers to questions concerning our international policies reveal just how naive and ill-prepared he is to become Commander-in-Chief.

He's clearly not a believer in supply-side economics. KN references above his many tax increases as governor.

Yes, he's occasionally charming. In fact, he's nothing but witticisms. But witticisms aren't particularly effective when trying to contain Iran, China, South Korea, and an increasingly hostile Russia.

Let's not make the mistake Democrats made in 1976 with Jimmy.

dm

Is Romney Done?

2007-12-12T14:49:00.000-05:00

RealClearPolitics.com polling averages as of today:

Iowa (January 3): Huckabee +13.7

New Hampshire (January 8): Romney + 13.0 (no Huckabee surge there but McCain and Giuliani are making progress)

Michigan (January 15): Giuliani + 2.2 (Huckabee surging, however)

Nevada (January 19): Tied between Giuliani & Romney (but Huckabee surging)

South Carolina (January 19): Huckabee +7.7

Florida (January 29): Giuliani +15.6 (Huckabee threatening Romney for 2nd place)

February 5 - Super-Duper Tuesday: Giuliani with big leads in all major states.

According to published reports, former governor Mitt Romney has spent over $7 million in Iowa and held almost 200 events there to solidify his support. Yet, he is now more than 13 points below Mike Huckabee in the RCP polling averages in Iowa. Unless Mr. Romney "goes nuclear" now, it's difficult to envision a realistic scenario by which he wins the Republican nomination.

Mr. Huckabee continues to surge in polling data from several other key states. While Mr. Romney holds a significant lead in New Hampshire and is expected to win there (he is considered the hometown boy since his home state is right next door), he's seeing serious erosion in his support in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. He's also gone from a distant 2nd place to Rudy Giuliani in Florida to an even more distant 3rd place behind Huckabee.

A loss in Iowa will be devastating to Romney and lower his margin of victory in New Hampshire. He'll likely lose the rest of the January contests with Huckabee fighting it out with Giuliani in Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina (not sure if Thompson will even be a factor by the time we get to SC).

The Romney campaign is on the ropes. No endorsements will save the day. Only by destroying Huckabee does Romney have any chance of making it through to see Super-Duper Tuesday on February 5.

And here's a good analysis of what ails Mr. Romney and his failing campaign:

After a year on the stump, Mr. Romney has yet to convince the conservative base
that his transformation on a litany of issues, including abortion, gay rights,
guns, immigration, campaign finance reform and supply-side economics, was
anything more than a calculated maneuver to fill an open niche in the Republican
primary race. The intensity with which he has argued contrary positions within
such a short time period has been too much for many voters to accept.
His “credibility gap,” as one unaffiliated Republican analyst labeled it, remains
huge.

NR Endorses Mitt

2007-12-11T16:58:00.000-05:00

Not a big surprise but National Review has chosen Mitt Romney for its endorsement for President.

dm

Rasmussen: MI Primary 3-Way Tie

2007-12-11T15:01:00.000-05:00

According to Rasmussen Reports, we've reached a 3-way tie among the Republican candidates for the Michigan Primary (January 15).

Mike Huckabee's surge extends into Michigan placing him at first with 21%; Romney at second with 20%; and Giuliani at third with 19% - all clearly within the margin of error.

But it might be wise to throw out any polling data that comes forward over the next 4 weeks. Why? Because there is the likelihood many Independents and even Democrats will be declaring themselves Republican and voting in our primary on January 15. The Detroit News has an interesting piece that discusses this distinct possibility.

All this hearkens us back to the 2000 primary in which then-Governor George W Bush was thumped by Senator John McCain. As then-Michigan Secretary of State Candice Miller recalls, "You literally had people on the radio in Detroit telling Democrats, 'If you want to embarrass Engler, here's your chance, go vote for McCain.'" And they did just that.

This time around dissed Michigan Democrat voters - whose own party decided to silence their voice from the nominating process - may turn out in droves and have a profound impact on the Republican primary. It's plausible Congressman Ron Paul will do embarrassingly well - perhaps even win. Then again, moderate independents and conservative Democrats might tip the balance for Rudy Giuliani or even John McCain.

As such, no polling between now and January 15 can project with any confidence what the final outcome might be.

dm

Huckabee is going to be hurting

2007-12-11T11:24:00.000-05:00

It's never good when the "godfather" of conservatism's publication starts to call you out.

Believe it or not Huckabee is all sizzle and no steak (even with a name like Huckabee).

"In sum, conservatives should have worries about the depth and soundness of
Mike Huckabee’s foreign-policy views. And staying at a Holiday Inn Express is
not going to be enough to allay them."

National Review on Huckabee

Huckabee: The Worst Possible Choice

2007-12-11T11:09:00.000-05:00

Matt Drudge is reporting that the Democrats are purposely holding their fire and criticism of sudden front-runner Mike Huckabee because they view him as an easy kill should he win the Republican presidential nomination. Drudge quotes highly placed sources within the Democrat power structure as saying, "He'll easily be their [Republicans] McGovern, an easy kill."

The story also referenced the run-up to the 2004 election season when Republicans were openly egging on the nomination by the Democrats of Howard Dean - also considered very easy prey. The Dems "wised up" and nominated the French-looking John F. Kerry instead.

Top Democrat strategists were quoted as saying, "His [Huckabee's] letting out murderers because they shout 'Jesus', his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain't even scratching the surface of what we've got on him."

Drudge then quotes a Huckabee campaign official as rather naively stating, "Look, Mike is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. They should be squirming."

You've got to be kidding me. Hillary squirming over the likes of Mike Huckabee? I think not. And since the Clinton political machine has its roots in Arkansas politics, you can be sure they have a lot of dirt on former Arkansas Governor Huckabee.

Okay all you social conservatives presently infatuated with the Huckster...time to grow up and accept reality. If you want to keep Hillary out of the Oval Office, pull the lever for Rudy.

dm

A Liberal's Dream Come True - Halliburton in Gang Rape Allegation

2007-12-10T16:03:00.001-05:00

ABC News is reporting that a woman employed by Halliburton/KBR and working in Iraq was gang-raped by co-workers there and then locked in an ocean container and threatened with the loss of her job if she sought medical treatment outside of Iraq. Read the full story here.

There are allegations of cover-up and injustice coming from the victim's Republican Congressman. If the story is true, it represents a significant black eye for Halliburton, KBR, and The White House. For liberals who hate Bush, the Iraq War, and our military, this is just one more incident they can point to and shed crocodile tears over the injustice of the entire affair over there.

Meanwhile (if the allegations are true), it's just the most recent example of how NOT to handle an explosive injustice. The White House should have responded immediately (and publicly) with an investigation and came down very hard on Halliburton/KBR. Instead, we get "no comment" and apparent obstruction of justice.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

dm

Huckabee 1998: "Take this Nation Back for Christ"

2007-12-10T08:21:00.000-05:00

"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ" - Governor Mike Huckabee addressing the Southern Baptist Pastors Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, Sunday, 6/8/1998

There are many problems with the American society - many of which can be traced back to the extreme secularization of our country. Fewer Americans attend worship services yet some 80% consider themselves Christians. The breakdown of the American family in which half of all marriages end in divorce and a significant majority of minority children are born to unwed mothers have had a devastating impact on our society.

As the American society seems headed to hell in a hand basket, it may be appealing to conservative religious voters to nominate a Baptist preacher as our presidential candidate. At a Pastors Conference in Salt Lake City in June 1998 at which current Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee gave a humdinger of a speech, he voiced opinions that may be exactly what social conservatives want to hear from the Oval Office.

"There's not one thing we can do in those marbled halls and domed capitols that can equal what's done when Jesus touches the lives of a sinner," Mr. Huckabee told his audience. An inspiring message, especially for those who share the presidential candidate's belief system. (For the record, I do share that belief system.) But I do wonder how such Christian sermonizing will resonate with the rest of America. Especially with those of other faiths and those who believe keeping The State out of the affairs of The Church is a healthy concept.

If Mr. Huckabee manages to win the Republican presidential nomination, it will be very easy for his detractors and political opponents to paint him as a religious zealot on a crusade to cleanse America of its sins and its sinners. Pulling excerpts (and presumably video) from this 1998 speech to use as a wedge issue might prove irresistible for the Clinton (or Obama) machine and its supporters.

Just how comfortable will Americans - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists etc. - be when envisioning their president stating during an Oval Office address to the nation, "I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

Mr. Huckabee is a smart, politically savvy man. If he is serious about winning the Republican nomination and the White House, you should expect him to broaden this message making it more palatable to a wider, more diverse audience.

dm

NBC is Afraid of This Ad

2007-12-07T19:35:00.001-05:00

Sometimes it's very difficult to understand just whose side liberals are on when things like this happen.

NBC has refused to air this ad on any of its networks. Somehow thanking our men and women serving in harms way is now considered just too political.

Perhaps we should remind NBC that they are an American company owned by an American corporation (General Electric) earning billions of dollars using America's airwaves.

To reach NBC, write: Nightly@NBC.com

And to send a message to General Electric, go here: https://www.ge.com/contact/contact_form.html

Naturally, both NBC and its parent company, GE, make it fairly difficult for you to reach the top brass (Jeff Zucker @ NBC and Jeff Immelt at GE). But this is one way to reach them.

dm

Mr. President!!!

2007-12-06T21:44:00.000-05:00

Seriously... you can't get much more "presidential" than this speech. Simply amazing. Command of language, command of the podium and command of the subject. He nailed it and he looks and sound so presidential there is no way you can see this as anything but a home run.

He did exactly what he needed to do. He defended his faith without offending others of different faiths. He didn't get into theology and with good reason (see the speech or read the text). He did not come out and say "we're essentially the same".

He made the distinction between his faith defining him and his faith shaping him. Most importantly he made us all realize we are electing the President of the United States and a high priest.

Overall the speech was well researched, organized and articulated in a way that makes sense to all Americans. It's tough to walk away from this speech without being impressed (even if you aren't going to vote for him).

Here are some quotes (I bolded my favorite line):

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced.

Here's the text of the speech.

And here's the video of the speech.

kn

And now, for the other point of view...

There's no doubt that Mr. Romney has a "presence" both on television and, presumably, in person. He's articulate, well-poised and highly polished to the extreme.

But here are a few other things to consider. First, Mr. Romney just opened the door to all sorts of questions that will be asked about his faith including if he really believes that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus Christ and that Lucifer, not God, created black people. That's what the Mormon faith has traditionally taught and it, among other theological issues, might well rub most Christian evangelicals the wrong way. Romney's speech has effectively swung to doors wide open on his faith and invited one and all to start asking uncomfortable, if irrelevant, questions.

By the same token, the vast majority of potential voters did not watch Romney's speech in full. But most will have seen headlines all over the news from yesterday through the weekend about this "Mormon presidential candidate." And going forward, that's what the majority of voters will now associate exclusively with Romney - that Mormon candidate.

Personally, I think the speech was entirely unnecessary and may well cause more harm than good. If Romney had managed to win the Party's nomination and it became an issue in the general election, then would have been a good time to make this speech. Instead by doing this now, he's made the Southern Baptist candidate, Mike Huckabee, look like a more attractive, viable, safer choice for many religious conservatives.

But, I could be wrong.

Now the Fun Begins II

2007-12-06T16:45:00.001-05:00

Politico.com has an interesting analysis of the Democrat's race.

Writer David Yepsen of The Des Moines Register compares the current Hillary Clinton campaign with the conundrum Walter Mondale faced in 1984 with a surging Gary Hart candidacy.

The difference is that Obama can quite plausibly go all the way to win his party's nomination. He has everything Hart never had - most notably a giant wad of cash and an organized campaign.

Now the Fun Begins!

2007-12-06T13:58:00.000-05:00

Lots of political news hitting the wires today!

First, Hillary's campaign must be in shear panic mode at the moment. Barack Obama is now leading Mrs. Bill Clinton in Iowa, is closing in on her in New Hampshire, and close to taking the lead in South Carolina, according to the most recent polling data. While it remains almost unthinkable to the political intelligentsia that Mrs. Clinton's coronation could be at risk, it is now plausible to see a scenario in which she does NOT win her party's nomination.

Knowing the Clintons as well as he should, Mr. Obama must be filled with both glee and terror. Mrs. Clinton and her machine will surely not give up without a "fight." And the Clintons fight dirty. Mr. Obama may rue the day he advanced past Hillary in the polls.

Former governor Mitt Romney made his "Electing a Mormon as President is Okay" speech today. I've not yet seen it but have it on good authority it was a fine speech.

But common sense informs me that there's really nothing Mr. Romney can do concerning his Mormon faith that might turn his fortunes around. And today's speech only highlights the issue even more. Mike Huckabee is seen as a viable Christian alternative (the Southern Baptist version) to Mr. Romney by religious conservatives. Polls out of both Iowa and now South Carolina indicate Mr. Huckabee is having a dramatic impact on Romney's viability as a front-running candidate. Given the millions of dollars (much of it from his own pocket) that Mr. Romney has poured into his campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, this turn of events must be beyond alarming and most likely what precipitated today's Mormon speech.

However, here's the thing about Iowa: Success in the caucuses has always been directly tied to organization by the candidates. Yes, sentiment in favor of Mr. Huckabee may lead to his victory there. But I fully expect Mr. Romney to pull out a sizable win in Iowa given his months of advanced planning and organization. The question is by what margin will Romney's victory be and what impact will that margin have going forward? The spin by the press shortly following the January 3 caucus will set the tone going into New Hampshire and beyond.

Meanwhile, Huckabee is starting to feel the blow-back a front runner receives. He's being taken to task now for being a big spending, tax-raising, criminal coddling, liberal Republican who knows next to nothing about international affairs. Welcome to the big time, Mr. Huckabee!

dm

Smoking Nazis Strike Again

2007-12-06T09:00:00.000-05:00

With all the folks out there so eager to dictate to us how we must live our lives - from certain social conservatives on the right to socialists on the left - it's hard not to strike back on occasion.

Yesterday, the libs in the Michigan state house of representatives (joined by several "RINOs") voted 56-46 to pass a smoking ban in all public places - including but not limited to bars and restaurants. Governor Granholm predictably announced she'd gladly sign the freedom-killing legislation if it makes it through the state senate. The senate, run by Republicans, may well pass the legislation since the purveyors of anti-smoking hysteria have worn down those who would otherwise stand for individual freedoms and liberty.

So in addition to taxing the bejesus out of every tobacco product, the Smoking Nazis continue their campaign to make it virtually impossible to smoke that product anywhere.

That Libertarian streak that flows through my veins is boiling mad. In my opinion, the government has absolutely no business either taxing tobacco or dictating to one and all where they are allowed to use it.

We're told we live in a free market society. If that's true, then the free market will dictate to business owners whether they should allow smoking in their establishments or not. Non-smokers feel absolutely no compunction to chastise smokers for even existing and loudly make their feelings known to restaurant and bar owners. If there's a marketplace for smoke-free bars, you can be certain that's what you'll get. Most restaurants - prior to city and state bans being implemented - had already gone smoke-free without any mandates from the Nanny State.

I was in London last summer where they recently passed a similar ban. Pub and club owners throughout Great Britain were complaining loudly about their plummeting sales. In some cases, revenue for these small business owners had dropped by 40% or more since the ban went into effect.

Oh sure. I can here you non-smoking busy-bodies whining about the possible health impact of second hand smoke. But there are no reliable studies that prove beyond doubt that there is any impact on the health of a non-smoker who is exposed to second-hand smoke. So arguing such restrictions on individual freedom by Big Government is acceptable for that reason is just, pardon the phrase, blowing smoke.

In other communities we're seeing attempts to legislate smoking bans in private vehicles and even in one's own home. Certain employers have notified their workforce that if you smoke during business hours or even when you're away from the workplace, you will be fired.

And the sickest aspect of the entire infringement on personal liberties is the hideous fact that The Government will not simply outlaw all smoke and tobacco products because they want the tax dollars generated by the product. So keep buying the forsaken tobacco products but you damn well better never light them up!

Romney Caves; Huckabee Bristles

2007-12-05T11:00:00.001-05:00

After a couple weeks of Giuliani-haters chastising him for pointing out that Mitt Romney had illegals manicuring the expansive lawn at his mansion, Mr. Romney announced last night that he fired the offending service provider. Apparently, there was more than one occasion upon which illegal immigrants were sprucing up Romney's fancy crib. When Romney was made aware of the recurrence, he stated it was "disappointing and inexcusable" and fired them. Perhaps Mr. Giuliani's comments had more impact than his detractors originally realized.

Meanwhile, Romney's number one threat in Iowa, Mike Huckabee, reportedly "bristled" when he was asked about his stance on Creationism being taught in public schools. The AP quotes Huckabee as saying, "That's an irrelevant question to ask me—I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states."

The self-proclaimed "Christian candidate" for president has not taken a firm stand on whether "Intelligent Design" should be taught in public schools. The AP quotes Huckabee as saying, "I don't think schools ought to indoctrinate kids to believe one thing or another."

On other issues - specifically international affairs - Mr. Huckabee appears to be displaying his breath-taking lack of experience. The Politico.com reports today that while meeting with local and national reporters in Des Moines, Huckabee was asked about the recently released (and very big news) National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Reporter David Paul Kuhn submits this transcript of the exchange:

Kuhn: I don’t know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...

Huckabee: I’m sorry?

Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —

Huckabee: No.

Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?

Huckabee: No.

It can be assumed Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, and my dog, Liz, would've known about the NIE report and been better prepared to answer these questions. Fully expect to see reference to Mr. Huckabee's not-ready-for-prime-time international lack of experience highlighted in a big way over the next few weeks.

His belief that we should close Guantanamo Bay because Europe doesn't like it is reason enough for me to stick with Giuliani.

dm

Huckabee the most like Reagan????

2007-12-04T09:57:00.000-05:00

Before you all say "WHAT???!!!", this thought is not from a ideological perspective. Huckabee is no Reagan when it comes to policy and ideas.

However, when it comes to his ability to communicate he is very Reaganesque. I've noticed that he has an ability to communicate both formally and informally. He is good both in a prepared speech and also on his feet. He has some wit about him that makes you very comfortable and you begin to "buy" everything he says. Reagan was the same way. It's something you can't practice and you can't teach because it comes from within. It's an inner strength and self confidence. You must be comfortable in your own skin to be an effective leader. They say that to give a great presentation you need to "know more than your audience". For Reagan, he knew more than his audience because he understood himself and where he stood on the issues. It came off as authentic and geniune. Many disagreed, but they didn't feel it was "political speak". Huckabee gives off the same vibe. The others do not.

Now before you go thinking I am suddenly a Huckabee guy, let me state for the record I am still firmly in the Romney camp. I still believe that Romney might not be the best "candidate", but he would make the best President and that's what I will be voting for come election time.

Romney the new comeback kid???

2007-12-03T23:20:00.000-05:00

I know a lot has been written about Romney's lead slipping in Iowa and deservedly so. Huckabee has taken advantage of the momentum and done a marvelous job of taking the lead in Iowa and putting some fear into the Romney campaign.

But...... think about this. Had things stayed the way they were say 3 weeks ago. Romney was facing a "no win" situation in Iowa. He was being expected to win and win big in Iowa three weeks ago and conventional wisdom said that if he didn't win big it would be a problem. Fast forward to now with a lead that has evaporated and Huckabee looking like the leader and likely winner in Iowa. If this continues then things will play out just as we are all predicting now. Huckabee wins Iowa and Romney will fight for his political life in New Hampshire.

But.... what happens if Romney wins in Iowa? At this point, with all the attention Huckabee is getting he is quickly becoming the front runner in Iowa and soon will be "expected" to win. If Romney pulls out win in Iowa he could quite possibly look like the comeback kid. It's happened before and could happen again.

Not saying this is a prediction, just a possibility.

The Final Month

2007-12-03T16:39:00.000-05:00

It is exactly one month from the Iowa caucus - the first nominating contest of the 2008 election process. The next 4+ weeks will be wild and woolly featuring moments of excitement, anguish, and occasional cursing (at least by those paying attention and who actually care about the outcome).

It would seem reasonable that the long knives will be coming out for the front runners, Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, and for the insurgent Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. To be candid, my concern for my candidate (Rudy) is that we'll begin seeing stories every week leading up to primary season filled with lies, half-truths, and innuendo all intended to besmirch my candidate's name and derail his chances of success. Rudy has many enemies out there - primarily in the press corps - who would love nothing more than to take him down as he poses the greatest threat to whoever wins the Democrat's presidential nomination. The only candidate in the Republican race who can be competitive against the Democrats in all 50 states (not just those Bush managed to win in 2000 or 2004) is Giuliani. For that reason alone, I fully expect plenty of dirty tricks in an attempt to politically assassinate my candidate.

My cousin's preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, seems in free-fall and in full panic mode. This Thursday he's scheduled to make a "Why Having a Mormon as President is Okay" speech with the intent to bring back evangelical voters he's lost to Mike Huckabee. Personally, I think this will only compound Mitt's problems. His support in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina will continue to erode with Mr. Huckabee being the primary beneficiary.

Will Huckabee continue to surge in Iowa and elsewhere? Or is he just a "flavor of the month" blip? Will John McCain go on to win in New Hampshire on January 8? Will Obama win Iowa? What about New Hampshire? Is Hillary no longer inevitable?

These critical questions will be answered one month plus 5 days from now. In the meantime, buckle your seat belts for a very bumpy ride.

Romney's Mormon Speech

2007-12-02T22:01:00.000-05:00

It's been reported the former governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will be making a speech this Thursday concerning his Mormon faith. It's apparent the decision to give this speech, which the Romney campaign has been debating whether to give it or not over the past several weeks, is in response to the rise of former governor and fellow Republican candidate Mike Huckabee in recent polling - especially in Iowa and South Carolina.

I'm not a Romney cheerleader but in all objective honesty, I think giving this speech is a mistake on his part. It smells like an act of desperation to stop the hemorrhaging and that by itself may actually make the situation Romney now faces even worse. One could easily make the argument that Romney has no choice and perhaps has nothing left to lose.

But there's plenty for him to lose. Specifically respect. Regardless your feelings about the Mormon faith, no one can legitimately claim that Mr. Romney's personal religious belief in Mormon teachings disqualifies him from becoming president. By all accounts, Romney is a good, solid man who has earned his position in this presidential race. Coming out and giving a speech "explaining" his belief system to the rest of us is, well, demeaning and entirely unnecessary.

There's a growing sense that the Romney campaign in in free-fall and deciding to go forward with this speech comes across as a desperate act to salvage his run for the Oval Office. Evangelical Christian caucus and primary voters are not likely to reverse their support back over to Mr. Romney as a result. It may actually turn them off even more.

dm

Is the Bottom Falling Out of Romney's Campaign?

2007-11-30T15:58:00.000-05:00

Fresh polling data suggests Mitt Romney's worst fears may be coming true. Both Rasmussen and ARG have Mike Huckabee either tied with Romney or winning in Iowa's caucus contest (January 3).

Fox News has a new poll in New Hampshire showing Romney's once-commanding lead among Republican primary voters there has shrunk to 8 points with John McCain nipping at his heels. McCain has dumped all his remaining resources into New Hampshire and stated flatly on Fox News Sunday just a few weeks ago that he would win the Granite State's January 8 primary. Perhaps McCain's strategy is actually paying off. While it's hard to imagine how the financially strapped McCain campaign can win the nomination from there, it's very easy to see how such a McCain victory would lead to the early demise of the Romney campaign.

American Research Group has published their latest poll for South Carolina's January 19 Republican primary. Mike Huckabee has jumped up in the polls there to within 3 points of Romney and 5 points of Giuliani. A three-way battle for the victory there would get very heated - assuming Mr. Romney has not dropped out of the race by then.

dm

The Huckabee Effect

2007-11-29T19:34:00.000-05:00

[UPDATE: 11/30/07] Latest Polls already showing Huckabee Surge: Iowa; South Carolina

Within the next two weeks, we'll start seeing some interesting polling data. Given former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's performance in last night's silly CNN/YouTube Debate, it shouldn't be surprising if his numbers jump up several notches in Iowa, Michigan, and South Carolina. Where will that support come from? From whom will Mr. Huckabee be taking those potential votes?

Common sense and a rudimentary understanding of Republican politics would have to suggest most of that support will transfer from former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and possibly some from former Senator Fred Thompson's beleaguered candidacy. Neither former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani or floundering Senator John McCain should see much of their support transfer over to Mr. Huckabee.

It currently seems plausible Mr. Huckabee could win Iowa, place 3rd in New Hampshire (behind Romney and Giuliani), place in the top three in Michigan and in South Carolina (it'll be interesting to see where Fred Thompson's numbers go in South Carolina over the next couple weeks as well).

Huckabee's greatest weakness is in the area of foreign policy. He has zero foreign policy experience and it shows in these debates. Will Republican primary voters take that into consideration? Perhaps. But only if the other candidates start trumpeting this as a serious problem for the Arkansan.

It remains difficult to envision the former pastor at the top of the Republican presidential ticket next year. Anything is possible. Huckabee could be the Republican's Jimmy Carter who rose from obscurity to win the Democrat's nomination in 1976. A more plausible scenario would be the pick as the GOP's Vice Presidential nominee next year - especially if the Presidential nomination goes to either Giuliani or Romney.

As predicted here, last night's debate did feature fisticuffs from the challengers. The next four weeks will become very heated indeed.

dm

Romney picks up key endorsement

2007-11-29T12:28:00.000-05:00

Right off the heels of last night's debate Gov. Romney picks up a key endorsement in his race for the nomination. This is a pretty heavy endorsement and gives Romney two big time conservative activist endorsements. The quote from Keene (see below) sums it up best for me.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was endorsed Thursday by David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union and a long time Republican strategist.

Unlike the last two presidential elections when conservatives united early behind George W. Bush, the support of the GOP's conservative base has been divided among the party's top tier candidates.

In a statement released by Romney's campaign, Keene said that "while I certainly can't pretend to speak for all or even most conservatives, the road that led me here today is one that many conservatives find themselves on and it is my hope that they will end up where I am today, convinced that Mitt Romney represents our best hope for 2008."

Keene said that he had initially intended to remain neutral in the race, but in recent weeks Romney has emerged "as the single candidate most worthy of conservative support."

"I am proud that David Keene has decided to join our campaign for conservative change that strengthens our military, economy and families," Romney said in a statement. "As chairman of the American Conservative Union, he has greatly advanced the conservative movement."

CNN-You Tube Debate: Some Quick Observations

2007-11-28T22:38:00.000-05:00

A knee-jerk reaction to tonight's Republican Debate sponsored by CNN and You Tube was that Huckabee clearly illustrated why he's climbing in the polls. It's my humble and unsolicited opinion that if there was a winner tonight, it was Mike Huckabee. (Just heard from my cousin and co-blogger at this site - amazingly we agree!)

I also think both Giuliani and Romney did a fine job and neither inflicted any real damage to themselves or each other. But neither can truly claim they won the night.

John McCain provided a respectable performance as well. But while I have great respect and appreciation for his years of service to our county, his incessant moral indignation is beginning to wear thin. And while he provided the politically correct answer on water-boarding and torture, I think most Republicans (and most Americans) want a president willing to waterboard an Islamofacist who knows of an imminent attack on our country. If such a thought offends the Senator, he doesn't belong in the Oval Office.

Thompson...well, what can you say about Fred Thompson? Was he even there tonight? Another drab and uninspiring performance by the only professional actor in this race.

Thank goodness for the comic relief provided by our very own version of Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul's paranoia is always a crowd-pleaser.

dm

We've decided to combine our "knee-jerk" reaction to the debate tonight and now it's my turn.

Winner: Mike Huckabee. I mean he hit everything out of the park. Some questions were gimmes (asking a pastor about the Bible for example), but he really nailed every single question. It wasn't just his command of the issue, but his ability to articulate it in a manner that is understandable and personal. I found myself nodding my head constantly and thinking "yeah I can buy that". This from a Romney guy!!!

2nd Place: Truthfully I don't know. Huckabee won by such a large margin it's hard to pick a runner-up. I think Romney and Rudy have seen better days. Neither looked very "Presidential" and at times stumbled (Romney) or looked petty (Giuliani). This was not Romney's format and the questions that were in his "wheelhouse" he had to answer after someone else answered. Then there are other issues that no Republican will look good and Romney had to go first. As for Giuliani, when it came to national security questions he nailed it. He was in command of most of the questions and issues, but at times came off a bit too "New York" and a bit too tough (he looked downright petty on the illegal immigrants used at the Romney mansion).

McCain need to retire. As my cousin says, his service was admirable, but he is an old crank. To me he comes off a bit condescending. He knows everything because he's been in Vietnam and he knows Washington. This thought process is what we expect out of liberals.

Can someone please check Freddie T's pulse?

Tancredo and Hunter should exit stage right.

Paul can stick around only to bring in some comedic relief. The scary part is that his message is actually pretty strong, it's just no one wants him to be the messenger.

KN

Conventional Wisdom - Nomination Up for Grabs

2007-11-28T09:30:00.000-05:00

While Barack Obama appears to have a slim lead in the polls out of Iowa (made inconsequential since it falls within the margin of error), it remains very difficult to believe he poses a significant threat to Mrs. Bill Clinton. She remains the woman to beat and that just doesn't seem likely.

By contrast, the Conventional Wisdom these days is that the Republican nomination is up for grabs. And, at the moment, that may be very true.

Mitt Romney's significant lead in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire - paid for by millions and millions of dollars of TV advertising for the past several months - has evaporated. Mike Huckabee has surged to a virtual tie with Romney in Iowa (almost unthinkable just a month ago). John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have cut into Romney's lead in New Hampshire. However, at this writing, Mr. Romney retains a significant lead in New Hampshire and Mr. McCain's surge may have sputtered.

And while the current Conventional Wisdom indicates the Republican nomination is available for any of the top tier to grab, I would suspect when caucus and primary votes are cast starting the first week of 2008, we'll know in short order who our nominee is likely to be.

Mike Huckabee remains the single greatest threat to Mitt Romney's carefully planned strategy to win the nomination. A close second or even victory in Iowa (January 3) for Huckabee will, in fact, be devastating to Mr. Romney's chances. New Hampshire's (January 8) Republican party is populated by far fewer social conservatives so Mr. Huckabee's Iowa surge will not be duplicated there. Instead, I would expect Romney to win the Granite State and for Giuliani to surprise many with a healthy 2nd place finish (McCain in 3rd, Huckabee 4th, Thompson 5th).

Michigan's primary follows on January 15. Current polls suggest Giuliani retains a tiny lead of 3% over Mitt Romney. But I believe the party machinery will get behind Romney and push hard for his victory. Keep in mind, however, that this same party apparatus was firmly behind George W Bush in 2000 and John McCain won here decisively. Huckabee could also drain off some of the social conservative votes from Romney. But I don't expect McCain, Huckabee, or Thompson to do particularly well here. This will be a real fight between Giuliani and Romney - assuming Mr. Giuliani decides to play here (there remains virtually no Giuliani presence in this state which, in all candor, is driving me nuts!).

Then we're off to Nevada (January 19) where Mr. Giuliani maintains a 7.7% lead over Mr. Romney. Giuliani wins Nevada.

South Carolina's primary will be the same day as Nevada's. This one ends in a virtual 3-way tie - Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney. Its impact on later races is considered a wash but both McCain and Thompson drop out shortly after this contest.

Off to sunny Florida (January 29)! Giuliani (currently leading by 16+ points) wins decisively. The psychological impact on the remaining contests is significant and having no money to compete in the multi-state February 5 primaries, Huckabee drops out.

February 5 - Super-Duper-Tuesday: Giuliani wins decisively in the majority of states and picks up the overwhelming majority of delegates. Romney mulls over spending any more of his personal funds to win a losing campaign.

Since none of us have a crystal ball, this forecast is as relevant as any others out there. And believe it or not, I really did attempt to be as objective as possible. But this is a reasonable analysis of how the race for the Republican nomination will go next year. Yes, things could change. It's entirely plausible Mr. Romney could win decisively in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, come close in Nevada and Florida and win overall on February 5. But given the current state of affairs (i.e. Huckabee; Giuliani's huge lead in big states), Mr. Romney's route to success is decidedly more challenging than Mr. Giuliani's.

So, tune in to CNN tonight at 8 pm and watch the fireworks. The time to strike for each of these candidates is right now and tonight's Republican debate could prove decisive for one or more of these gentlemen.

dm

MI: Stand By for Even More Tax Pain Courtesy MI Dems

2007-11-27T15:26:00.000-05:00

There's news that Michigan Democrats want to now spike the state's sales tax by $0.06 per gallon. Yep. Paying well in excess of $3.00 per gallon isn't pain enough for a state brought to its economic knees by Jennifer Granholm and her fellow Democrat's tax policies. You need to give the money-grubbing tax spenders even more of your hard-earned income.

According to the Detroit News, the liberals now want to spike the 19 cent per gallon state gas tax you're already paying up to 25 cents. There's an apparent shortfall in tax receipts from the already-high gas taxes you're sending to the Michigan Treasury. No explanation is provided for this decrease in state gas tax revenue being collected. A logical assumption might be that with Michigan residents either fleeing to other states and others staying home because of high gas prices, Michigan just isn't filling up as often as it once did (that should make the environmental wackos happy campers).

Meanwhile, our two Democrat US Senators, (Comb-Over) Carl Levin and (Little) Debbie Stabenow, continue to prove incredibly ineffective for our state. You receive back only 92 cents of every dollar you send to Washington in federal gas taxes. It'd be nice if we could only pay Carl and Deb 92% of their annual salary.

dm

Live and Let Live...Until They Kill You

2007-11-21T09:59:00.000-05:00

The Netherlands 2007 - Where did all the Dutch go?

With all the talk about illegal immigration in the US, it's worth noting that The Netherlands has a different problem. Their liberal migration policy has lead to not only an identity crisis but also a burgeoning internal national security threat.

The Dutch have had an open borders policy allowing in immigrants from all over the world - most especially Islamisists - with virtually no emphasis on assimilating into its Dutch culture. According to Dutch Princess Maxima, the Argentine-born wife of Crown Prince Willem Alexander, "The Netherlands is too complex to sum up in one cliche. A typical Dutch person doesn't exist." The result has been significant political unrest within the country.

The Islamic community within The Netherlands has been exceptionally intollerant towards its host country and Hollanders who express concern over this Islamic intollerance and their treatment of women. Dutch filmaker, Theo VanGogh, who made a controversial film called "Submission" about the abuse of women within the Muslim community, was brutally murdered in 2004. The assailant shot VanGogh, slit his neck, and then pinned a note into his chest threatening the life of the author of the screenplay.

If the current situation continues, one wonders if Holland might eventually devolve into an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law? That may sound extreme but given the radical Islamofacists' goal of establishing a caliphate across Europe and beyond, that thought is disturbingly more plausible than we may dare admit.

An ever-rising flow of Muslim immigration throughout Western Europe (especially in England, France, and Spain) has been accompanied by a rising level of concern for Europe's future. While it remains very politically INCORRECT to raise concerns over this issue, it's one that more and more Europeans are discussing openly.

With the likelihood of Pakistan and its nuclear bombs falling under control of Islamic extremists at some point, Iran's determination to obtain their own nuclear arsenal, and other countries in the Middle East actively seeking out or building their own nuclear weaponry, this world is becoming a far more dangerous place. With the threat of having its population wiped out by nuclear devastation, just how many minutes would it take for the present Dutch government to fold and hand over the reigns of power to these Islamofacists? France has a long, proud history of surrender. How long before that government might collapse under the same threat? And since Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are no longer running Britain, one might wonder about England's resolve these days too.

All this may seem ridiculously far-fetched to those who've not been paying much attention to world affairs lately. And it is reasonable to think that the US would not idly stand by and let Europe transform into Islamofacist-Europe. But the threats are real. Europe and America cannot afford to stick their heads into the sands of political correctness any longer.

dm

State of the State of Michigan

2007-11-20T10:24:00.001-05:00

If you care about Michigan politics and haven't done so already, be sure to check out RightMichigan.com. Nick, the BlogMaster of RightMichigan.com, does an outstanding job every day gathering the latest news and tidbits from Lansing (gathered from both news outlets and his many personal contacts in state government) and then disseminates the information to all of us each morning.

Nick starts his day very early to gather the latest news and get it posted so we can educate ourselves as we begin our day. I've had the honor of guest-blogging there and that job started for me at about 5 AM. Considering I'm NOT a morning person, this was a significant challenge. But it was also lots of fun. So be sure to get your daily dose of Michigan news from RightMichigan.com.

Speaking of which, Nick reports this morning that unless the Michigan Supreme Court overturns other lower court rulings on the constitutionality of our state's January 15 presidential primary, this early contest is dead in the water. State House Democrats refuse to come to work and finish the job to keep this primary alive. The state Democrat power brokers are pulling for presidential candidate John Edwards and a presidential primary (vs. a caucus in which union thugs could intimidate participates into voting for the Breck Girl) would surely provide another win for Hillary.

So let's tally up the "successes" Michigan's Democrats have had recently:

Massive job-killing income tax hike
Massive job-killing sales tax expansion to other services
Wasteful spending increases
A 7.7% unemployment rate
Massive relocation of Michigan residents to any of the other 49 states where jobs are plentiful
Disenfranchising millions of Michigan Democrat and Republican primary voters

Now that's a record to be proud of!

Remember when candidate Gov. Jennifer Granholm promised we'd be "blown away" by her second term? Well, she's certainly kept that promise.

It's my suspicion that Mrs. Granholm broke her promise not to raise taxes because she knows she can't run for higher office for the foreseeable future. What's left? A US Senate seat. Well, both current Michigan Senators, Little Debbie and Comb-Over Carl, show no willingness to give up their seats for Jack Ass Jenny (Jack Ass as in Democrat mascot).

Instead, J.A.J. is hoping for an appointment to a cabinet seat in Hillary Clinton's White House come January 2009. This Canadian has effectively destroyed the state of Michigan. Her work here is finished. Just think what she can do for the rest of America!

Too Cute by Half: Mitt Push-Polling Himself?

2007-11-19T11:04:00.000-05:00

Is it possible last week's disturbing news of anti-Mormon/anti-Mitt Romney push-pulling was actually a stunt perpetrated by the Romney campaign itself?

According to National Review Online, there's reason to think so (click here).

Hopefully, we'll find out the truth in the fullness of time.

dm

MI Democrats Burning Down the House

2007-11-18T12:42:00.001-05:00

Some Pre-Thanksgiving Fun

2007-11-16T22:05:00.001-05:00

Setting aside politics for a second, take a moment to enjoy this. Why CBS ever dumped this man is beyond me. Getting the particulars just right should always be a journalist's highest priority...

dm

Meanderings

2007-11-16T09:20:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times publishes an interesting story concerning contributions from Hollywood to Republican presidential candidates. Several stars including Adam Sandler, Kelsey Grammar, Kevin Costnar, Teri Hatcher, and others have all apparently donated to our Republican candidates. But all are uniformly unwilling to admit it or share their political views. In fact, they're employing their attorneys to deny they have any political affiliations:

"'Please be advised that Ms. Hatcher is not a Republican, but more importantly
does not choose to have her political affiliation or viewpoints on any
particular candidate or issue in the current presidential campaign included in
your proposed article,' lawyer Barry W. Tyerman said in an e-mail."

According to today's story, Ms. Hatcher reportedly refused an invitation to appear on Bill Mar's "Real Time" program on HBO because her views were not "in sync" with the program's psycho-liberal host. The story also points out that there's a secret society for closeted Republicans in Hollywood fearful that exposure might kill their careers. "They seek each other out on sets, they talk to each other secretly, they exchange e-mails," according to a source.

Meanwhile, I managed to sit through the CNN Democrat Presidential Debate last night. I did manage to keep dinner down. No doubt, there's breathless gushing all over the cable news networks and the Internet over how well Mrs. Clinton did last night. It's true. She did do well. But considering her competition on stage, that's really not saying much.

In that party's top tier you have Barack Obama - totally in over his head. Seems like a nice enough fellow but entirely ill-prepared to be our next commander-in-chief. Then there's John Edwards. Ew! This slimy trial lawyer...well, need I say more? Then there's the rest of the wanna-bees soaking up far too much air time (however, it's always a delight to see Dennis Kucinich in action). By direct contrast, Hillary looks almost acceptable - perhaps the only grown-up among that pack of Democrat candidates.

There's also been much speculation about Bill Clinton and the possible negative impact his existence might have on Hillary's chances in the general election. Many believe the thought of a dual presidency (Hill and Bill) would be just too much for the voting public to accept. I'd be willing to wager a small bet that Hillary so wants the keys to the Oval that she'd finally divorce the philanderer-in-chief just before the election to get them.

And now for a little sports

2007-11-15T14:50:00.000-05:00

Sorry this isn't current events or our normal format, but it still needs to written. I can't help myself it's UM vs. OSU this week!!!!

Dear 2007 Michigan Wolverines,

I have a 4 year old who is beginning to demonstrate his love for UM football. I'll admit as his father I take great pride in making him "Michigan Man (boy)". He wears his number 7 jersey as often as it's clean (and sometimes when it's not). He was a Michigan football player for Halloween, he's known the words to the fight song since he was 2 and he's already placed his "order" for a number 15 jersey for next year. He's become as fanatical as a 4 year old boy can become. I took him to the App. State game this year and he was nearly in tears when the game was over. He had the lower lip quivering and told me "dad I am just going to say Michigan won". He knows not to root for OSU, ND or MSU because they're "yucky". His "passion" for this week's game is so great that this morning at "reading time" at the library he informed the librarian and all the other kids attending that Michigan was playing Ohio State this weekend all because he heard the word "Saturday".

So I write this letter to encourage you to win this one for my son and all the other 4 year old boys out there who are beginning to "fall in love" with Michigan football. A loss to Ohio State would crush their spirit. Give them a reason to believe. Give them a reason to grow up a Michigan fan.

In some ways I write this letter for all of us Michigan fans. In many ways we are all 4 year old boys who love Michigan football. As fans, we sometimes forget it's "just a game" and that there are bigger realities in life, but that's the great part about sports. That's the great part of being a 4 year old child. For Michigan fans, it doesn't get any bigger than this weekend. We circle it on our calendars and we sing the fight song all week, wear our jerseys as often as possible and tell everyone we know about "The Game".

So go out there and fight for all us 4 year olds (both literal and figurative). We'll be cheering every step of the way like the 4 year olds we are.

Go Blue!

Missing the Point

2007-11-15T13:26:00.001-05:00

The Politico.com website takes a stab at why Hollywood's anti-Iraq War films are bombing in the marketplace of movie-goers. Not surprisingly, they're getting it wrong.

Politico writer Jeffrey Ressner seems to think that the subject material is just too boring for "mainstream audiences." Too much talk of "House subcommittee for defense appropriations" and other inside-the-beltway references are apparently the reason for movies such as "Lions for Lambs" tanking.

A more in-depth and honest investigation might have unveiled the truth: The American public doesn't much care for Hollywood bashing our military and our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. And while an overwhelming majority of Americans may not approve of the way we've been fighting the war in Iraq, they do not want us to surrender. They want us to win.

I think this has been the fundamental mistake made by the Democrats and their mouthpieces in the news media and Hollywood. They all want to believe that the squeaker election one year ago that barely gave the Democrats control of the House and the Senate was because voters wanted us to waive the white flag in Iraq. Exit polling indicates Iraq was the 4th most important issue for the majority of voters. Perceived corruption in Washington was the real motivating factor for Republican losses.

And now that President Bush's "surge" policy in Iraq is bringing about dramatic success on the ground there, the Democrat's newest attempt to cut off funding for our troops seems as reckless, immature, ill advised as ever. We're clearly winning and the Democrats want us to surrender to Bin Laden and his Islamofacists.

National security and Iraq will once again be an issue in next year's general election. It will be back at the top of American's priority list when deciding who they want as our next president. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it will not be a subject that hurts Republicans. The tremendous success of our brave men & women in uniform in Iraq will result in victory for the GOP once again. After all, we've had the Democrats undermining every effort and waiving the white flag of surrender for 4+ solid years. The Democrats will not be able to claim any credit for our country's success in creating a new democracy in Iraq a year from now. And the Democrats incessant attempts to strip our intelligence and defense communities of the tools they need to effectively fight the terrorists war on us will remind voters that Democrats cannot be trusted with their safety and national security.

The Huckster Factor

2007-11-14T20:13:00.000-05:00

With only 7 weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, there's much speculation about former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee's sudden rise in the polls there. As reported earlier, Mr. Huckabee is now within 6 points of former governor Mitt Romney in a recent poll with a 5 point margin of error. And while Team Romney is debating whether to go nuclear on front-runner Rudy Giuliani, they may want to consider re-focusing their assaults on to Mr. Huckabee in the very near future.

If by chance Mr. Huckabee is the real deal and he manages to either beat or come close to beating Mr. Romney, that would be nothing short of devastating for the Romney campaign. So much hype and press has been given to the fact that the Romney campaign had Iowa in the bag with a commanding lead that for him to win there by less then 10+ points would embarrassing at best. A win isn't just a win when expectations have been raised to such heights as has been the case over the past several weeks by the Romney camp.

The same applies to Mr. Romney's performance in New Hampshire. Senator John McCain was emphatic this past weekend on Fox News Sunday when he told Chris Wallace that he had no doubt he would win the New Hampshire primary. And based on current polling trends, that claim doesn't seem entirely far-fetched. A surging Huckabee could wipe out Romney's current lead with McCain, Giuliani, and Romney taking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place respectively. Granted, Mr. McCain will be in the exact same position he was in the 2000 campaign - winning New Hampshire but too broke to capitalize on it. Nevertheless, a McCain triumph in New Hampshire would effectively cripple the Romney campaign.

At this writing, it appears the Michigan January 15 primary is dead. If so, the next contests will be in Nevada and South Carolina on January 19. In Nevada, Mr. Giuliani is leading by an average 6.7 points (RCP average) and in South Carolina, it's considered a two way tie between Giuliani and Romney with recent polling giving Giuliani the edge. Mr. Huckabee, a former southern governor, could impact the SC race by stripping away social conservative votes from Mr. Romney and thereby widening Mr. Giuliani's victory there.

And then there's Florida on January 29. Mr. Giuliani currently maintains a 17 point RCP average lead in all polls from that state. If the scenario above were to play out, Giuliani will win Florida even more decisively and the following week will do much the same in the vast majority of other states in the February 5 super-duper Tuesday contests.

But this is only one educated guess at how the Republican primaries could play out. The only thing that's certain is that the race for the Republican nomination is fluid and the Romney, McCain, and Huckabee campaigns can each point to various scenarios by which their man wins the nomination (anyone still thinking Fred Thompson has a snowballs chance in h*ll needs to put down the crack pipe).

dm

Rudy's First TV Ad

2007-11-14T19:44:00.001-05:00

Since I've been yammering away at the fact that Mr. Romney has spent millions on TV advertisements yet my candidate of choice, Mr. Giuliani, has not, it's now worth noting that the Giuliani campaign will begin running its first TV ad in New Hampshire beginning on Thursday (11/15). Here it is.

dm

Strategery

2007-11-14T16:01:00.000-05:00

There's an excellent - and unbiased - piece by Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.com concerning the campaign strategies of the Giuliani and Romney campaigns. If you eat, drink, and breath presidential politics, this is a fun read. Check it out.

dm

Michigan 1/15 Primary Dead; DeVos Redux; IA/SC Polling

2007-11-13T20:25:00.000-05:00

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the Michigan presidential primary set for January 15 is on life support at this writing. The state Democrats canceled a legislative session scheduled to begin in the state house of representatives today in order to prevent any action on saving this joint (Democrat and Republican) primary date. And while state Attorney General Mike Cox has filed an emergency appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse a decision by a lower court judge (that part of the law enacting the January 15 primary was unconstitutional), time is running out. Hopes are dwindling that our early primary - making our state relevant to those running for president - will occur.

Michigan Democrat politicians had already kicked an economically depressed state in the groin with their massive tax hikes. Now these same Democrats have disenfranchised millions of its voting citizens in playing a real role in choosing our country's next president. State Republicans have everything they need to hand the Democrats massive defeats in next year's state elections. But don't be surprised if our party manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory next year.

Over the weekend we heard reports that defeated Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos is signaling his interest in running for governor again in 2010. While I personally like Mr. DeVos and believe he'd probably make a fine governor (especially if the Republicans controlled both houses of the state legislature), he's an atrocious candidate. And based on the soundbites of him last weekend, there's no evidence he's turned the corner on that problem. The Democrats' characterization of the man as a spoiled son of a billionaire family who made their fortune through dubious means (face it, Amway has earned lots of bad press over the years despite the wonderful and generous contributions the DeVos an VanAndel families have made) will ensure yet another defeat for our team.

Meanwhile in presidential politics, a new CBS News/New York Times poll has been release showing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee surging in Iowa. Romney still leads the pack with 27% with Huckabee in 2nd place at 21% and Giuliani in 3rd at 15%. All the other contenders are in single digits and there's a 5% margin of error in the poll. I've previously speculated that Mr. Huckabee could be a serious threat to Mr. Romney's domination in Iowa. It would appear he's making serious gains and could win the Iowa caucus on January 3. But it's equally possible Mr. Huckabee is surging a bit too early. Expect the Romney campaign to start pummeling Huckabee over the next several weeks.

In South Carolina, a new Survey USA poll conducted November 9-11 has Giuliani leading the pack at 26%, Romney at 20%, Thompson at 18, McCain at 14, and Huckabee at 12. The RCP average in SC has Giuliani and Romney tied in first place at this point.

dm

Splintering Among Social Conservatives Continues

2007-11-12T14:18:00.000-05:00

Rudy Giuliani gets Pat Robertson's endorsement.

John McCain gets former POTUS candidate Sen. Brownback's endorsement (considered strong pro-life kinda guy).

Mitt Romney gets evangelical leader Paul Wyrich's endorsement.

Mike Huckabee will reportedly get evangelical leader James Dobson's endorsement in the coming weeks.

Now comes word through Politico.com that Fred Thompson will get the endorsement of the national Right to Life organization tomorrow.

If this doesn't point out how conflicted and up-in-the-air social conservatives are about this season's crop of presidential candidates, I don't know what further evidence is needed.

If this non-coalescence behind one candidate by the Religious Right continues, that bodes well for Rudy Giuliani. It's not a stretch to expect social conservatives to (at least in the early caucuses and primaries) split their votes among the top 5 candidates with the majority of voters whose top priorities are national security, the economy, and winning the national election next November throwing their support to Giuliani.

As we enter the last several weeks prior to caucus/primary season beginning, things are very fluid and no GOP strategist or pundit can predict the outcome at this point. Giuliani has a strong lead in national polling but lags in the early primary states. Unlike his rivals, he has yet to spend a dime on television advertising and that will change in the coming weeks. At the same time, the other candidates are currently or will soon start slinging the mud at each other. Since none of the others are breaking through, it's bound to get very ugly very soon.

And there remains the real possibility that none of the candidates will garner enough delegates to clearly win the nomination prior to next summer's convention. The thought of a brokered convention seems unimaginable at the moment. But it's a real possibility and sure would make for interesting television come GOP convention time.

Meanwhile, there is a very strong possibility our January 15 Michigan primary will go up in smoke. Republicans in the state legislature are trying to save it but Democrats seem hell-bent on killing it in preference to a party-controlled caucus. This could result in Republicans pushing our primary to March or having the choice of presidential candidate made by a handful of convention delegates - not the Republican rank and file. If you're interested in having a say in who Michigan Republicans want as our presidential nominee, you would do well to call your state senator and house representative to let them know how you feel (click here and here).

dm

Feel Free to send it in Senator

2007-11-12T12:25:00.000-05:00

Obama had this to say this weekend regarding taxes: ""And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need," Obama said.

Is anything or anyone stopping the Senator from making an extra "donation" to the federal government? I wonder if he's sent in an "extra" tax payment to help?

This is always amusing to me when people don't think they are paying their fair share of taxes and yet they don't make any extra payments or donate money to the federal government to help.

Hillary's Interesting Omen?

2007-11-12T11:42:00.001-05:00

ABC News reports that Hillary Clinton had a run-in with the American flag on Sunday - well, apparently several American flags.

ABC News offers a video of the hysterics.

Given the lousy week Mrs. Clinton's had, this almost seems like piling on.

I would HATE to be the Clinton staffer considered responsible for this fiasco. Mrs. Clinton's temper is notorious and I suspect that poor person has seen their short career in politics just ended.

dm

Dobson to Endorse Huckabee

2007-11-09T12:22:00.000-05:00

According to The American Spectator, unnamed sources close to Dr. James Dobson and the Mike Huckabee campaign confirm Dr. Dobson will be giving the fledgling Huckabee campaign his much-coveted endorsement in the coming weeks.

The conservative magazine quotes a Dobson advisor as saying, "He [Dobson] is the leader of the evangelical and social conservative movement in America, and he's going to reassert that position and leave no doubt that he's in charge." So in case there was any doubt among you social conservatives from whence your marching orders come, look no further than Colorado Springs where the good doctor resides.

If true, the Dobson endorsement of Huckabee will come as a major blow to the Romney campaign. Expect Governor Romney to discount the Dobson endorsement in the same manner he did Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani the other day. The odor of sour grapes will continue to emanate from the Romney campaign bus for some time to come.

dm

Romney and Hillary

2007-11-08T09:24:00.000-05:00

Drudge is reporting that Rasmussen, the polling firm, will release a poll at approximately 10 AM today giving Mitt Romney a 15 point lead over Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire. If you've ever wondered if advertising is effective, this is an excellent case in point. Romney has spent millions of dollars (most of it from his own wallet) in TV advertising in New Hampshire and elsewhere to reinvent himself as The Conservative Candidate running this year. While running for statewide office in Massachusetts, Romney ran as The Liberal Candidate - even the the left of Ted Kennedy. Romney's proving television can transform anyone into anything.

Meanwhile, Giuliani has yet to spend one dime on television ads and relatively little in radio and print advertising. It's assumed the Giuliani campaign will unleash an aggressive advertising campaign throughout December and into January. The races in Iowa and New Hampshire will be much closer once the votes are actually cast.

In other news, Hillary apparently decided to forgo an interview on NBC's Today Show this week. There's speculation that since last week's debate debacle, Hillary is running scared. It's said there's blood in the water and the liberal MSM and fellow candidates are pouncing on that opportunity. This is nonsense. Neither Obama or Edwards have laid a glove on Hillary yet and the MainStream Media certainly won't ask her any "difficult" questions.

With Kathleen Willey's new book, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton," hitting the bookstores, now would be a perfect time to ask Mrs. Clinton if all of Bill's female accusers/victims are just liars? And if so, what did they have to gain by coming forward and, as a result, having their lives and reputations destroyed by Clinton, Inc.? And at what point along the way did Hillary's "marriage" to Bill transform into nothing more than a business partnership? There are a bazillion probing questions we all would love to pepper Hillary with if only given the chance. But the MSM is deathly afraid of her and Hillary won't sit down for an interview unless there are very tight restrictions on what she'll be asked.

So if you're hoping at some point between now and next November 4, Matt Lauer will ask anything stronger than, "so, what's your favorite color?," plan to be sadly disappointed.

dm

Lou Dobbs Presidential Campaign II

2007-11-07T16:03:00.000-05:00

As earlier reported, it's becoming increasingly obvious CNN's Lou Dobbs is attempting to position himself to run as an independent in next year's presidential race. Whispers began last week around CNN (per Bill Bennett). Then last night he made an appearance on Larry King Live lamenting the lousy choice of candidates the two political parties are providing to the electorate.

Today comes an article published at CNN.com by Mr. Dobbs. A few excerpts...

"As I travel around the country, my feeling about the lack of true
candidates is validated by those I talk with: They are not excited about the
candidates seeking their party's nomination. The Democratic and Republican
Parties have become merely opposite wings of the same bird, and it's the
American people who are getting the bird as our elected officials serve their
corporate masters and the special interest groups that dominate both
parties."

"...I believe that independent Americans will demand a far better choice
than any of the candidates now seeking their party's nomination. I believe next
November's surprise will be the election of a man or woman of great character,
vision and accomplishment, a candidate who has not yet entered the race."

Hmmm, who could that be? Jeez, could Mr. Dobbs' intentions be any more transparent?

dm

Robertson Endorses Giuliani

2007-11-07T10:38:00.000-05:00

News Flash! Evangelist Pat Robertson has endorsed Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Robertson stated that Rudy is "a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans."

As instant analysis zips around cyberspace as I type, this endorsement actually carries some heft. As Marc Ambinder of Atlantic.com points out, unlike the endorsement of a social conservative leader such as Paul Weyrich, evangelical voters actually know who Pat Robertson is. And Mr. Robertson's endorsement still carries some punch.

After all, Iowa caucus-goers actually gave Mr. Robertson a 2nd place finish in 1988.

It also crystallizes for many religious conservatives that while they may not entirely agree with Mayor Giuliani's views on certain social issues, their overwhelming concern is national security and the terrorists' war against us. That trumps everything else and they see Rudy Giuliani as the only Republican candidate who can beat Mrs. Clinton and will then go on to win the War on Terror.

dm

CNN's Lou Dobbs is Running for President

2007-11-06T21:32:00.000-05:00

It's not official. He's not stated publicly he's running. But last week's whispers that CNN's Lou Dobbs is interested in running for President of the United States seemed validated this evening with Mr. Dobbs' appearance on Larry King Live.

Last week, Morning in America talk show host Bill Bennett (who is a commentator on CNN) raised the possibility of a Lou Dobbs presidential candidacy. Mr. Bennett stated that rumors were rampant around CNN that Mr. Dobbs would possibly run as an independent candidate for president.

Tonight's appearance on Larry King's chat show appears to be an attempt to lay the groundwork for just such a candidacy. Transcripts of the interview were not yet available at the time of this posting but Mr. Dobbs was emphatic that the two political parties are putting up unacceptable candidates. Mr. Dobbs indicated he felt very strongly that whoever the Democrats or Republicans nominated, the next president would be an independent - and not the "standard bearer" from either party.

Should Mr. Dobbs toss his hat into the ring, what impact, if any, would this have on the presidential race and its outcome? With his right-of-center views on illegal immigration, it's possible he'll siphon off votes from the eventual Republican nominee. At the same time, his more liberal positions on the War in Iraq and other issues might have the same impact on the Democratic nominee. In other words, it's far too early to know.

Lou Dobbs considers himself a populist - a man looking out for the middle class. Since the overwhelming percentage of voters seem disgusted with both parties, a well-run, well-financed, smart campaign by Mr. Dobbs could have a significant impact on next year's presidential race. Then again, perhaps Mr. Dobbs will be nothing more than a flash in the pan.

But with speculation that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Republican/Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul, and perhaps a representative of the Religious Right may also run as independent presidential candidates next year, the 2008 election season will be nothing if not interesting.

dm

American Princess Makes NRO

2007-11-06T14:56:00.000-05:00

National Review Online quotes our fellow blogging friend, E.M. Zonatti of American Princess fame, with her prediction of election outcomes one year from now:

If Ron Paul does not produce a stunning, eleventh-hour upset victory, and
Stephen Colbert realizes that we’ll love him so much more if he’s not raising
our taxes (both of which I feel confident in predicting), I believe the
Republican’s eventual nominee will be Rudy Giuliani with Alaska Governor Sarah
Palin as his VP. Rudy will pull out a narrow win over Hillary and VP nominee
Joseph Biden who’ll change his mind on Hillary after she graciously accepts his
Iraq plan. The ballot count will go into the wee hours in New York as lawyers
race to separate out votes cast for finalists on next year’s Dancing With the
Stars and in Michigan where, for the first time, we will determine a
presidential election by “going red.”

On the House and Senate front, it’s truly anyone’s guess, but widespread
dissatisfaction with the Democrats from both the right and the far left will
certainly play a role. I’ll predict the Republicans take back the Senate easily,
but the House will stay — narrowly — Democratic.

— E. M. Zanotti blogs at “American Princess.”

Nice job and congrats, E. M.!

dm

The Ron Paul Thing

2007-11-06T08:42:00.000-05:00

Various media outlets are reporting this morning that yesterday (November 5), Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul raised $4.07 million in online contributions. For the first 5 weeks of this quarter, Congressman Paul has raised $6.84 million.

The New York Times tells us the $4.07 million raised yesterday does not surpass Hillary Clinton's record-breaking one day total of $6.2 million raised back on June 30. But it does surpass Mitt Romney's $3.14 million raised back on January 8.

What's going on with the Paul campaign? Who are these contributors and what impact, if any, will all this have on the Republican presidential primaries?

Since most of Mr. Paul's contributions are generated through the Internet, it seems a safe bet his supporters are made up of younger, perhaps college-age voters. The Texas Libertarian has made a spectacle of himself during past Republican debates with his strident anti-war, anti-internationalist message. Mr. Paul is also pro-life, wants to abolish the federal Department of Education (I'm on board with that!), and the Drug Enforcement Administration. In many respects, Ron Paul is a classic Libertarian. Get government out of the lives of its citizens and limit government's role and jurisdiction to protecting our borders and not much else.

Unfortunately, we no longer live in a country protected by vast oceans. As such, we do need to play a role in the world and for many of us, that means killing our terrorist enemies "over there" before they kill more of us over here.

So what kind of primary voters will be choosing Mr. Paul come January? It's my hunch these voters will be folks who normally do not vote in the primaries. These voters are not the base of the Republican Party. They're likely to be college students and some others who consider themselves disenfranchised from the American political system. These are people who believe we should legalize marijuana and other controlled substances and who make mumbling paranoid references to the "New World Order," the "CFR," and black helicopters. Many are the same folks who found an appeal in Howard Dean in 2004 and Dennis Kucinich in 2004 & 2008.

It would be alarmingly surprising if Mr. Paul drained any Republican base votes from any of the top-tier candidates. And while his cash-on-hand will result in a wider audience hearing his message, his votes will come from those who do not normally participate in the Republican presidential nomination process. In short, while he'll receive fawning press coverage and much hype, Ron Paul poses no real threat to the top tier candidates.

dm

Romney and the South

2007-11-02T14:04:00.000-04:00

I toyed with bringing attention to this American Spectator article yesterday but since I reject the overall tenor of the message being conveyed, I chose not to.

But given my cousin's hubris over one poll that skews the number nominally in Governor Romney's favor in South Carolina (but not so much given the margin of error and certainly not when compared with other recent SC polling), there's a need for a reality check.

In a nutshell, the author is questioning whether "real Christians" (read: evangelicals) can support Mr. Romney - especially if doing so will legitimize Mormonism, give it stature, and lead more souls to hell.

From the article: "...for the most part Christians believe that Mormon theology leads its adherents to an eternal separation from the Lord. Undoubtedly poll data following the primaries and general election will identify which candidate(s) the evangelicals supported. Do you think they want to stand before God, after they die, and explain why they helped elevate to the highest level of global influence a person who represents false Christianity?"

It's this kind of thinking by bible-belt social conservatives that will probably deny Mitt Romney victory in the Southern primaries. A more likely scenario is the evangelical vote will be split amongst Romney, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee with Rudy Giuliani pulling out a narrow victory.

dm

One week later.... everything changes

2007-11-02T08:43:00.001-04:00

Remember this post from my cousin on 10/25?

"There is no way on God's green earth that your boy Romney is going to win in South Carolina. No way.Had you said Thompson was going to win SC, that would have credibility. If Thompson and Huckabee are still in, here's how that vote will go: Giuliani - WinnerThompson - 2nd Huckabee - 3rdRomney - 4thThe Bible Belt does not like your guy. Sorry. It's true."

Now check out the latest polling in S.C. from realclearpolitics.com

my my my.... how things have changed.

Every time Romney focuses on a state and gets some time in front of voters his poll numbers go up. His strategy has always been one state at a time.

Grand Rapids Public Drop Out Factories II

2007-11-01T08:48:00.000-04:00

I wanted to post this "comment" on the front page of our blog to make sure anyone interested had the chance to read it. I'm proud to say it comes from my brother-in-law who is a former inner city school teacher and who adds some interesting perspective to what ails the public school system in America today. Further dialogue from all of you is highly encouraged... dm

KN, I disagree that hope comes from within. I actually think that this idea is part of what is contributing to the problem. I realize that you probably made the comment in passing without really thinking about it, but that notion is part of the root of post modern thinking. The current generation has been raised thinking that they are the ultimate authority. Right and wrong have become relative and each person can determine it for themselves. Students have been taught to look within (believe in yourself) for answers and absolutes if any exist. Because of that, the authority of parents and schools has been undermined and there is very little control, discipline, or structure in many of our schools. Real hope comes from having something or someone that can be realistically counted on to make ones condition better. There are days when I have difficulty finding it within me to get out of bed. If that is my source of hope, then I am in deep trouble.

DM, I do think that parents (plural only because of referring to parents of many kids. Most kids have only one parent) of kids in dropout factories do care about their kids succeeding. The problem is that they define success differently, and perceive alternate avenues to achieve it. They don't see success as becoming skilled enough to obtain a high paying, secure job; marrying and raising a family; or even contributing to society in general. They see success as being able to accumulate possessions at as little cost to them as possible. The means to accomplish is to know the "system" better by age 15 than most of us will know it in our whole lifetime.

The problem is bigger than school and you hit much of it on the head when you raise the issue of selfishness. Parenting and a return to morality as a society are the answer to the education woes we face. Parents don't just need to work hand-in-hand with schools, they actually need to be parents. Most parents in our society today do not know what the word means, and a whole generation of children are not being parented, which is unfortunate because most people parent the way they were parented. Subsequent generations will be even worse off than the current one being raised.

Teen pregnancy compounds this problem. Children having children have no idea how to actually raise them. Until our society stops believing the lie that kids will have sex anyway and there is nothing we can do to stop them we will not see any change.

The reason that parenting is such a problem is that kids come to school possessing absolutely no clue how to properly respond to authority. They have no clue that actions have real consequences, and are not prepared to actually do something that someone else asks them to do without manipulating them, begging them, cajoling them, and mollifying them to do it.

As a former inner city school teacher, my opinion is that with a few exceptions our schools are hopeless as long as God is kept out of them, and any parent that cares should pull their kids out of public school and take back the full responsibility for their children's education. Somehow parents teach their children how to talk, walk, poop in a toilet, tie their shoes, and myriad other things. They are most qualified to teach their children.

Sorry, I obviously have many opinions about this topic and could go on much longer than this. Here are some proposed solutions:

1. No more compulsory attendance. Make school optional not mandatory. The ones there will be the ones that want to be there. It will also give schools the freedom to expel students that are true problems.

2. Schools must stop involving themselves in social experiments or attempting to be the agents of social change. No more free lunch, make parents send their children to school with food. No more breakfast programs, make parents get up early enough to make sure their children get a healthy breakfast. No more health care in schools, make parents be responsible for the child's well being. No more condoms, no more after school programs, etc...The point here is for schools to stop attempting to be parents and make parents take back the job.

3. Give schools back some real power to address behavior problems. If "en loco parentis" has any meaning then teachers and schools need the authority to use corporal punishment, to use a little humiliation (dunce cap or the like), to remove dangerous or disruptive from the classroom.

4. Some schools in the inner cities need to be shut down and reopened only when every single parent of children that attend there sign legal, notarized documents committing them to be responsible for their children's well being and behavior. Upon reopening, students should be selectively readmitted only after showing some evidence of a desire to be there.

Again, I have a host of other solutions, but I will not take the time here. Our current society cannot stomach most of my solutions. However since things will get much worse before they get any better I feel the time will come when those in charge will try anything rather than continue down the same path.

DS

Grand Rapids Public Drop Out Factories

2007-10-30T09:06:00.000-04:00

As has been reported all over the media last night and today, 4 out of the 5 Grand Rapids public high schools have been christened "Drop Out Factories." This less-than-welcomed moniker comes from an analysis of Education Department data conducted by Johns Hopkins for The Associated Press (source: WOOD TV).

The report released very disturbing statistics: Only 25% of all incoming freshmen students at Grand Rapids Central High School finish their four years and graduate. Only 34% of freshmen graduate from Union; 37% from Ottawa Hills; and 42% from Creston.

These are staggeringly depressing numbers.

In the wake of this report, you will undoubtedly hear the Left scream that we're not spending enough on education. Since the school systems with the highest drop-out percentages are located in poorer areas of town populated primarily by minorities, claims of institutional racism will be hurled by those unwilling to speak openly, honestly, and candidly about the real cause of this tragedy.

In fact, we have gone well past the stage in this country where a civilized, mature, and candid discussion about the plight of minorities can be discussed among all people of goodwill. Bill Cosby has made valiant efforts to sound the alarm. But if you're a Caucasian, you're not allowed in on the discussion - no matter how much you genuinely care about the plight of our inner-city brothers and sisters and the long term impact this deterioration will have on them and our society as a whole.

But let's be candid, open, and honest anyway. With a 68% illegitimacy rate among African American girls and women and an attitude among minority children that disparages good grades as "acting white," along with other destructive attitudes about their place in society, the outlook for our community doesn't appear particularly bright. And instead of speaking truth to African American citizens, local black leaders only exaserbate the situation by blaming white racism for everything that ails the African American community.

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Senator Barack Obama said, "Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” The Senator and presidential aspirant is exactly right. This message truly stood out among the regular Liberal bilge because it is so rarely heard.

It's my opinion that it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a mom and a dad whose first and greatest priority is the proper raising of their children. A mom and dad committed to their children's education (the three R's and their spiritual education). Parents who work hand in hand with teachers to ensure their children are learning.

What role can the federal government play? In my opinion, no role whatsoever. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there reference to the federal government's involvement with the education of our nation's children.

"No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) is another Liberal failure trying to impose federal one-size-fits-all solutions to what ails public school education. Testing is good. Accountability is good. But on the local and state level - not imposed by Washington bureaucrats more interested in expanding their power and control than the quality of education our children receive. If I were president and had the option, I'd scrap NCLB and abolish the federal Department of Education all together. I trust parents, teachers, and local school boards to decide what's best for our children - not federal bureaucrats.

These drop-out numbers are breath-taking. But no real progress will be made in reversing this devastating trend until all of us start taking responsibility for our actions. If we decide to bring children into this world, then they must be our top priority. The rest of us in this village can and should offer as much assistance, love, and support as possible to help these young parents succeed in raising well-adjusted, well-educated West Michigan citizens.

But only when we all accept responsibility for our actions and strive towards living healthy, productive lives, only then will our society turn the corner and head towards a happier future for all its citizens.

dm

Romney's Bumpy Ride Continues

2007-10-29T10:40:00.000-04:00

From the conservative magazine, The American Spectator:

October 29, 2007:

MITT'S BIG BOPPER

"I think being pro-life is more than saying you'll appoint strict constructionist judges," is what former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told reporters last week. He was talking about former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, but he could just as well be talking about himself.

Romney, who for more than 35 years claimed to be avowedly pro-choice, and ran as such for the U.S. Senate and for the Bay State governorship, has been using his and his family's money to create a "pro-life" record.

Earlier this year, his wife, Ann, was given an award by a Massachusetts pro-life organization after Romney made what a source inside the group called a "sizable" donation. Ann Romney, like her husband, has been pro-choice most of her life.

Romney also has hired political consultants with pro-life records, the best example being James Bopp, a prominent conservative lawyer, who serves as a legal counsel for National Right to Life.

Bopp has carried Romney's pro-life message for months, and was front and center for the candidate during the Family Research Council's Value Voters Summit.

But Bopp is now facing the same kind questions that were raised by conservatives when respected conservatives like Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo supported the nomination of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to a seat on the Supreme Court, when most conservatives were opposing the nomination.

Bopp is now in the eye of a storm after criticizing Sen. Sam Brownback for meeting with Giuliani, a meeting, sources say, that Giuliani asked for. Romney and Brownback had a scheduled meeting for this week, but it was abruptly canceled after Bopp's public criticism of Brownback, who ended his presidential run last week.

"Bopp is losing a great deal of credibility by attacking Brownback," says a longtime Washington-based pro-life conservative activist. "We know that Romney is at the very least a squish on abortion. But Bopp seems to ignore years of on-the-record statements and expects us to believe him and Romney's 'conversion' because he says we should believe a man who has done nothing for the [right to life] movement. Nothing."

To read the rest, click here.

dm

The Good Fight

2007-10-26T09:15:00.000-04:00

As we head into the final two months of campaigning prior to the first caucus and primary votes being cast in Iowa and New Hampshire, the intra-party mudslinging will begin in earnest.

While Rudy Giuliani appears to be opening a significant lead over the other Republican candidates (Fox News Poll - 10/23-10/24 - Giuliani + 14 points), the nomination process is still in flux and the current standings could easily change over the next three months in advance of Super-Duper Tuesday, February 5.

As my favorite columnist, Charles Krauthammer, points out today, our party is blessed with a top tier of 4 fantastic candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. Any one of these gentlemen would be a vast improvement over the Democrats' alternative.

Since I've been a tad more aggressive in my support for Rudy when compared to my cousin's approach in support of Mitt, I do feel the need to point out that I am, in fact, a team player. Should Mr. Romney win our party's nomination, he will find no stronger supporter among Republicans than me. Mitt is a great American with a great family and I would support his candidacy with enthusiasm.

The same applies should John McCain or Fred Thompson win our party's nomination.

But it is equally appropriate between now and the final primary to point out differences between our party's candidates and to explain why our preferred candidate would be the best choice for our party and our country. So do expect to see the occasional food fight at this blog over the next few months. It's all part of The Good Fight.

Once the Republican nomination question is settled, you will then find a united front from this blog to keep the Clintons out of the Oval Office.

dm

Who is Mike Huckabee?

2007-10-26T09:07:00.001-04:00

John Fund of The Wall Street Journal publishes an interesting piece concerning Republican flavor of the month, Mike Huckabee. Seems Mr. Huckabee has more in common with Bill Clinton than just hailing from Hope, Arkansas. Click here. It's an illuminating read.

dm

Biden Steps In It...Again

2007-10-25T16:10:00.000-04:00

During a sit down interview with The Washington Post, Senator Joe Biden made statements concerning our educational system and why Washington DC's schools are failing that has landed him in big trouble with African Americans - again. Here's an excerpt from the Post's piece:

After a lengthy critique of Bush administration education policies, Biden attempted to explain why some schools perform better than others -- in Iowa, for instance, compared with the District. "There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with," Biden said. He went on to discuss the importance of parental involvement in reading to children and how "half this education gap exists before the kid steps foot in the classroom."

Of course, this follow's Mr. Biden's earlier comments about Democrat candidate Barack Obama: "you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." The Delaware Senator is developing a bit of a reputation for racial insensitivity.

Way to go, Joe!

dm

Romney opens up lead in NH

2007-10-25T15:14:00.001-04:00

You have to give it to the Romney campaign. They certainly know how to run a campaign. For a candidate who had virtually zero national name recognition to be leading in the first two primaries of the election season is amazing.

Here's the most recent poll in NH showing Romney with a 10 point lead in NH.

Here's an excerpt from an article at Politico.com by Jeanne Cummings:

"And, as we enter the final push before primary votes are cast, Romney has accomplished a remarkable objective: He has gone from being a little-known governor of a liberal-leaning Democratic state to the leading Republican candidate in public opinion polls in both critical early-primary states, New Hampshire and Iowa.

In other words, by historic measures, Romney is better-positioned to win the nomination than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — both of whom are trouncing him in national surveys. "

That last statement sums up this primary race. Giuliani (and to a lesser extent Thompson) are running national campaigns at this point. Romney is running a state by state campaign. To be perfectly honest he doesn't have a choice. He didn't start with the big national name recognition the other two did.

Shake-Up In Store for GOP Frontrunners

2007-10-24T16:29:00.001-04:00

There's rampant speculation out there this week that might be a precursor to a realignment in the Republican "Top Tier" of presidential candidates. Some are claiming it's now a 5-man race (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee). Others think the status quo for the past 10 months will remain basically the same with Giuliani leading the pack.

Who the heck knows? No one does. But I'd be willing to take a stab at what might happen.

If Mike Huckabee is able to capitalize on his newly acquired evangelical fan base, he might well surpass a sagging Fred Thompson and fledgling John McCain to reach the # 3 spot in the top tier (behind Giuliani & Romney).

In fact, it is entirely plausible Mr. Huckabee could surge past Mr. Romney to win the Iowa Caucus. Granted it's a long shot given Mr. Huckabee's current campaign finance situation. But if he enjoys a sudden burst of campaign contributions, that, along with all the positive press coverage and buzz he'll continue to get, could make winning Iowa a reality. Such an upset does not seem impossible and here's why:

At the end of the day, social conservatives are frustrated with their choices. Romney looks great on the stump and on paper. But his willingness to change his principles makes many wonder if he actually has any. And that "Mormon thing" is an issue with evangelicals. They won't tell you so but it is.

Thompson was supposed to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan and the political savior of all social conservatives. Well, that simply isn't panning out as the pundits pontificated. Given Fred's unwillingness to put much effort into campaigning amongst the actual voters, I'm beginning to wonder if he'll even stay in the race long enough to see himself badly defeated in Iowa & New Hampshire.

Neither Giuliani or McCain stand much of a chance in picking up the majority of social conservative votes in Iowa. This explains why neither is actively campaigning there.

That leaves smooth-talkin' Mike Huckabee. Also, Iowa has a history of wacky picks in the Republican Caucus. In 1988, Iowa Republicans gave the "W" to Bob Dole (37%), second place to Pat Robertson (25%), and 3rd place to George H.W. Bush (19%). George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and the general election that year.

So while the conventional wisdom has been that the Republican Iowa Caucus is Mitt Romney's to lose, we're beginning to see a scenario emerge that may cause just such a result. And that scenario is named "Huckabee".

dm

Huckabee Hype

2007-10-23T14:24:00.001-04:00

You'll want to check out this great piece by my one of my closest friends (well, he's not, but wouldn't it be cool if he were?) Rich Lowry concerning the current flavor of the month, Mike Huckabee.

Mr. Lowry makes a point I made on Friday (10/19/07) concerning Huckabee as likely VP material. I must admit, my analytical skills are getting better by the day. Here's a line or two from Rich's article:

But he [Huckabee] could be running for vice president. He’s a natural fit for
Rudy Giuliani. If Huckabee wins an upset in Iowa, he will deal a potentially
mortal blow to Giuliani competitor Mitt Romney. If Giuliani becomes the nominee,
he will have to shore up the social-conservative base. A vice-presidential
nominee with impeccable social-conservative credentials will be a must, and one
like Huckabee — an incredibly talented communicator with crossover appeal to the
media — will be a plus.

Latest Debate

2007-10-21T21:59:00.000-04:00

As objectively as I can muster, I have to say that Mayor Giuliani once again won tonight's Republican debate from Florida. Giuliani had a firm grasp of every issue thrown his way and looked more presidential than any of his counterparts.

Perhaps Governor Romney didn't get the best opportunity or the best questions. Maybe he was just having an "off-night." But he looked tired and stale.

Fred Thompson did a credible job but came off as more mortician than presidential.

John McCain showed up but delivered, for the most part, a less than inspirational performance (although, his line about being "tied up" during Woodstock was priceless).

Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely on his game either.

One thing is certain: Tonight's Republican debate was far more informative and, at times, entertaining than any of the scripted debates the Democrats have provided to date.

There's one other certainty: I'll sign on with any of the top tier (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Thompson) regardless who earns the nomination.

dm

Values Voters Summit

2007-10-19T16:20:00.000-04:00

Update: 10/21/07
The straw poll at the FRC Values Voters Summit netted unsurprising results. The combination of online and in-person voting gave a very narrow victory to Governor Mitt Romney (27.6%) followed by Mike Huckabee (27.1%). Ron Paul's 15% of the vote puts the legitimacy of this straw poll in question. Fred Thompson managed a mere 10% of the vote - a very poor showing for the "top tier" candidate hoping to win the values voters' votes.

However, for those in attendance, Mr. Huckabee trounced all competitors by garnering 51.3% of the vote. Mr. Romney received 10.4% of the attendees votes. As predicted earlier, Mr. Huckabee would and did impress this gathering of evangelicals with his speech.

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani scored poorly, as expected, and only managed to beat Senator John McCain in both online and in-person voting. But pundits are speculating Giuliani did himself a favor by appearing and speaking with representatives of the faith community. Perhaps not enough to help him in the primaries but, should he win the Republican nomination, in the general election.

It's my belief that the social conservatives will divide their votes between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson in the primaries. This could have the unintended consequence of giving the majority of the remaining vote to Giuliani.

Only time will tell. Will the evangelical vote coalesce behind just one of the candidates? Or will it divide itself among Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson?

dm

10/19/07
"'The establishment just doesn't get it,' said Dr. Richard Land, a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, in a recent interview. 'I cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate as a matter of conscience.'"

So who is the "establishment"? Apparently, it's the majority of Republican presidential primary voters expressing their opinion in preference polls over the past year. You see, we're the establishment. We're the problem.

If Mr. Land doesn't get the candidate of his choice at the top of the ticket, he claims all his evangelical followers will ditch their allegiance to the home of the conservative movement (the Republican Party), form a 3rd political party, and nominate a candidate without sin. A candidate who is also without any chance of winning and who will most certainly guarantee Hillary Clinton the Presidency.

Today and tomorrow, leaders of the Religious Right meet in Washington D.C. for what they've dubbed the "Values Voter Summit." Governor Mitt Romney has been searching for ways to woo their support for his candidacy. I suspect, however, the big winner from this weekend's gathering will be Governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is viewed by many evangelicals as the only real social conservative in the race. Huckabee has been polling a distant 5th place (5.4% RCP average) and no one expects he'll break through to win the nomination. However, being the next Republican Vice Presidential nominee seems a real possibility.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani is scheduled to address The Pious on Saturday. Speculation is his reception will be cool at best.

Following Giuliani's speech, the evangelical leaders will sequester themselves in a conference room and discuss further tactics to derail Mr. Giuliani's presidential aspirations. Once a decision is reached among the self-proclaimed religious leaders, we can expect to see white puffs of smoke rising from the convention center's exhaust pipes. Oh wait. That's too Catholic! Scratch that. I'm sure a press release will suffice.

Those of us in the "establishment" clearly do not know what's in our interest. We would be best served to leave the selection of our party's next Presidential nominee to Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Richard Land, Tony Perkins, et al.

dm

Government run health-care????

2007-10-18T10:13:00.000-04:00

If you ever needed evidence that we do not want Government run health care here it is.

Can you imagine? Given all the extra security measures put in place after 9/11 and all the additional TSA agents hired and the creation of an entirely new cabinet level department (Dept of Homeland Security) we still can get it right?

Oy vey!

Candidates Won't be Home for Christmas

2007-10-17T16:55:00.000-04:00

News concerning the primary/caucus calendar is hitting the wires.

Iowa Republicans have chosen Thursday, January 3 as their caucus date. Happy New Year!

New Hampshire is toying with having their primary in December. But it appears they'll likely choose Tuesday, January 8 instead.

Michigan is next on Tuesday, January 15.

Then the Nevada Caucus and South Carolina GOP Primary will be held the following Saturday, January 19.

The Florida primary is set for Tuesday, January 29.

January will be a very fun month for political junkies.

dm

Why Giuliani's the Right Choice

2007-10-17T08:56:00.000-04:00

My cousin has rather rudely pointed out that it's been a while since I've made my case for nominating former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani as the Republican nominee for president. All too often I get caught up in the minutia of the horse race and assume everyone knows why I take the position I do concerning who's the best candidate for our party.

First and foremost, our party has produced several fine candidates this election season. With the only possible exception of Ron Paul, I'd consider supporting any of them. My personal top three favorites are Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Mr. Thompson has yet to even spark my curiosity.

But my pick for the nomination - which I settled on over a year ago, well before he even announced - is Rudy Giuliani. Here's why:

Rudy is a proven leader who inherited a basket case of a city (population 8 million) and whose policies transformed it into the safest big city in America. Rudy's policies led to a decrease of abortions in NYC by 16% and an increase in adoptions by well over 100%. Rudy fought the porn industry and made Times Square a family-friendly destination. Rudy fought "artists" and institutions hell-bent on desecrating Christ and Christianity. Rudy was one of the few elite politicians who understood Yasar Arafat was a terrorist and had the courage to kick him out during Arafat's visit there.

Rudy is committed to appointing strict constructionists to the courts in the mold of Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Nothing a president could do would have as positive an impact on rolling back Rove V Wade than that.

Rudy is a committed supply-sider who instinctively understands that low taxes create economic activity which creates more jobs, ergo more tax payers, ergo more tax revenue for the Treasury. He cut taxes dozens of times as mayor and brought an economic boom back to New York that continues to this day.

Rudy believes in a strong American foreign policy that will not abdicate its role to the United Nations. Rudy will not let Iran get a nuclear bomb or the capacity to create more. Rudy will fight the Terrorists' war on us as vigorously (if not more so) than the current administration.

Rudy was at the very center of the September 11 attacks and through its chaos rose to the challenge, led a city under attack, and earned the title, "America's Mayor." He's proven himself to all Americans in a moment of crisis and we've seen his brilliance and fortitude in the worst attack on American soil in our nation's history.

While the top tier candidates, Romney, McCain, Thompson, are all fine gentlemen, qualified to be president, and nominees I would support should they win our party's nomination, none of these three can beat Clinton, Inc.

Our party is entering the 2008 election facing a stiff head-wind of opposition. There is a desire for change among the electorate and after 8 years of an occasionally ineffectual Bush Administration, odds are not in our favor to retain the White House (or win back majorities in the House or Senate) next November. The last two elections (2000 & 2004) were won by our party by the narrowest of margins. Just barely enough electoral votes to win.

Only Rudy Giuliani can win all the states Mr. Bush won in 2004 and be very competitive in several others. There is a real likelihood Mr. Giuliani will win New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and several others we've lost in the past two presidential elections. No other Republican candidate can make that claim with a straight face.

So, in a nutshell, Rudy is the single best candidate we can nominate as our presidential candidate. He's the only one on the stage that can actually beat Hillary Clinton and whose coattails might actually return control of either the House and/or Senate to the Republicans.

Anything you can find I can find too...

2007-10-16T22:05:00.000-04:00

Clinton Would Have a Field Day

2007-10-16T19:23:00.001-04:00

If you'd like a glimpse at what would be a devastating anti-Romney ad Clinton, Inc. would be running with if Gov. Romney were the nominee, look no further than here...

dm

The Veep Game

2007-10-15T16:08:00.000-04:00

Is it too early to start playing the Veep Game? Of course it is. WAY too early.

But since the Politico.com touched on it earlier today, it got me to pondering once again about the ideal Republican ticket to take out Hillary and her lackey, um, sorry, VP choice next November.

The Politico referenced Republican sources who were suggesting Rudy Giuliani is tag-teaming with John McCain against Mitt Romney nowadays. There was additional speculation that perhaps a quid pro quo was in place to give Mr. McCain the # 2 spot on the ticket should Mr. Giuliani win the nomination.

This hypothesis seems beyond silly to me. As the Politico rightly points out, Mr. McCain does nothing to assist Mr. Giuliani with wavering support from certain social conservatives. If anything, I would submit picking McCain as Giuliani's Vice Presidential running mate would only exacerbate that situation.

Mr. Giuliani is far more likely to seek balance to his ticket with a known social conservative. Mike Huckabee comes to mind. Huckabee is viewed by many social conservatives as strong on their issues and he's from the South (bonus!).

I told my cousin months and months ago that the ideal ticket might well be Rudy Giuliani/Condoleezza Rice. I still believe that would be a dynamite team. However, Ms. Rice has indicated that she is "mildly pro-choice" on the abortion issue. So given this, one shouldn't hold one's breath for that presidential ticket to materialize. Ms. Rice could claim a Romney-style conversion on the issue but might look as opportunist as the former governor of Massachusetts.

Speaking of The Mitt, he might also be a fine candidate for the # 2 spot. But by the time the national convention rolls around, will the wounds inflicted during the primaries be healed? Right now Giuliani and Romney are duking it out but they're sticking to the issues. No low-blows thus far. But, again, it's still quite early. If either candidate employs a scorched-earth policy in the coming months, teaming up next summer may be an impossibility.

In addition, both men are from the Northeast. I'm not entirely certain how important a geographically balanced ticket is these days. But Giuliani may want to focus on a VP candidate from the South or West just to play it safe.

There are lots and lots of Republican choices. My preference would be to see a qualified conservative female of color as Mr. Giuliani's pick. If Hillary is as smart as she claims, she'll pick Obama as her # 2. A Giuliani/Rice ticket might be the only one that could knock that juggernaut off course.

dm

Stop looking for the next Reagan.

2007-10-12T09:07:00.000-04:00

I've been saying this for quite some time now, but Jonah Goldberg lays it out well here.

As conservatives, we have to stop looking for the next Reagan. It's just not possible nor is it a very fruitful exercise. I contend that even Ronald Reagan wasn't "Reagan" until we had time to digest and look at his Presidency in a historical context. Reagan was the right man at the right time in American history.

In addition, as a matter of practicality, if Reagan is the "ultimate" or standard bearer of conservatism, is it really possible to expect another one to come along? Let's say he's a 10 on a 10 point scale of conservatism. Can we really expect to get another 10? Who can also be as articulate, optimistic and funny as Ronald Reagan? Perhaps we see that as an ideal, but if it's our expectation I suspect we will be disappointed more times than not.

Here's the piece by Goldberg. It's worth the read.

The Gipper's Glass Slipper

Schedule

2007-10-10T16:11:00.000-04:00

As an FYI, I'll be out of town for a couple days on business and won't have the opportunity to spout off about anything (at least not here). Hopefully, my Cuz will be pontificating at length during my absence.

So enjoy the break from me.

dm

The Debate (10/9) - The Unvarished Truth

2007-10-10T09:22:00.000-04:00

My unsolicited comments concerning the Republican Presidential Candidates' Debate in Dearborn, MI last night:

Winner: Rudy Giuliani
Sorry. It's true. He was spot-on all night and it was likely his best performance to-date. He showed the fire in the belly, the passion, and his answers hit the mark every time. He's a conservative in every way with the exception of preserving a woman's right to choose. And since he's clear on appointing exclusively strict constructionists to the courts, any social conservative who sits out the general election and gives the White House back to the Clintons is a fool. They will only hurt themselves and the causes they care about most.

Runner-Up: Mitt Romney
It's clear the only two candidates on that stage that stand any chance in the general against Hillary are Giuliani and Romney. Romney is infected with that "icky quotient" that might doom him in the end. And his answer about lawyering up just prior to bombing Iran was a disaster. But he's clearly capable and qualified to be the next President of the United States.

The others:

Fred Thompson: Whatever.

John McCain: I have to agree with the consensus...he looked old, tired, hard of hearing, and ready to pack it in last night.

Mike Huckabee: Possible Vice Presidential material. Not much else worth saying really.

Get all the others off the stage. They're wasting the valuable time of all the other real candidates in this race.

Have a nice day.

dm

Quick rundown of each candidate

2007-10-10T08:46:00.000-04:00

Here's how I see each candidate after yesterday's debate:

The top tier

Rudy: Did well. Didn't hurt himself, he is going to have a problem with the social conservatives though. More than 1 other candidate made it clear that they would support the nominee if that nominee was pro-life. As stated before, if we was the nominee I would support him wholeheartedly.

Romney: Also did well. Had a good jab at Granholm re: taxes. As usual, articulate and in command of the issues.

Thompson: For me, much adieu about nothing. He's pretty stale. Hard to see the fire in the belly. He's no Ronald Reagan.

Huckabee: Yes top tier (for me). He was the most impressive during this debate with a couple of exceptions. He blew the SCHIP question.

McCain: I know they were all having a hard time hearing, but he really had a hard time. He showed his age. He's trying to live off of 2000. It won't work.

2nd tier:

Hunter: Pat Buchanan part II

Brownback: Good guy... good on his feet, but a bit too wonkish ala Al Gore. Has a hard time connecting with people. He would be a good VP.

Tancredo: Enough already I get it... illegal immigration. He stumbles through his sentences quite a bit.... and going after Brownback's mother???? come on

Paul: Enough said.... often times a good message, but he's still Ron Paul.

This whole thing is clearly going to come down to Romney vs. Giuliani. If Romney can convince people he can win against Clinton he will win this nomination going away.

I see the whole thing this way. Those in favor of Giuliani believe he has a better shot to beat Clinton. Those in favor of Romney believe he'll actually be a better President.

Romney: Consult Attorneys Before Defending America

2007-10-09T23:06:00.000-04:00

Tonight's debate among the Republican Presidential candidates was informative to say the least. First and foremost was Gov. Mitt Romney's statement that before attacking an imminent threat to the US, he'd have to consult his attorneys.

Interesting, if not novel, approach to defending our country.

dm