McCain Responds to Biden's "Be a Patriot, Pay More Taxes" Message

McCain Kicks Obama in the Fannie Mae

Senator McCain is sounding more and more like a winner at a rally in Ohio today. Although, I'm not sure "reform of Wall Street" is the answer. It was Democrat "reforms" that fueled the current crisis. Let's hope the "reform" he has in mind is a return to economic liberty and free markets.

Sarah Palin: An Innocent Abroad

From Chronicles
By Srdja Trifkovic

At Christmas a couple of years ago I was given a daily planner called The Worst Case Scenario Survival Calendar. It gives you advice on how to deal with seriously dire emergencies, like free-falling from 10,000 feet with a parachute that wouldn’t open, facing shark attack far from shore, being bitten by a cobra with no antidote on hand, or evading a roaring grizzly in the wilderness. The advice was tongue-in-cheek serious: based on real-life situations and special forces’ manuals, each daily snippet told you how to improve your chances of survival perhaps a hundredfold—from one-in-ten-thousand, say, to one-in-a-hundred. The booklet was fun: you don’t really believe that you’ll ever be in need of such advice, but you read on nevertheless, tickled with vivid images of horrors that happen to “others.”

The forthcoming general election is a Worst-Case Scenario Survival situation and it is happening to us. November 4 calls for the Guide approach. Let me come to the point and speak plainly.

When we look at this season’s four key names—Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin—we know what three of them signify.

Let us start with Senator Obama, that perpetually self-inventing Kenyan-Hawaiian nobody who came from who-knows-where. He may be an American citizen after all, but his disdain for the still-real and historic America is on full display even when it is wrapped in smilingly patronizing condescension for its majority population. The purpose of his presidency would be to re-educate that population in the spirit of self-loathing – his cult-like following among many white yuppies gives him great hope – and to neutralize the incorrigible segment by whatever means the postmodern therapeutic state has on offer. Abroad, we’d have the “Concert of Democracies” led by Washington deciding whom to bomb, with Zbigniew Brzezinski pulling the strings. Under Obama, America’s overall odds, at home and abroad, would be no better than those of a Dresden firefighter on February 13, 1945.

Joe Biden is the archetypical Homo Beltveicus. He’d be Pol Pot’s running mate if that served Joe Biden’s quest for power, money, and then some more of the same. He proves that in Washington we have the best Congress and the worst hair pluggers money can buy. An interventionist to boot, Biden enthusiastically supported Clinton’s bombing campaign against the Serbs in 1999, which prompted John McCain to declare three weeks into the war, “We need Joe Biden for secretary of state.” When Tim Russert asked, “Is that an offer by President McCain?” McCain replied: “Absolutely!” Almost a decade later he is on the same page with McCain on supporting Kosovo’s independence and in his visceral Russophobia, as evidenced by his recent trip to Tbilisi.

In case of a Democratic victory Biden’s chances of succeeding Obama would be no better than one-in-fifty, however – not that it would matter much one way or another. Barring a Dallas-like scenario that Hillary Clinton wished him in the primaries’ final days, Obama is good for another quarter-century of CV building and self-reinvention before finally making the Hajj.

John McCain is an unstable ignoramus who has never seen a war he wouldn’t gladly escalate. He is also obtuse, unendearingly eccentric, and morally challenged. (Let us not waste time dwelling on those traits; the evidence is ample and available to the curious.) If elected he would invent new missions and embark on new cakewalks, because he cannot do otherwise and because he’d be surrounded by foreign lobbyists (Scheunemann) and McCain clones (Lieberman) who reflect and support his mindset. He is an authentically dangerous man. His only saving grace, and the reason to vote for him under the Worst Scenario rules, is his age.

Mortality tables used by the life insurance industry and by the Social Security Administration indicate that average life expectancy for a 72-year-old man is at best about 11 years. That figure declines to about one half of that, however, when we factor in two significant variables: (1) four cancer scares, including melanoma (plus a long history of early and middle age smoking); and (2) a choleric personality (as per Hippocrates), which is dangerous when coupled with the pressures of a top office.

The probability of McCain dying before the end of the first term is a little over 20 percent before those variables are factored in, but they jump to somewhere between 33 and 40 percent when they are taken into consideration. Furthermore, the actuarial morbidity tables may significantly increase the odds of Veep Palin becoming President following the onset of an incapacitating condition that would force McCain to resign.

That leaves us with the probability of one-third or better that President Sarah Palin would be sworn in before the expiry of McCain’s first term. What would she do? I don’t know, but I am pretty certain that her foreign policies would not be any worse than those proposed by the three men. The Washingtonian “foreign policy community” would try to manipulate her, of course, but she is a tough nut to crack. Over the past few years she readily confronted an Old Boys’ Network and defeated Frank Murkowski, the sitting Republican governor, in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary. Before that she resigned a State sinecure, protesting the “lack of ethics” of fellow Republican members, and went on to destroy the political careers of Randy Ruedrich, GOP State Chairman, and Gregg Renkes, a former Alaska Attorney General.

Mrs. Palin’s alleged weaknesses are her strengths. Being an innocent abroad, in the dangerous world modelled on Hobbes and Darwin, is preferable to having “experience” in the obsessive attempt to tame and conquer that world. The Weekly Standard cabal and their ilk will be hard-pressed to make President Palin obey a bunch of Manhattanite intellectual pseuds, let alone to internalize their foreign policy schemes that are evil, stupid, and harmful to our troops’ safety: unlike any laptop bombardier, she has a son on his way to Iraq. I’d say that it is at least 50-50 President Palin would act as a foreign policy realist who’d refrain from new “missions,” “engagements” and “force projections.” That translates into cca 20 percent chance of America conducting a sane foreign policy, for the first time in decades, some time before 2012.

Most of our daily choices are morally ambiguous. The one based on The Worst Case Scenario Survival Calendar, which I am presenting herewith for our readers’ consideration, is no exception. In a fallen world the alternative is plague-on-all-their-houses quietism that suits the bad guys.

Contempt, Apathy and Lies - Why Britain is Crying Out For Our Own 'Pitbull With Lipstick'

From The Daily Mail
By Melanie Phillips

Across the Atlantic, Americans have been convulsed by the overnight sensation of Sarah Palin.

At a stroke, this hockeymom 'pitbull with lipstick' has galvanised John McCain's presidential ticket and given the Obama Democrats their biggest and maybe insuperable problem.

But her significance does not stop there.

Scroll down for more

Britain needs its own 'pitbull with lipstick' like U.S. vice-president nominee Sarah Palin

Despite obvious differences between the U.S. and the UK, her triumph carries important lessons for British politics, too.

Palin's storming of the political citadel is the victory of the outsider, the little person who takes on the establishment - and wins.

In Britain and America - as in other parts of the Western world, too - an enormous gulf now yawns between leaders and led.

People have concluded that politicians of all parties seem to inhabit a world apart, governed by self-interest, cynicism, corruption, incompetence, deep contempt for the electorate and an incorrigible instinct to deceive them.

Politicians know this. Which is why they all purport to stand on a platform of 'change'.

But change from what to what, precisely?

Unless there's a clear answer, 'change' becomes a pointless soundbite which risks creating an impression of yet more political sleight of hand.

This is the trap into which Barack Obama has fallen.

Yes, he has amazing gifts of charisma and oratory; along with his youth and black ancestry, this all helps create the impression that he is an outsider and embodies a fresh start.

But, on closer inspection, he looks suspiciously like yet more of the same old same old. The way he changes his political message to fit the audience he is addressing sits ill with his pitch to represent a new politics of integrity.

And his voting record and positions on social issues place him firmly among the Left-wing elite which has waged such devastating war upon the West's moral values.

By contrast, Palin has a very strong sense of right and wrong rooted in her evangelical Christian faith. Perversely, this damns her in the eyes of the Left as the 'hard Right'.

This is clearly absurd: she is a working mother of five who has shown herself as capable of felling Big Oil and other political cartels against the public interest as shooting moose.

Will David Cameron look for a British 'pitbull with lipstick'?

Moreover, her real achievement is to do what the Left assumed was utterly impossible: she makes social conservatism seem attractive.

Not only is she young, attractive, clever, witty and feisty; her love for her Down's Syndrome baby embodies hope for the future.

As for her pregnant 17-year-old daughter's proposed shotgun wedding, the priority there is the welfare of the unborn child.

By contrast, the 'right to choose' feminist Left, which also thinks all women have a right to deprive a baby of its father, appears not just callous and selfish, but even downright murderous.

Which is why so-called 'progressives' on both sides of the Atlantic have gone into paroxysms of rage and panic over Sarah Palin.

For she has taken the supposed characteristics of the Left - youth, dynamism, change, excitement and social conscience - and presented them as conservative virtues.

Since the Left habitually shores up its own position by demonising conservatives as nasty, backward-looking, mean-spirited, lifedenying, prejudiced, stupid and boring, it recognises her as a mortal threat - not just to Obama but to its whole political platform.

Accordingly, it is frenziedly hurling smears and allegations at her. And maybe she will eventually fall apart under the pressure.

But if she survives this witch-hunt, her crucial role will be to energise McCain's core vote.

Because - and here's where British Tories should be paying close attention - McCain is not popular with truly conservative Republicans.

His self-styled mission has been to detoxify the lethally unpopular Republican brand.

He seemed well placed to do so because his opinions crossed party lines and made him attractive to the centre ground. (Sound familiar?)

The problem was that in doing so he alienated core Republicans.

His views on man-made climate change (he believes in it), abortion (he's a bit iffy) or immigration (he's for it) made his core voters suspect he was a Democrat in drag.

As a result, the danger was that they would not turn out for him on election day. And exactly the same danger is lurking for David Cameron. If conservatively-minded voters want to turf Labour out but have no enthusiasm for the Tories, the risk is they will simply stay at home.

Like McCain and Obama, Cameron too has grasped the public's anti-establishment mood.

But he made the error of assuming that the reactionary old order to be overturned was conservatism, while change, hope and progress resided on the Left.

But this is a caricature which, although an article of faith among the media, bears scant relation to reality.

It is the Left which upholds the miserable social and educational status quo which causes such misery and harm to so many at the bottom of the heap.

It is the Left which preaches despair by believing that nothing can be done to stop social ills such as crime, drug addiction or teenage pregnancy.

Instead, it sets up vast infrastructures at public expense to mitigate their worst effects - which has the effect of entrenching and deepening those very social ills.

By contrast, any hope of real change for the better lies in the restoration of this country's tradition of morality rooted in Christian religious conscience, exemplified by the Tories' Social Justice Commission.

To his credit, Cameron seems to realise this. Hence his support for marriage and his endorsement of the Commission's work. But the message is still too equivocal.

For sure God, guns and abortion do not play out in Britain as they do in America. But Middle Britain is nevertheless desperate for a champion which it does not yet recognise in the Tory Party.

Middle Britain mourns that its country is being transformed by mass immigration; it is demonised for saying so.

It is aghast that it no longer governs itself but is becoming a province of Euroland; it is scorned as xenophobic for saying so.

It is furious that Britain subsidises feckless behaviour through welfare benefits; it is attacked as heartless for saying so. It is alarmed that the gay rights agenda is making a mockery of family life; it is vilified as homophobic for saying so. And so on.

The Tories are inching towards parts of this agenda. But unable to rid themselves of the fixation that only the socially liberal Left is attractive, they give out mixed or ambiguous messages - which leave people confused or suspicious that Cameron is just another slippery politician.

And, in today's world where issues no longer matter as much as personality, that's lethal.

Despite their very different opinions, McCain and Palin score because they are both mavericks - known to be true to themselves.

What the Cameroons have yet to grasp is that it was not so much conservative measures that the British public rejected, but Tory men.

There are millions who long for a conservative defence of Britain and its values by a leader they respect and admire.

Sarah Palin may well turn out to be Middle America's revenge on its elites.

Middle Britain is watching - and hoping that it will now be hunting season against the moose of the British Left, too.

McCain Picked a Winner in Governor Sarah Palin!

I will have a lot more to say about the choice of Governor Sarah Palin and the Republican ticket in the next few days, but for now I will just say that Senator McCain has picked a winner. Governor Palin, unlike several of the names that were most frequently floated, is a candidate to which no conservative -- social, religious or economic -- can object.

In bringing to the fore a dynamic, bright and accomplished governor, Senator McCain has done himself, the Republican Party and the nation a great service. Contrary to the opinion of some, this blog has been very critical of the presidential nominees of both major parties. However, with a solid platform and a great, conservative Vice Presidential running mate, we're coming around!

As I said, much more on that in a day or two. For now, here's background on America's next Vice President.

The Washington Times: Sarah Palin as McCain's VP

YouTube: Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck

Official Website of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin

Governor Palin's Gubernatorial Campaign Website

Fox News Profile of Governor Sarah Palin

Draft Palin for VP Website

BBC News Profile of Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin on Charlie Rose

Columbia Conservative: "Pro-Life VP or Bust"

In the Saddlebrook Church interview, Senator McCain made a good effort to mend fences and bridge the distance he has created over the years from social and religious conservatives.

Unfortunately his close friend, Senator Lindsey Graham, has raised the possibility of a pro-abortion running mate. I posted the response of many Michigan Republicans to that idea a few days ago.

In this regard, my friend Joshua Gross has an excellent post at The Columbia Conservative about the possibility of a convention fight if McCain is foolish enough to defy pro-life Republicans.

I happen to think that with a zealous, national organization in place, Mick Huckabee would bring more to the ticket than any other candidate, but certainly most of the names that Josh Gross mentions would make for a strong Republican ticket.

*****

Update: The American Family Association is currently conducting a poll on possible McCain running mates. The results are currently:

Who should McCain select as his running mate?

Gov. Bobby Jindal [LA] 386

Gov. Sarah Palin [AK] 446

Gov. Haley Barbour [MS] 58

Gov. Tim Pawlenty [MN] 172

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee [AR] 11,557

Sen. Lindsey Graham [SC] 64

Former Gov. Mitt Romney 5,176

Other 1,894

Michigan Supporters Tell McCain Camp Only Huckabee Can Mobilize GOP Base

Backers point to Rasmussen, Zogby polls

Michigan supporters of former Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential candidacy Monday said they have delivered a statement to Sen. John McCain's campaign urging McCain to select Huckabee as his vice presidential running mate.

The Huckabee supporters and other social conservatives in Michigan and nationally last week were shocked by the McCain camp's serious discussion of selecting a running mate who favors legal abortion on demand.

The statement -- delivered by e-mail and fax Monday to McCain's Michigan and national campaign headquarters -- reads as follows:

1. It is our belief that a large number of Christians do not currently plan to vote for Senator McCain because of his past positions and statements on issues of concern to Christian voters. This includes many voters who were not previously involved politically but were activated to support a Republican presidential campaign by former Gov. Mike Huckabee.

* A poll published earlier this year by the Christian Post found that Sen. Barack Obama and even Sen. Hillary Clinton outpolled McCain among Christian conservatives. (Notably, former Gov. Mike Huckabee was by far the most popular candidate among those polled.)

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080215/christian-poll-mccain-less-popular-than-obama-clinton.htm

* Newsweek reported Friday that "a new poll from the Barna Group, a Christian research firm, shows Obama leading McCain 43 percent to 34 percent among likely Christian voters, with advantages among non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%)...Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%). The only Christian subgroup (Obama) isn't winning? Evangelicals."

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arc hive/2008/08/15/loose-threads.aspx

2. We strongly believe that if Gov. Huckabee is part of the Republican Party ticket, many, many more of these Christians and Huckabee supporters will not only vote for the McCain ticket but will do something far more important: actively and enthusiastically work for its success.

3. The coalition supporting Gov. Huckabee has only grown in recent months, as evidenced by the Denver Letter to Sen. McCain signed by Christian activist leaders nationally.

4. Of all possible vice presidential candidates who would be acceptable to pro-life, pro-family voters, there is little question that Gov. Huckabee has the highest name identification and recognition nationally. We believe his selection would overnight give the McCain ticket something it currently lacks and most likely cannot win without: a national network of values voters and volunteers passionately committed to the values and message brought forth this past year by Gov. Huckabee.

5. Thus, this statement does not reflect merely our personal preference for the candidate we supported during the primary election contests. It reflects our political judgment that selecting Gov. Mike Huckabee as the vice presidential candidate is the quickest and surest way to exciting, activating, and mobilizing the socially conservative base of the Republican Party nationwide, the very coalition Sen. McCain recently said no Republican could win without. [Detroit News: "(James) Muffett said Friday that during the meeting, McCain (said) he respected social conservatives' views (and) believed that Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan on could not have won without them."] http://info.detnews.com/redesign/blogs/lowdownblog/index.cfm?blogid=438

6. Further, two recent professional public opinion polls validated not only our political judgment but Gov. Huckabee's appeal to all voters, not just social conservatives.

* A Rasmussen poll three weeks ago found that among all general election voters, Gov. Mike Huckabee had the highest favorable ratings among all possible vice presidential candidates included in the survey. (Notably, the same poll found that former Gov. Mitt Romney had the highest unfavorability rating of all possible candidates included.) http://www.rasmussenreports.com

* A Zogby poll four weeks ago found that "among likely voters, 27% would be more likely to support McCain with Huckabee on the ticket," the highest percentage of all possible vice presidential candidates included in the survey. http://zogby.com:80newsReadNews.dbm?ID=1530

7. Conversely, it is our judgment that the quickest and surest way Sen. McCain could alienate, demoralize, and deactivate social conservative activists and voters nationwide would be to select a vice presidential candidate who they believe does not share their values and worldview. Those would include former Gov. Mitt Romney, former Gov. Tom Ridge, Gov. Charlie Crist, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and others.

8. While other possible vice presidential candidates are believed to share socially conservative values and would thus be philosophically acceptable -- Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Rep. Rob Portman, Gov. Mark Sanford, Gov. Sarah Palin, and others -- none of them has national name identification and a national organization of volunteers committed to their support comparable to Gov. Mike Huckabee. For example, the same Zogby poll which found that 27 percent of likely voters would be more likely to vote for McCain with Gov. Huckabee on the ticket, found that putting Gov. Jindal on the ticket would move only 5 percent to be more likely to support McCain, while Pawlenty motivated only 3 percent.

9. In summary, Gov. Mike Huckabee's selection as Sen. McCain's running mate would motivate more American voters to support Sen. McCain's candidacy than any other possible running mate, and it would mobilize a pre-existing grassroots network of social conservative activists and volunteers that no other potential running mate could match, not even those philosophically acceptable to the Republican base.

10. The election of Sen. Barack Obama is unthinkable. Because we want Sen. McCain to succeed, and because we believe his vice presidential selection may be determinative in whether he has the grassroots volunteer support required for a Republican victory, we strongly and respectfully urge Sen. McCain to help us help him -- and make iteasy, not hard, for us to persuade others to support and work for his candidacy -- by selecting former Gov. Mike Huckabee as his vice presidential running mate.

Respectfully submitted,

Huckabee's Michigan Grassroots Coalition

Evangelicals Warn Against Romney On Ticket

From The Washington Times
By Ralph Z. Hallow

Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens.

They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year.

"McCain and Romney would be like oil and water," said evangelical novelist Tim LaHaye, who supported Mr. Huckabee. "We aren't against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won't understand that."

The Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif., who speaks at evangelical events across the country, told The Washington Times, "I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep.

"It will alienate the entire evangelical community - 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened," Mr. McCoy added.

Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, was the favorite of evangelical voters in the Republican presidential nomination contest earlier this year and won more delegates per dollar spent than any other candidate in either party.

Other well-placed Christian conservatives say that although many evangelical leaders could accept and work for a McCain-Romney ticket, Mr. Huckabee's supporters tend to be "rabid" in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith: They do not regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination.

The McCain campaign will say officially only that the choice hasn't been made and that the wealthy former governor of Massachusetts is just one of several options for the Republican ticket.

In conversations with The Times, several Republican officials close to the McCain campaign also played down anti-Romney sentiment among conservative evangelicals. They cited an online poll of evangelicals by 2000 presidential primary candidate Gary Bauer that found Mr. Romney is the top vice-presidential choice of born-again Christians.

But in an interview with The Times, Mr. Bauer, who was a domestic policy adviser in the Reagan administration, described the results of his poll as more ambiguous than that.

"In our online poll, Romney won a plurality, and Mike Huckabee ran a strong second," said Mr. Bauer, who also told The Times that he does not think Mr. Romney ought to be a drag on the ticket. "But a lot of the Huckabee supporters said if Romney is McCain's choice, they would bail out in November."

An evangelical leader who, though he has close ties to Mr. McCain, confided to The Times that polling suggests that putting Mr. Romney on the ticket likely would cost Mr. McCain 7 percent to 10 percent of the evangelical vote - enough to spell defeat for Mr. McCain in a close race with Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

White evangelicals have become the Republican bedrock in recent elections, providing President Bush with 35 percent of his votes in 2004. Even in 2006, white evangelicals backed Republicans overwhelmingly - by a margin of 70 percent to 28 percent. Depending on the survey and the precise wording of the question, polls typically show that evangelical or "born-again" Christians make up between 30 percent and 40 percent of the U.S. population.

David Barton, a former vice president of the Republican Party of Texas, said, "The key for Mr. McCain is to pick someone who opposes abortion but doesn't alienate any part of the general Republican voting coalition" as Mr. Romney does.

Longtime social-conservative leaders such as Phyllis Schlafly, Phil Burress, Donald P. Hodel and Mathew Staver said earlier this month that they can rally their voters around Mr. McCain largely on the issues of abortion and the judiciary, as long as they are confident that the vice-presidential candidate is pro-life. They are skeptical about Mr. Romney's views.

Mr. Barton, founder of the national pro-life group WallBuilders, said the downside for picking either Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee is that evangelicals still would vote for Mr. McCain on Nov. 4 - given the alternative of Mr. Obama - but not work as hard organizing and getting out the vote.

"Romney would bring to the ticket as much enthusiasm from supporters as Huckabee would bring, but Romney's would be from fiscal conservatives and Huckabee's would be evangelicals," he said.

Similarly, a Huckabee choice would leave fiscal conservatives voting for Mr. McCain but otherwise sitting on their hands. Mr. Romney has long been a successful fundraiser - a skill needed because Mr. Obama is expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars.

Republican strategists close to the Romney camp are promoting the former presidential contender behind the scenes.

"Romney really doesn't think he will be chosen, and that there are far better veep choices for McCain. But in my view, Mitt checks a lot of boxes: He's vetted, he's a Washington outsider, he's conservative, he's a proven vote-getter in Michigan, and he can raise a ton of cash fast for the McCain campaign. He can be the economic voice for the McCain campaign," a conservative Republican strategist close to the Romney organization told The Times.

• Donald Lambro contributed to this report.

Best Thing On His Resume

Only Huckabee Can Save McCain

From what I have observed, John McCain only consults conservative voices in the Republican Party to ensure he is working against their interests. It may be the result of the drugs and brain washing that Soviet doctors applied during his imprisonment in Vietnam. Nevertheless, some conservative leaders are making one last attempt to salvage the 2008 presidential election. The following was reported by Right Wing Watch, published by People for the American Way.

A few weeks ago, we wrote several posts about the meeting in Colorado where a large group of right-wing leaders finally decided to support John McCain. At the time, all we had were second-hand accounts that those in attendance had decided that Barack Obama would “decimate [the] moral values” they hold dear and, as such, collectively decided to support McCain as the lesser of two evils.

Glossed over in the press coverage was the fact that their support for McCain seemed to rest heavily on his choice of candidate for Vice President, with those in attendance making their preference known that they really want him to pick Mike Huckabee:

Those in attendance also reached a consensus that they would send a letter to McCain, R-Ariz., encouraging him to consider former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as his choice for vice president.

"It's not a demand; it's a request," said [Mat] Staver, who couldn't say when McCain would be contacted about Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor who resonated with some evangelical voters during the Republican primaries.

Until now, the content and signatories of that letter remained unknown. But recently Clark Vandeventer, founder and CEO of World Changers, Inc, who reportedly attended the meeting and signed the letter, posted it on a blog called Veritas Rex and it seems clear that they were not so much “requesting” that McCain pick Huckabee as his Vice President as outright warning him that doing so is “necessary for [his] success”:

We believe that a pro-life, pro-family Vice Presidential running mate is critical to confirm to our constituents that you will take affirmative steps to protect these values. Your selection of a pro-life, pro-family running mate will be one of the first and most important opportunities to communicate your commitment to such values, since we believe that personnel is policy.

As citizens who love this country and as leaders who communicate collectively with millions of values voters, we met this week in Denver to discuss our shared moral values and the need to support your campaign. As a sincere expression of what we believe is necessary for your success, we strongly agreed to respectfully urge you to select former Governor Mike Huckabee as your running mate.

We believe putting Gov. Huckabee on your ticket will immediately excite, mobilize, and activate a key grassroots constituency that is essential to your success and the advancement and defense of the values we share. We have heard this message so clearly and consistently from our constituencies that we believe it is our duty to respectfully share it with you -- not as a demand or condition of our support -- but as an honest communication of what we believe to be the surest way to immediately activate millions of social conservative voters and activists nationwide in support of your candidacy.

Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,

Phil Burress, President, Citizens for Community Values
Mathew Staver,Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan
David Barton, Wall Builders
Bill and Deborah Owens
Clark Vandeventer, Chief Executive Officer, World Changers Inc.
Kelly Shackelford, Esq., President, Liberty Legal institute
John Stemberger, Florida Attorney and Pro Family Advocate
Dr. Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women for America
Dr. Tim F. LaHaye, Tim LaHaye Ministries
Paul E. Rondeau
Rick Scarborough, President of Vision America Action
Johnnie Moore,
 Campus Pastor, Liberty University
Jim Garlow, California Pastors Rapid Response Team
Steve Strang, publisher, Charisma magazine
Kenneth L. Connor, Wilkes & McHugh, P.A.
Clint Cline
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association
Randy Thomasson, President
Campaign for Children and Families
Rebecca Kiessling
Joshua Straub, American Association of Christian Counselors
Sandy Rios, President of Culture Campaign
Deryl Edwards, President, Liberty Alliance
Linda Harvey, Mission America
Diane Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
David N. Cutchen
Micah Clark, Executive Director, American Family Association of Indiana
Don McClure
Alex Harris, Founder and Chairman, Huck's Army and Director, The Rebelution
Brett Harris, Founder and Chairman, Huck's Army and Director, The Rebelution

McCain's Day of Repudiation

From Real Clear Politics
By George Will

Two of Thursday's Supreme Court rulings -- both decided 5-4, and with the same alignment of justices -- concerned the Constitution's first two amendments. One ruling benefits Barack Obama by not reviving the dormant debate about gun control. The other embarrasses John McCain by underscoring discordance between his deeds and his promises.

The District of Columbia's gun control law essentially banned ownership of guns not kept at businesses and not disassembled or disabled by trigger locks, even guns for personal protection in the home. The issue in the case was: Does the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" guarantee an individual right? Or does the amendment's prefatory clause -- "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" -- mean that the amendment guarantees only the right of a collectivity ("the people," embodied in militias) to "bear" arms in military contexts?

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who believes that construing the Constitution should begin, and often end, with analysis of what the text meant to its authors, the court affirmed the individual right. Scalia cited the ancient British right -- deemed a pre-existing, inherent, natural right, not one created by government -- of individuals to own arms as protection against tyrannical government and life's other hazards. Scalia also cited American state constitutional protections of the right to arms, protections written contemporaneously with the drafting of the Second Amendment.

Scalia's opinion, joined by John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, radiates an understanding that the right to arms is the right of each individual to protect his rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hence the Second Amendment is integral to the Bill of Rights and is, for weighty reasons, second only to the First.

Obama benefits from this decision. Although he formerly supported groups promoting a collectivist interpretation -- nullification, really -- of the Second Amendment, as a presidential candidate he has prudently endorsed the "individual right" interpretation. Had the court held otherwise, emboldened gun-control enthusiasts would have thrust this issue, with its myriad cultural overtones, into the campaign, forcing Obama either to irritate his liberal base or alienate many socially conservative Democratic men.

The McCain-Feingold law abridging freedom of political speech -- it restricts the quantity, timing and content of such speech -- included a provision, the Millionaires' Amendment, that mocked the law's veneer of disinterested moralizing about "corruption." The provision unmasked the law's constitutional recklessness and its primary purpose, which is protection of incumbents.

The amendment, written to punish wealthy, self-financing candidates, said that when such a candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold, his opponent can receive triple the per-election limit of $2,300 from each donor -- the limit above which the threat of corruption supposedly occurs. And the provision conferred other substantial benefits on opponents of self-financing candidates, even though such candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, which the court has said they have a constitutional right to spend.

Declaring the Millionaires' Amendment unconstitutional, the court, in an opinion written by Alito, reaffirmed two propositions. First, because money is indispensable for the dissemination of political speech, regulating campaign contributions and expenditures is problematic and justified only by government's interest in combating "corruption" or the "appearance" thereof. Second, government may not regulate fundraising and spending in order to fine-tune electoral competition by equalizing candidates' financial resources.

The court said it has never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different financing restraints on candidates competing against each other. And the Millionaires' Amendment impermissibly burdened a candidate's First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.

This ruling invites challenges to various state laws, such as Arizona's and Maine's, that penalize private funding of political speech. Those laws increase public funds for candidates taking such funds when their opponents spend certain amounts of their own money or receive voluntary private contributions that cumulatively exceed certain ceilings. Such laws, like McCain-Feingold, rest on the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech.

The more McCain talks -- about wicked "speculators," about how he reveres ANWR as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet's thermostat, etc. -- the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?

A Reader's Comments and My Response

I received the following, anonymous comment to an older post that I would like to share with readers, since it reflects an attitude frequently heard in regard to Bob Barr's campaign for the Presidency:

Anonymous said...

 

Oh great. Just what we need, someone to take away votes from McCain and put Obama in the White House. When that happens, I hope you are all satisfied. You might as well vote for Obama. In case you haven't noticed, McCain has an excellent record of bipartisanship.

Unbelievable.

June 25, 2008 10:55 PM

My response follows:

Anonymous, the Republican Party will soon nominate a man who inspires no enthusiasm among most Republicans, and would not even be our nominee had not Democrats crossed over in states like South Carolina to vote for him.

Some of us have come to realize over the past eight years that the lesser of two evils is still evil. I, for one, want no part in evil. You are quite right; "McCain has an excellent record of bipartisanship," and it is on that record of cosponsoring much of the worst legislation of the past generation that conservatives repudiate him. Let the Democrats, whose legislation he has championed and cosponsored, vote for him.

Bob Barr recently told The Associated Press that if John McCain doesn’t win, it’s because McCain is running on the wrong issues:

"If Senator McCain is not successful, it will be because his message and his vision did not resonate with a plurality of the voters."

And he is absolutely right. The Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party has decided they can win with Hillary supporters, mindless "independents," and McCain's admirers in the media, and without conservatives. They repudiate the policies of Reagan and the coalition he built. They will lose, and fortunately, when they do, Democrats will be blamed for bad policy, and not the Republican Party for the equally bad policies of John McCain.

John McCain: Old Habits Are Hard To Break

John McCain is having trouble breaking a lifelong habit, siding with Democrats and attacking Republicans. Fresh from his assault on the North Carolina Republican Party, he has found a new Republican target. Today he is directing his fire at the Bush Administration. No, not for food shortages, gasoline prices, the devalued dollar, record breaking debt, out of control federal spending, a bungled war, or the ongoing invasion from Mexico. He has decided to dredge up Katrina.

Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance points out other ways that McCain's habits of a lifetime are undermining his own candidacy:

• Poor Sen. McCain. Hamstrung by his own campaign finance "reform" law, he has been reduced to what the Wall Street Journal calls "creative abuse" to find a way around its limitations. By restricting individuals to a maximum donation of $2,300, McCain's misbegotten law is now biting him in the fanny. McCain is worming his way around his own law by directing donations to various party funds, which then in turn can be directed toward his own campaign efforts. For instance, donors to "McCain Victory '08" can write checks for up to $70,000. Voters will be forgiven for failing to see much "reform" here. Individuals should be allowed to give as much as they want to the candidates of their choice, as long as such donations are a matter of public record. If a candidate thinks a donation from certain individuals or in certain amounts might create political problems for him, he is always free to reject the proffered donation. (Potomac Watch - WSJ.com
  
  
• John McCain apparently has forgotten that you win elections by inspiring your own base, and has long forgotten Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment. By attacking the Republican Party of North Carolina for being "out of touch with reality," he has exposed his own ineffectiveness as a leader - the North Carolina GOP is ignoring him - and the possibility that he in fact may be the one who is out of touch with reality. If being a "maverick" is a good thing, McCain should be celebrating the independent, I'll-think-for-myself attitude of Republicans in the Tar Heel State. Sadly, the choice for many Republicans in November will be choosing between a candidate who is wrong 50% of the time and one who is wrong 100% of the time. (McCain says N.C. Republicans out of touch over ad Markets News Reuters)
  
  

GALLUP POLL -- Huckabee Tops List of Republican Voters' V.P. Favorites

"Nomination also-rans Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney receive the most mentions when Republicans are asked whom they would most like to see as McCain's vice presidential running mate, at 18% and 15%, respectively. ...Conservative and moderate or liberal Republicans do not differ much in their choices -- Huckabee, Romney, and Rice are the top three candidate s among both groups. ...There are differences by religiosity, however. Republicans who attend church weekly rate Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, as the top choice, with 29% choosing him compared to 19% who choose Romney."

By Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- At this early point in the process, Republicans do not have a clear favorite as to whom they would most want to see as John McCain's vice presidential running mate.

Nomination also-rans Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney receive the most mentions when Republicans are asked whom they would most like to see as McCain's vice presidential running mate, at 18% and 15%, respectively. It is common for candidates who come up short for the presidential nomination to be strongly considered for the vice presidential spot on the ticket, and John Edwards in 2004, George H.W. Bush in 1980, and Lyndon Johnson in 1960 are some of the former presidential candidates who accepted the vice presidential spot after losing out for the presidential nomination.

The unsuccessful candidates' names may also be the most top-of-mind when respondents answer the question, given their visibility while campaigning for the nomination.

In fact, five of the top six names on the list of suggested vice presidential candidates for McCain actively campaigned against him for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination -- Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani join Huckabee and Romney among the most frequently mentioned names. The only non-candidate among these is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

A few Democrats were mentioned by at least 1% of respondents, including McCain ally Joe Lieberman (who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 as an independent but who was a Democrat prior to that), John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. Though McCain has consistently worked with Democrats during his time in the Senate, there is some pressure on him to choose a conservative Republican to shore up his support among the right wing of the party.

Also, about one in three Republicans, 31%, could not think of any specific person they would like McCain to pick.

Conservative and moderate or liberal Republicans do not differ much in their choices -- Huckabee, Romney, and Rice are the top three candidates among both groups (Florida Gov. Charlie Crist ties Rice for third among moderates/liberals). The main difference is that moderate or liberal Republicans are less likely to supply a name of a favored vice presidential pick.

There are differences by religiosity, however. Republicans who attend church weekly rate Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, as the top choice, with 29% choosing him compared to 19% who choose Romney. Among Republicans who attend religious services less often, Romney gets slightly more mentions in the poll than Rice, with Huckabee getting the third most.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup Panel study are based on telephone interviews with 453 Republicans and Republican leaners, aged 18 and older, conducted March 24-27, 2008. Gallup Panel members are recruited through random selection methods. The panel is weighted so that it is demographically representative of the U.S. adult population. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106129/Consensus-Favorite-Among-Republicans-McCain.aspx

Full Page Ad Will Tell McCain: "No Mitt"

Gov. Mitt Romney signs Massachusetts' Universal Health Care law on April 12, 2006, as Sen. Kennedy looks on approvingly. The law provides taxpayer-funded abortions.

PRESCOTT, Az. -- A coalition of over two dozen leaders of state and national social conservative organizations will run a full-page ad Saturday in the Prescott Daily Courier, telling presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Az., that they cannot support his candidacy if he selects former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his vice-presidential running mate. McCain is scheduled to appear at a campaign rally in Prescott Saturday on the steps of the courthouse where Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona launched his 1964 presidential bid.

The ad -- formally sponsored by Government is Not God PAC (www.gingpac.org) -- reprises social conservative activists' primary season criticism of Romney's record of passionately supporting abortion on demand and the so-called "gay rights" agenda both before and after Romney claims to have reversed his positions on such issues.

"For us the bottom line is this," the ad states. "The unvarnished facts of Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts make him utterly unacceptable as a Vice Presidential running mate. ...If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party."

(Full text is provided below.)

Most prominent among the ad's over two dozen signers is Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, a founder of both the economically conservative Heritage Foundation and the socially conservative Moral Majority, and a national leader among conservative activists for nearly four decades.

Weyrich's is indisputably the most striking signature on the ad because of the dramatic change of heart it signals. Six months ago, Weyrich endorsed Romney's presidential candidacy. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/06/romney_wins_backing_from_paul_weyrich

We can’t support a McCain-Romney ticket. Here’s why.

An Open Letter to John McCain:

- NO MITT -

We are conservatives who believe strongly in the sanctity of human life and of marriage and we recognize that the issues at stake in this upcoming election are serious and profound.

Indeed, we believe the very future of America’s security, against threats both foreign and domestic, will be determined by whom America elects as President in November.

Because we have invested our lives in securing a prosperous America that honors life and liberty, we must state our grave concerns regarding your pending choice of a running mate.

Securing and uniting the GOP Base

To be successful in November you must unite all elements of the Reagan coalition. Your choice of a running mate must reassure the Party’s base that their voices and values will be respected if you are to ignite and excite the grassroots to work hard for your election in November.

For us the bottom line is this: The unvarnished facts of Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts make him utterly unacceptable as a Vice Presidential running mate.

A very large (and growing) number of social conservative voters who have become aware of that record are likely to abandon a GOP presidential ticket on which Romney's name appears.

Governor Romney got no traction during the primaries simply because his recent “conversion” to conservative and pro-life principles is not credible.

To be clear, we all welcome anyone who has come around to the cause of life and family.

However, Romney's actions as governor flatly contradict both the values widely associated with his faith as well as his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage campaign rhetoric.

As late as December (before carefully selected audiences) he stated anti-life and anti-family positions inconsistent with his previous statements. His actions as governor betray well-timed conversions as mere political opportunism, and offend those who demand “straight talk” from their leaders.

Mitt Romney created $50 taxpayer-funded abortions

The proof is clear. He claimed to be pro-life, but by establishing taxpayer-funded abortion on demand as a “healthcare benefit” Romney achieved what no pro-abortion Massachusetts Democrat ever had!

He unconstitutionally established a permanent government seat on the state-run health care board for an unelected representative of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. This was after his pro-life conversion. Is it any wonder we question his political integrity?

Mitt Romney illegally ordered same-sex “marriage”

Governor Romney also claimed loudly to support traditional marriage. But he went far beyond the notorious Goodridge court opinion that, in brazen defiance of a state constitution which blocks judges from even hearing challenges to marriage law and policy, urged the Legislature to legalize homosexual “marriage.”

The Legislature never did…but Romney didn’t wait. Fulfilling a backdoor campaign promise to the pro-homosexual Log Cabin Republicans, he illegally ordered justices of the peace to perform same-sex “marriages” in direct violation of the Massachusetts Constitution and the Legislature’s constitutionally binding statute. Is it any wonder we question his political character?

(See: www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07)

Mitt Romney is unfit to be a ‘heartbeat away’

This goes directly to the heart of our concerns over Romney’s fitness to be a ‘heartbeat away from the presidency.’

When a chief executive can violate multiple articles of the oldest functioning constitution in the world and disobey statutes he solemnly swore to defend and execute faithfully, then blame judges who never even asked him to intervene, he mocks the principle of limited government and the separation of powers. He robs Americans of their unalienable right to self-government, for which so many soldiers, sailors and airmen have died.

These are just two issues (there are more) that absolutely disqualify Mitt Romney as a viable Vice Presidential option. He would fatally harm your appeal to voters with deep constitutionalist and social conservative commitments.

The Base CAN help you win

If Governor Romney is on your ticket, many social conservative voters will consider their values repudiated by the Republican Party and either stay away from the polls this November or only vote down the ticket. For the sake of your election, the health of your party, and the future of America you must not allow the obvious electoral consequences of that to occur.

The Base WILL stand on principle

As citizens, activists, and leaders with our feet on the solid ground of real world Republican and Independent voters, it is our duty to alert you that the grassroots is nearing a point of breaking with Republican Party leadership on many issues, not the least of which is the relentless whitewashing of Mitt Romney’s social liberalism.

On this we cannot be silent.

Senator McCain, despite the proclamations of your surrogates we hope you will act to earn the support of the conservative grassroots in November, unite the Republican Party, and lead it to victory. However, Willard Mitt Romney is a deal breaker.

NOTE: Organizations are listed for identification purposes only

Matt Barber
Policy Director
Concerned Women for America

Dr. Ted Baehr
Author of Culture Wise Family

Michael W. Calsetta
Conservative Democratic Alliance

Brian Camenker
President
MassResistance

Janet Folger
President
Faith2Action

Gary Glenn
President
American Family Association of Michigan

Thomas Glessner, J.D.
President, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates

James Hartline
Founder and Publisher
California Christian News

John Haskins
Parents’ Rights Coalition and UndergroundJournal.net

Linda Harvey
President, Mission America

Michael Heath
Executive Director
Christian Civic League of Maine

Gregg Jackson
Author/Radio Host

Judge Ned Kirby
Former Assistant Minority Leader
Massachusetts State Senate

Peter LaBarbera
President
Republicans for Family Values

Jan M. LaRue, Esq.
Jan LaRue Consulting

Dr. Scott Lively, Esq.
President
Defend the Family International

William J. Murray
Chairman
Religious Freedom Coalition

Troy Newman
President
Operation Rescue

John O’Gorman
Board Member
Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Sandy Rios
President, Culture Campaign

John Russo
President
Marriage and Family Massachusetts

Stephen Strang
Chief Executive Officer
Strang Communications

Karen Testerman
Executive Director
Cornerstone Policy Research

Randy Thomasson
Campaign for Children and Families

Paul Weyrich
President
Free Congress Foundation

Philip Zodhiates
President
Response Unlimited, Inc.


To sign our petition and send a personal comment to Senator McCain, go to: www.NoMittVP.com

Government Is Not God-PAC
Nancy Murray, Treasurer www.gingpac.org PO Box 77237, Washington, DC 20013