The "New McCain" is a Big Improvement

Who was that man and what has he done with John McCain?

Tonight's debate was unquestionably John McCain's finest performance. He put away the hackneyed "reaching across the aisle" rhetoric and replaced it with a vigorous defense of principle. At long last we heard "straight talk" -- truth -- about the character and judgment of his opponent. It was the kind of offense for which McCain-Palin crowds have been literally begging, and it was refreshing.

He was on top of the issues -- his health care plan and that of his opponent. He showed passion when speaking about the life issues and education. And the Freudian slip, when he called Obama "Senator Government," was the most memorable line and the icing on the cake.

Whether it was too little-too late remains to be seen, but my guess is that McCain will get a bounce from tonight's debate.

This, finally, was a McCain that Republican conservatives can enthusiastically support. Let's see and hear much more of this "new McCain."

Ohio Will Not Allow Election To Be Stolen

Ohio, the state where one man registered to vote 73 times, has decided they will not allow this election to be stolen. The AP reports:

Associated Press

CINCINNATI -- A federal appeals court has ordered Ohio's top elections official to set up a system by Friday to verify new voters' eligibility.

The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has upheld an earlier ruling that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has to use other government records to check the thousands of new voters for registration fraud. A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had disagreed last week, but the full court's ruling trumps the panel's decision.

Ohio Republicans sued Brunner, a Democrat.

Ohio GOP Chairman Bob Bennett calls the ruling a victory for the election's integrity.
A spokesman for Brunner could not immediately be reached for comment. Brunner previously said there was no way to set up the system with such speed.

ACORN: Community Organizers, Phony Voters and Your Tax Dollars

From the National Center for Policy Analysis

Acorn -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- has been around since 1970 and boasts 350,000 members. Acorn is now getting more attention as John McCain's campaign makes an issue of the fraud reports and Acorn's ties to Barack Obama. It's about time someone exposed this shady outfit that uses government dollars to lobby for larger government, says the Wall Street Journal.

Acorn is spending $16 million this year to register new Democrats and is already boasting it has put 1.3 million new voters on the rolls. The big question is how many of these registrations are real?

• The Michigan Secretary of State told the press in September that Acorn had submitted "a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications."


• Earlier this month, Nevada's Democratic Secretary of State Ross Miller requested a raid on Acorn's offices, following complaints of false names and fictional addresses (including the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys).


• Nevada's Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said he saw rampant fraud in 2,000 to 3,000 applications Acorn submitted weekly.


• Officials in Ohio are investigating voter fraud connected with Acorn, and Florida's Seminole County is withholding Acorn registrations that appear fraudulent.


• New Mexico, North Carolina and Missouri are looking into hundreds of dubious Acorn registrations.

Also:

• Wisconsin is investigating Acorn employees for, according to an election official, "making people up or registering people that were still in prison."


• Then there's Lake County, Indiana, which has already found more than 2,100 bogus applications among the 5,000 Acorn dumped right before the deadline; "All the signatures looked exactly the same," said Ruthann Hoagland, of the county election board.


• Bridgeport, Connecticut estimates about 20 percent of Acorn's registrations were faulty. o As of July, the city of Houston had rejected or put on hold about 40 percent of the 27,000 registration cards submitted by Acorn.


• o As of July, the city of Houston had rejected or put on hold about 40 percent of the 27,000 registration cards submitted by Acorn.

The Justice Department needs to treat these fraud reports as something larger than a few local violators. The question is whether Acorn is systematically subverting U.S. election law -- on the taxpayer's dime, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "Obama and Acorn; Community organizers, phony voters, and your tax dollars," October 14, 2008.

For text: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html

Obama’s Henchmen and the Rise of Commufascism

From Canada Free Press

By Shawn D. Akers

The secret to selling bad ideas is to make sure they are the only ones available. This is how totalitarian regimes take power. Whether it was Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany or Vladimir Lenin in Communist Russia, the pattern is largely the same – totalitarian dictators come to power by enshrining themselves as cults of personality and then creating political monopolies through often less than delicate campaigns of indoctrination and censorship – especially censorship enshrouded in the intimidating aura of state power.

Ironically, these cloven-tongued leaders often rise to dominance by preaching power to those they will dominate, provision to those they will impoverish, and liberty to those they will force into state labor. Whether they claim to be left or right, revolutionary or reactionary, communist or fascist, the result is always the same – tyranny.

The great discomfort for many Americans as they watch the current presidential contest is that the scent of such totalitarianism hangs heavy in the air; the pattern so familiar in European dictatorships seems eerily present in Barak Obama’s presidential campaign. Senator Obama, obviously intelligent and gifted with enviable powers of communication, has for all of his eloquence, done very little in the real world other than campaign for office. His supporters can not tell you what he has done that qualifies him to run the most powerful nation the world has ever known, but they know he was born for the job – they were there at the convention; they heard the speech; they felt the magic; chills ran up their legs, and they cried their eyelashes off as Mr. Obama stood tall between the ivory columns of a Greek temple to accept his party’s nomination for President of the United States.

If there was any remaining question of his revolutionary greatness, scattered around the nation are tri-color campaign posters of Mr. Obama, bearing a striking resemblance to the larger than life representations of Lenin, Marx, and Engels used by soviet propagandists in the glory days of Mother Russia. These communist styled knock-offs featuring Mr. Obama staring nobly – if melodramatically – into the distance and emblazoned with one-word utopian mantras such as “Change,” “Progress,” or “Hope,” were designed by Shepard Fairey whose obsession with communist propaganda overflows in his “OBEY” brand website which brandishes a Cyrillic-styled banner that reads “Propaganda Engineering” and boasts the company motto “Manufacturing Quality Dissent Since 1989.”

The nod to Chomsky notwithstanding, Fairey, like any good propagandist, denies the obvious message of the Obama campaign posters. He claims the art is “patriotic” and prefers to let it speak for itself as it joins his growing portfolio of romanticized communist plagiarisms of such other “patriotic” works as Demitry Moor’s famous 1920 Soviet Red Army recruitment poster Have You Volunteered?, Vladimir Kozlinsky’s 1919 poster Meeting, and the 1968 Chinese Proletarian Cultural Revolution poster Political Power Comes from the Barrel of a Gun. Least the fascists feel slighted, Fairey also produced an exact copy of the Nazi Gestapo “death’s head” logo which he placed on t-shirts and rebranded as a part of his OBEY clothing line.

Whatever else may be said, Mr. Obama’s personality cult campaign has been an unmitigated success, creating, almost ex nihilo, a “beloved leader” out of a largely inexperienced and unknown man, void of business, executive, and foreign policy credentials. This fact alone is cause for substantial concern, but, unfortunately for the American people, what has been true of the form of the Obama campaign is now materializing in its function as individuals cloaked in the appearance of state authority seek to silence dissent and indoctrinate the masses.

The largest portion of the media has progressed in its leftist agenda so overtly in the current presidential race that we are hardly surprised when television news “anchors” swoon at the very mention of Barak Obama while taking every opportunity to belittle Governor Sara Palin, feigning objectivity and savoring superiority all the while. Such private sector propaganda is so common it is almost passé. What is far more troubling is when individuals holding powerful and intimidating public posts – police officers and prosecutors, individuals who, by the very power of their offices, can strip citizens of their liberty – use their positions to intimidate anyone who dares speak against Mr. Obama. When Missouri prosecutor Bob McCulloch takes to the air waives, placing the public on notice that he is a member of Mr. Obama’s “truth squad” and that he and other Missouri prosecutors and law enforcement officials plan to “respond immediately” to any critical speech concerning Mr. Obama that “might violate Missouri ethics laws,” the message, with all of its implications, is crystal clear – “speak out against our beloved leader and all the fury of the state will fall on you.” Mr. McCulloch has since claimed that he was speaking only in his personal capacity – a strange assertion considering that he has no personal capacity to “respond . . .[to] violat[ions] of Missouri ethics laws.” Perhaps Mr. McCulloch and the other members of Mr. Obama’s political police could have clarified their role by exchanging their very official looking lawyer’s suits for a selection of Fairey’s Gestapo t-shirts.

The shocking willingness of the Obama campaign to begin using state power, or at least the appearance of state power, to censor dissent even before Mr. Obama holds the actual power he seeks is doubly troubling when combined with actions of other individuals who use their taxpayer funded positions of power to indoctrinate “the masses” in favor of Mr. Obama and against anyone who opposes him. Only weeks ago, Janna Barber had the courage to expose what is apparently all too common in public universities – professors who are paid with taxpayer funds, using their positions of considerable power and influence to force feed pro-Obama political dogma to their students. Professor Andrew Hallam of Metropolitan State College of Denver, did for the classroom what Shepard Fairey did for political posters. In true Nazi-Reichsführer-school-meets-Communist-Reeducation-Camp style, Hallam brought rabid party fanaticism and inexcusable psychological abuse to bear on his class, demanding that his English students write a searing anti-Palin position paper, requiring the Republican students to self-identify, and then allowing if not encouraging the enlightened, open-minded, diverse, accepting, and politically correct Democratic students to verbally berate and abuse the handful of Republicans with language that would have made Stalin blush.

Whether it is Kent Higgins, a Chaplin at the University of Massachusetts, attempting to use official University action to directly build Obama’s workforce by providing college credit for Obama campaigners, or PBS ensuring that an open ardent Obama supporter whose own success as an author is dependent on Obama’s victory, moderates the Vice Presidential debates, or Virginia public school teachers coordinating an “Obama Blue [shirt] Day” campaign to indoctrinate the young children they have so much influence over with the conviction that Barak Obama is every authority figure’s leader of choice (Obama Jugend?), or Obama’s throngs of attorneys threatening with litigation broadcasters that air unapproved messages, the actions taken together amount to a “forced coordination” – what the Nazis referred to as Gleichschaltung.

If this is the result of an Obama presidential campaign, one can only shudder to think of the impact of an Obama administration. These are not the ways of a free people. They are the ways of those who do by brute force what they can not do by the force of their ideas. Attempts at tyranny have historically struck a sour note in the collective soul of Americans. There is something written on our hearts that says it is wrong to take property that does not belong to you even if you take it for a “good cause;” it is wrong to kill the innocent even if their existence is inconvenient for you; it is wrong to win a contest by intimidating the judges; and it is the honor of the strong to secure justice for the weak. This may be the most important election in recent American history, and we owe it to ourselves and our children to choose leaders who will not tolerate tyranny much less partake in it.


Shawn D. Akers is the Director of Academic Support and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Akers can be contacted via email at akerslaw@aim.com. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Catholics and Abortion (Again!)

From Faithful Catholic Citizens
By Cal Thomas

In recent elections when a high-profile Roman Catholic Democrat seeks high, or higher office, the issue of abortion surfaces. As the pro-choice, non-Catholic Barack Obama makes a play for evangelical voters, conservative Catholics are asking their fellow believers to take seriously the church's teaching on abortion and not cast their vote for Obama and Catholic Joe Biden.

The split in Democratic ranks is along political as well as theological lines. Liberal Catholics claim that government programs advocated by Democrats more accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus about the poor and the weak. More "observant" Catholics, some of whom support anti-poverty government programs, point out that no program can help someone who is not given the right to live. Liberals want Catholics to look beyond abortion. Would they have been comfortable 50 years ago with appeals for Catholics to look beyond the racism of Southern Democratic senators? Probably not.

A group calling itself Faithful Catholic Citizens" (FCC) has produced two powerful television commercials, which are running in Iowa and soon, it hopes, in heavily Catholic Pennsylvania. Both spots begin with a confrontational question: "Are you truly Catholic" and follow with a sound bite from "Meet the Press" in which Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserts that Catholic teaching on abortion has been inconsistent. "Utterly incredible," Cardinal Edward Egan is then quoted as saying about Pelosi's statement, which is followed by one from the late Pope John Paul II, who called abortion "(the) deliberate killing of an innocent human being." And then comes a reference to Sen. Barack Obama on the abortion issue from Rick Warren's forum in August at which Obama said that knowing when life begins is "above my pay grade."

"Don't be misled," continue the ads, "Know the church. Know the truth." (View both ads below)

Is abortion "intrinsically evil" and "a non-negotiable issue for Catholics," as FCC President Heidi Stirrup asserts? If one is a Catholic and subscribes to the belief that the interpretation of Scripture and moral truth is the responsibility of the pope and the apostolic bishops, then one would have to say, "yes;" and when faith and politics conflict, a politician should be required to choose one or the other.

Some Catholic politicians have tried to have it both ways. They have even tried to gain favor among their fellow Catholics by noting their strong opposition to capital punishment, which puts them in an oddly inconsistent position. Such Catholic politicians favor preserving the lives of convicted murderers, but choose to do nothing when they have the power to stop, or at least curtail, the killing of the innocent unborn.

While I am not a Catholic, it seems more than inconsistent to take such a position. One chooses one's denomination, just as one chooses one's political affiliation. No one forces another to become a Catholic and no one requires one to become a Democrat, or Republican. Judicial nominees have been denied confirmation based on their membership in clubs that excluded blacks and Jews. But now we may be about to elevate two men to our highest offices who would deny civil rights to African American babies (who are aborted disproportionately to other races), one of whom seeks the votes of his fellow Catholics.

Two years ago, Pope Benedict XVI reiterated the church's "non-negotiable" issues: "Protection of life at all stages, from the moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage; the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children."

Obama and Biden oppose at least two of these (they claim to be against same-sex "marriage," but for "civil unions"). Whether the TV ads change any minds may be problematic. Catholics who are enamored with "change" and the belief that government is the primary instrument of God, rather than the church, in carrying out His will — and who have ignored church teaching on profound moral issues — are unlikely to be swayed by further appeals to become "truly Catholic." But if only a few see where an Obama-Biden administration would take the country on moral issues, in a close election that might be enough.

Felons Voting In Ohio

Mayor Richard M. Daley with protege Barack Hussein Obama

Here's a change you can believe in, the corrupt machine politics of Chicago is going national.

From the New York Post

CLEVELAND - Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.

The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.

Republicans have argued that the window could lead to widespread voter fraud because officials wouldn't have an opportunity to verify registration information before ballots were cast.

Among the volunteers were Yori Stadlin and Vivian Lehrer of the Upper West Side, who got married last week and decided to spend their honeymoon shepherding voters to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

Early today, Stadlin's van picked up William Woods, 59, at the soup kitchen of the Bishop Cosgrove Center.

"I never voted before," Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. "Without this service, I would have had no way to get here."

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin

How I wish Governor Palin could slip away from the watchful eyes of her handlers and join Pat Buchanan and the editors of The American Conservative Magazine for a long dinner and discussion. Here's their attempt to save the greatest hope the conservative movement has had since Ronald Reagan.

To: Gov. Sarah Palin
From: The American Conservative Editors
Re: What Your Tutors Aren’t Telling You

Congratulations on being chosen as John McCain’s running mate. It’s an honor, if a dubious one. As you know, conservatives have reservations about McCain. To your credit, they have few such concerns about you.

You’ve given new life to a party whose brand was bankrupt. You’ve energized a campaign that was embarrassing its own partisans. Across America, crowds flock to see you—not that old man who barely wheezed his way through the primaries. If John McCain wins, he will owe you, as the guy in the undisclosed location says, “Big time.”

Wonder why Middle America finds you irresistible? Maybe they’re big Tina Fey fans. More likely, you remind them of the conservative values they feared lost: faith, family, independence. This impression owes more to who you are than what you’ve done. But at least you keep Obama from cornering the market on hope. Conservatives have faith in you. Don’t fail them as George W. Bush has.

You see what happened: the president’s entire domestic agenda collapsed under the weight of his failed foreign policy. Social Security reform stalled. Pro-lifers became political orphans. And whatever gains Bush’s tax cuts secured were wiped out by record spending. Everything was subordinated to the war on terror.

Conservatives grasping for something to commend give the president points for his judicial picks. But he would have much preferred justices like Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers—toadies whose top qualification was their willingness to give the executive more power.

The party that championed the things you prize—individual liberty, fiscal restraint, and a strong defense—has trampled civil rights, pushed us to the brink of insolvency, and broken our Armed Forces. After eight years of Bush, even diehard Republicans are glad to see him go. You might have noticed the elephant not in the room in St. Paul.

There’s a better way. In fact, you figured it out in the 1996 presidential primary when you sported the flair of the leading pro-life candidate. (Your minders would prefer that we not mention his name. It triggers their Tourette’s.) As you surely know, even beyond social issues, he represents a strain of conservatism that offers a consistent ethic of life and philosophy of limited government. It was not a coincidence that the most pro-life candidate in ’96 was also passionately noninterventionist.

It’s also no coincidence that those who want you to heed the siren call of global democratization care little for traditionalist causes. Recall that second night of the Republican Convention when you were told to blow off a reception in your honor hosted by Phyllis Schlafly so Joe Lieberman could chaperone your debut before the directors of AIPAC. Neoconservatives pay lip service to life, but, as their enthusiasm for Lieberman shows, they have higher priorities. Now they plan to make them yours.

You’ll find the new friends conducting your foreign-policy crash course pleasant enough, if a little dogmatic and a lot condescending. They call you “Project Sarah.” We saw that one staffer at AEI—that mystery monogram on all your briefing books—said you’re “a blank slate.” He added, “She’s going places, and it’s worth going there with her.” That’s how they operate. They don’t implement their agenda themselves. Rather, they impose it on rising star. If things don’t work out, it’s because the Project wasn’t sufficiently committed. (Just ask President Bush.)

Now you’re the latest object of their attention, and you’re probably finding the program a bit confusing. They tell you that the U.S. is fighting “World War IV,” a struggle against “Islamofascism.” We can win, they say, as long as we’re prepared to bomb Iran and build up the national-security establishment at home, just like Reagan did.

Trouble is, your tutors also believe we’re still engaged in “World War III,” the Cold War with Russia. So maybe the Gipper didn’t win that one after all. In fact, neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz chided Reagan for appeasing Moscow. And when terrorists struck the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, Reagan, instead of “staying the course,” withdrew our troops. Your Beltway suitors prescribe the opposite of Reagan’s strategy.

And as they would have it, we’re not only waging World Wars III and IV, we’re still fighting World War II. At least, that’s the way it sounds when Robert Kagan opens a Washington Post op-ed by likening Russia’s conflict with Georgia to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia.

But Russia is not Germany, Georgia is no innocent Czechoslovakia, and Vladimir Putin is not Adolf Hitler—no matter what your guru Randy Scheunemann says. (He probably forgot to tell you that he used to lobby for the government of Georgia.)

Here’s a hint: don’t believe everything you read in the papers, especially if the byline is Kristol or Krauthammer. Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It’s a traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage. That’s why Russia intercedes in the domestic disputes of unruly states on its periphery. Putin balks at Poland hosting our antimissile systems for the same reason we would bristle at Cuba or Mexico receiving Chinese antitank missiles.

With more validity, some of the people whispering in your ear tell you that Moscow wants to corner the European markets for oil and natural gas. And what nefarious end does Putin have in mind? Raising prices and reinforcing Moscow’s political clout, not with nuclear blackmail but with good, old-fashioned economic power. We have plenty of that ourselves (or at least we used to). Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have been.

Then there’s the Middle East, where only American arms (and lives) can prevent little Israel from being swept into the sea by Muslim hordes. Surely that’s what AIPAC told you that night you left Phyllis cooling her heels. But again, it isn’t true. Israel has nuclear weapons, for one thing, and can outfight her neighbors even without resort to atom bombs. Israel’s problem isn’t external threat so much as internal security and demographics. When the Jewish state was founded, tens of thousands of Palestinians—Christians as well as Muslims—lost their homes. Palestine was no wide-open Alaskan frontier: when the newcomers moved in, Arabs were moved out, often by force. Terrorism didn’t come to the region with Hamas or Hezbollah; decades earlier groups like the Stern Gang and Irgun used violence to clear the way for Israel’s creation. Nor was Palestinian Authority leader Yassar Arafat the first terrorist to lead a state in the Holy Land. Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had unclean hands as well.

While your minders probably don’t put much stock in his work, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has shown that suicide terrorism develops almost always among occupied peoples. The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians already in their midst—to suppress terrorism without suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to more bloodshed. The most helpful role the United States can play is that of impartial mediator in the conflict. There is injustice and suffering on both sides.

No doubt you’ve been told (again and again) that Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Here’s something to keep in mind: Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them. Ironically, the Bush Doctrine’s pledge that “America is committed to keeping the world’s most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous regimes” makes rogue states like Iran more likely to seek nuclear devices, as a deterrent against pre-emptive U.S. strikes. This is a vicious circle. Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America.

Since you had some difficulties in your oral exam with Charlie Gibson, your new friends will no doubt ramp up their lessons. (For the record, you can scarcely be blamed for fumbling the answer about the Bush Doctrine. Your tutors were clearly reluctant to bring it up, even though the whole scheme was theirs, not Project George’s.)

They may even start assigning you book reports. It will feel like the third grade, except the subjects won’t be charming orphans. Now it’s rogue states against America the Benevolent. Near the top of the list will be An End to Evil by Richard Perle and David Frum. They’d have you think that Muslims will impose Islamic law on America if we don’t go to war with 18 different countries. But you know that a bunch of Muslims can’t make red-blooded, moose-hunting Americans wear burqas. Think what happens if you try to get a book pulled out of the library.

That’s only the beginning of the curriculum. You’ll be handed titles like Present Dangers and The Return of History. Thankfully, just like third grade, you don’t really have to read them. If they ask, just say, “The enemies of freedom won’t be appeased. We must stand firm, like Churchill.”

Meanwhile, we suggest sneaking a look at The Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich. It’s stern stuff, but he gets to the point: America can’t spend money it doesn’t have, beat everyone up, and expect to stay healthy, wealthy, and wise. If you want a good book on how America screwed up in Iraq, there is Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. You said some nice things about Ron Paul during the primary. He gave Giuliani a list of books that might be worth your time.

You’ll have to keep your extracurriculars quiet. We know how these things work. Since he helped you break into the big leagues, you have to toe McCain’s line. But the outgoing administration has shown us how powerful a veep can be. If you go all the way, President McCain will be in your debt. (If he forgets, ask him how many rallies he held while you were home in Alaska. He wisely opted not to deliver speeches in phone booths.) Don’t leave your maverick spirit on the campaign trail.

Despite all the briefing books being thrown at you, you know your own mind—and you realize that the neoconservative agenda doesn’t square with your worldview. You prize localism, their vision is grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of ideology. But they’ll tell you this alien vision—imported from the Left—is coherent and conservative.

It is neither, but your supporters are both. They’ve turned against this war and definitely don’t want another. Yet your running mate does. Perhaps you’ve noticed that his interest in domestic policy pales alongside his foreign-policy ambitions. Or maybe you caught his virtuoso performance of “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

You surely see that the Bush policies have come to a dead end. If the millions poised to vote for you wanted four more years, the president’s approval rating wouldn’t be 25 percent. This isn’t because Republicans dislike Bush personally or disagree with his positions on energy and taxes. It’s because they know that his main legacy—the Iraq War—is a disaster.

Thankfully, they don’t think you’re like him. They see in you someone like themselves—a patriot and a mother. The Middle Americans waiting hours to hear you speak don’t want the United States to be defeated, and they don’t want Iraq to be a haven for al-Qaeda—something it never was before the invasion. They are pleased that the surge has made it more possible to leave because they don’t want to send their boys back for a third or fourth tour. They want America to come home—not because she’s weak but because she’s wise. They hope that you are, too.

SOURCE: [1] The American Conservative Magazine

Bubba Reaching Across the Aisle to Help McCain?

The Joe Biden Gaffe Clock

So many people are enjoying the gaffe-a-day antics of Barack Obama's comedic sidekick, Joe Biden, the Republican National Committee has created "The Joe Biden Gaffe Clock." You'll want to check back often for laughs like this, this and this.

Why Obama Will Lose

From The Edmond Sun

By David Deming

When Benjamin Franklin was dispatched to France as ambassador of the United States in 1776, he won the hearts of the French through his authenticity. Rather than take on an affected and phony continental style, Franklin eschewed the powdered wig of the European gentleman and donned the fur cap of an American frontiersman. Original genius and polymath, Franklin understood that the French would see through any false pretension but respect an authenticity that sprang from an unpretentious and naive love of country.

What a contrast there is between Franklin and Barack Obama. Obama is a Harvard lawyer who is a mile wide and an inch deep. He is only the latest in a long line of shallow elites that consider it stylish and intellectual to despise their own culture and heritage.

Nothing exemplifies Obama’s antipathy for American culture better than his statement that Americans “cling to” religion and guns out of frustration or bitterness. We only can suppose that Obama regards religion or firearms as aberrations that need to be eradicated.

Of course, both guns and religion are essential aspects of American culture. The United States was founded by people seeking religious freedom. Does the word “Pilgrim” ring a bell with anyone? Our freedom and the right to self-government were won by farmers with guns.

The American Revolution started when the British marched to Concord with the intention of confiscating colonial arms. Both the right to “keep and bear arms,” and the right to “free exercise” of religion are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We have come a long way when the presidential nominee of a major political party regards the exercise of fundamental rights as a mental aberration.

When Obama refers to “my Muslim faith,” the verbal gaffe resonates as a Freudian slip because of Obama’s thinly veiled hatred for this country’s unique culture and institutions. Obama sat for 20 years in a church where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr preached “goddamn America.” He only resigned from the congregation when it became politically expedient to do so. When earlier this year, Michelle Obama said “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” can we conclude that her husband disagrees? Is it not remarkable that Michelle Obama can be so small-minded as to find nothing in the history of the United States that merits her admiration but the personal success of her husband?

What is Barack Obama for? His campaign motto is “change.” But even a 6-year-old child understands that “change” can be either good or bad. Lacking specifics, the invocation of “change” as policy is completely empty. As we witness Obama’s minions mindlessly endorse the meaningless maxim of “change,” it only can call to mind the barnyard animals in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” chanting “four legs good, two legs bad!”

The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has been devastating for the Obama campaign precisely because she is everything Obama is not. Palin is not ashamed of her culture or country. She is not embarrassed by being an American, but naively embraces her birthright. Unassisted by affirmative action, Palin has risen to national prominence on the basis of her character, intelligence and natural gifts. In a word, she has guts. This is a woman who is proud of her country, not because it has granted her personal success, but because she respects what America stands for: freedom, opportunity, and individualism.

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

DAVID DEMING is an associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma, but his opinions do not necessarily represent those of the university.

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.

CatholicVote Releases Election Video

As the partisans of buggery, abortion and Marxism see their once bright chance for the Presidency slipping away, they have become frantic and unable to contain their hatred. The most obvious target for their bile is the national figure who stands in starkest contrast to their culture of death, Governor Sarah Palin.

It is becoming clear with each passing day that this is truly a pivotal election. Will America continue in the path of a Christian nation "under God," or reject the ways of God and His blessings?

The CatholicVote organization has prepared the following video to help America's 67 million Catholics grasp how much is at stake.

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.

GOP Platform Reverses Bush Pro-Amnesty Stance

From NumbersUSA

Republicans ratified a Party platform this week that reversed the pro-amnesty plank President Bush laid out in the 2004 platform. The platform states that the GOP opposes amnesty, supports border security, and calls for "smarter" interior enforcement against illegal workers and lawbreaking employers alike.

The platform says "smarter" enforcement necessitates the use of E-Verify:

(W)e must empower employers so they can know with confidence that those they hire are permitted to work. That means that the E-Verify system—which is an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees—must be reauthorized. A phased in requirement that employers use the E-Verify system must be enacted.

Moreover, the platform calls for denial of federal funds to sanctuary cities and denial of Social Security and other public benefits, including driver’s licenses, to illegal aliens except where required under federal law.

Unfortuately, the Party also included language calling for more permanent foreign high-tech workers under the H-1B program. This abused program has displaced domestic high-tech workers and driven down their wages. As such, this part of the Party's plank would hurt, not help, struggling American workers (click here to see current unemployment statistics.)

A platform represents a Party's stances on a range of policy issues, and is normally written to satisfy its base. The Wall Street Journal reports Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the chairman of the platform drafting committee, as saying the Party had opted for a "smaller, more principled, more forward-looking" platform this year that didn't emphasize its nominee before Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was chosen as its flag bearer.

The platform runs counter to the “comprehensive immigration reform” bill pushed by Sen. McCain last year, although the candidate now says he wants to pursue border security first before legalizing the 10-20 million illegal aliens in this country. Some delegates tried to offer platform language that opposed "amnesty or any kind of comprehensive immigration reform." This amendment was rejected when some members argued it was a slap at Sen. McCain. In the end, Sen. McCain did not initiate a fight over any platform positions that ran contrary to his own beliefs.

The platform marks a dramatic shift from the 2004 platform on immigration. That platform called for amnesty and pushed brining in even more foreign workers under a "temporary" guest-worker program.

A Vote For Sarah Palin

From First Things
By Suann Therese Maier

Three memories have shaped my approach to this year’s general election.

Here’s the first. In the late 1970s, during a two-year break from teaching to raise our second son, an adopted child, I found myself at a Los Angeles dinner party filled with DINKs, the “double income, no kids” crowd who were just emerging as a self-aware and upwardly mobile social group. I fell to talking—or more accurately, listening—to a chatty young female attorney who said she was putting in eighty hours a week as a junior associate on a variety of important cases.

After twenty minutes or so, she finally noticed my silence and asked me what I did with my own time. So I told her. I told her about the young couple that had asked my husband and me to adopt their baby if we covered their hospital expenses. I told her about waiting outside the delivery room for our son to be born. I told her about the bureaucratic maze that came with finalizing the adoption of a newborn. I told her about borrowing money from friends so we’d look more solvent than we actually were to Social Service inspectors who checked our accounts.

“That’s wonderful dear,” she said. “You’re so lucky not to have a real job.”

Here’s the second memory. I remember my fourth child, our son Dan, being born one winter evening, purple and struggling for breath. I remember my husband pouring water over his head as we baptized him in my arms. I remember the young Filipina doctor rushing Dan to intensive care. I remember the ten days of his fighting for life. And I remember Dan’s diagnosis, when it finally came in: Down syndrome.

Here’s the third memory. I remember my father, a successful young Chicago attorney, telling me why the Democratic party was the party of “our people,” and why so many Catholics were Democrats, and why the party stood for the little guy, the poor and the defenseless. I remember listening as a young girl in our kitchen as Saul Alinsky organized my parents’ Catholic friends on racial and economic issues in our Chicago living room. And I remember the night in 1992 when Pennsylvania’s governor, Robert Casey, was denied a chance to talk against abortion at the Democratic national convention.

As I draw on those memories now, I reach certain conclusions. As a woman, mother, wife, and lifetime professional educator, I will vote, enthusiastically, for Sarah Palin as vice president this November. Even if the media pressure forces her from the ticket, I will vote against the Democratic party—partly because I respect John McCain and believe him to be the better candidate, but equally because I’m tired of the intransigence and condescension of the Democratic leadership on the abortion issue.

I will vote for Sarah Palin because I don’t need the Democratic platform’s belated affirmation of motherhood. Thanks, but I already know that motherhood is good, several times over. Moreover, the party’s rediscovery of motherhood seems rather cynical in the current news cycle, while Democratic-friendly bloggers and media types bash Palin about her daughter’s pregnancy and her own busy schedule while bringing up children. How can a real sympathy for motherhood come from the same people who wrote a platform that hardens the party’s addiction to a phony right to kill the unborn?

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried.

In fact, while we’re on the subject, I also know what it means to have two grandchildren born out of wedlock, a son struggling with alcohol, two grandchildren with serious disabilities, putting myself through graduate school while simultaneously caring for a husband and children and teaching full time—and a whole lot more. This is the stuff of real human love; this is the raw material of family life. And those who think that Palin’s beliefs and family struggles are funny or worth jeering at, simply reveal the venality of their own hearts.

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she is intelligent, tenacious and talented. Nobody made her rise easy, and no one is making it easy now. And—is it only moms who notice this?—unlike Senator Biden, she does seem to act consistently on her beliefs about the sanctity of life, at considerable personal cost.

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she doesn’t come from Washington or New York or Chicago or anywhere else the political and media aristoi like to hang out. In fact, I especially like the idea that the state she governs actually produces something—like some of the oil that powers the hair dryers and klieg lights at MSNBC.

I will vote for Sarah Palin because Roe v. Wade is bad law, and it needs to fall. I don’t doubt the intelligence and character of men like Doug Kmiec, the younger Bob Casey, and others who sympathize with the Obama campaign. But I do doubt their judgment. At the end of the day, the Democratic party in 2008 has conceded nothing to pro-life Democrats. The fact that Sen. Obama listens respectfully to pro-lifers without calling them reactionary dunces does not constitute progress. Results and behavior are what matter. On both those counts, the party has again failed to show any real sensitivity to pro-life concerns. In that light, high profile Catholics who support Obama are simply rationalizing their surrender on Roe.

Finally, I will vote for Sarah Palin, not because I’ve left the Democratic party of my youth and young adulthood, but because that party has left me. In fact, it no longer exists. And no amount of elegant speaking, exciting choreography, and moral alibis will bring it back.

That’s the real tragedy of this election.

Suann Therese Maier, the mother of four and former director of non-profit support organizations for pregnant women and children with disabilities, is a teacher in Colorado.

Obama's Ties to Weather Underground Terrorist William Ayers

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