These truths lead to one conclusion:  Mitt Romney is the candidate America needs to lead us into the future.

To deny these truths is to deny the inevitable loss of our direction for the next four, if not eight, critical years.

Mitt Romney.  Our hope for the future.

Biting the (free market) hand that feeds you .... flaunting "bipartisanship" as a means of achieving less-than-conservative goals .... a "slash-and-burn" mentality to confront those who dare to think differently or challenge you ....

For all that ails our nation, I see John McCain as part of the problem.  IMO -- he will never rally the core-constituents needed to prevent Bill Clinton's 3rd and 4th terms.  Never.  No matter how many of the old guard rally around him.  Never.

The GOP; the Grand Old Party; the Guardians of Palimony (my next blog topic).

John McCain as a patriot?  Pfffffth.  The man is a survivor.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

I have this eerie, sickening feeling that GOP party bosses have already decided that John McCain's longevity has somehow  "earned" him the nominee mantle. 

To think that the future of our party and the fate of this nation are to be represented by a cantankerous, mean-spirited old man whose cancer-bloated skin cannot hide the malice that eats from within.

And that -- if McCain is our party nominee -- is my concession speech to the Republican Party.

McCain's desperate antics to delay the inevitable (i.e., falsely accusing Romney of supporting a time-line withdrawal of troops in Iraq) was immediately criticized by pundits, political analysts and left-leaning media as a desperate attempt to reverse the trend of voter preference in Florida. 

Those who have consistently questioned John McCain's sanity and verisimilitude are now joined by even the left-leaning Time/CNN and the New York Times: 


Time/CNN:  "McCain says that he thinks this amounts to Romney supporting a drop-dead deadline for withdrawing troops. But that's not what happened. A more fair reading of the exchange shows that Romney was instead talking about private benchmarks that would allow Bush and Maliki to measure success or failure. In fact, Romney says flat out that he would veto any bill from Congress that contained such a timetable for withdrawal.

But even if Romney had explicitly supported withdrawal, what exactly does McCain mean by demanding that Romney apologize to American troops? Is McCain suggesting that any American who opposed the surge was somehow not supporting American troops? Is he saying that it is unpatriotic to debate American policy in Iraq? It sure sounds like it. And it is an unbecoming posture for McCain, who has been boasting in recent days about the "respectful debate" he would have with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama should he win the nomination.

NYT:  "But Mr. Romney has not called for setting a date for withdrawal. Mr. Romney has said he supports the president’s current strategy, although he has said he anticipates more and more American troops moving into a support role in Iraq in the next year — similar to what Gen. David H. Petraeus outlined in his testimony before Congress last year. " 


The man who describes himself as a legend in his own mind actually is.

In an effort to salvage his one-horse run for the Presidency, the  Robert-Byrd-of-the-Right has now pawned our troops.


More comments from the blogosphere:


MyManMitt:  "Were this simply a case of McCain misrepresenting Romney on an issue, it would be any other day of the week. But consider that at this time last year, McCain embraced the very same thing for which he is attacking Romney today. To quote from the article:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.
...
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

From The Corner:  

"I'm starting to think Sen. McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates' names within 30 days before a primary.  I mean, he levels an allegation about Romney that's just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an add calling him on it, they would be in violation of his "reform" of campaign finance regulations.  What a racket!"

"Since McCain and his surrogates insist on making this a big issue, let's engage them. They are dissembling about what Romney said. I have provided quotes below. We have now heard from Woolsey, who is repeating the disinformation. And we have now viewed the video-tape, which clears Romney of the allegation, i.e., he did not call for a specific time to withdraw our troops. Now, if this is the big bombshell the McCain campaign is using in the days before the Florida vote (albeit people are casting votes throughout via absentee ballots), it's pretty disgraceful stuff. Even the Associated Press has figured it [out]. "

"[Bob] Bennett's been a McCain defender, certainly more than other conservative radio-talk-show hosts. On CNN, he just called today's Iraq hit on Romney "below the belt" and said "honor has been McCain's watchword" — he should admit that was wrong to do."


more coming -- McCain is now on CNN.    Damn --- he even looks like Robert Byrd!

Main stream media is becoming more overt in suggesting how and what they want conservatives voters to think ....  Their message is either direct or by slant or by subtle undertone.  It's as if they really believe that conservatives are either “hicks, hayseeds or rednecks.”  Oh, yeah -- and religious fanatics.

The media alternately portrays the race for the Republican ticket as either a crusade -- a battle of the Christian right against the less-than-right Christians/non-Christians -- or as a subtle display of their own religious bigotry and hypocrisy.

They mock Mike Huckabee and his double-wide (pun), double-standards. 

[But then, anyone to the left of Chuck Norris mocks the Huckster.]

They subliminally tell us that Romney's wealth and success as a governor and entrepreneur are directly related to his Mormonism.   (Which, according to Mike Huckabee and other bigots, is a cult.)

They promote candidates who share their views and either ignore or ridicule those who don't.   Examples: McCain on his Immigration policy, Hillary on her claims of experience, Obama on the meaning of the title of his book.

 

Hicks, hayseeds and rednecks.  And religious fanatics. 

Brings to mind Thomas Sowell's Random Thoughts:
  

I can't get as fiercely involved as some other people do in controversies about the origins of human life on earth. I wasn't there.

One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans— anything except reason.

Barack Obama is the newest face on the political scene, expressing some of the oldest notions. Virtually everything he says is vintage 1960s rhetoric, as if he has learned nothing from the many disasters that 1960s notions have led to in the decades since then.

People who lament the small percentages of women in some high-end jobs seem unaware that top jobs often involve 70 or 80 hours of work per week. A mother may work that many hours at home taking care of a family, without adding the same number of hours at the office.

A recent study showed the median income of major corporate CEOs to be about $8 million a year. That's less than a third of what Alex Rodriguez earns and less than one-thirtieth of what Oprah Winfrey makes. But no one is denouncing them for "greed."

It is amazing how many people who want us to get out of Iraq want us to go into Darfur.

A joke says that a poll was taken in California, asking if people thought illegal immigration was a serious problem. The results showed that 29 percent said, "Yes, there is a serious problem." But 71 percent said, "No es una problema seriosa."

People who refuse to face the reality of hard choices are forever coming up with some clever "third way"— often leading to worse disasters than either of the hard choices.

Sometimes it looks as if the Democrats are out to win at all costs, while the Republicans are out to compromise at all costs.

Although I am ready to defend what I have said, many people expect me to defend what others have attributed to me.

A reader says that Connecticut's "Three Strikes" law is so weak that it is more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."

Wise people created civilization over the centuries and clever people are dismantling it today. You can see it happening just by channel surfing on TV or hear it in rap music or read it in the pompous nonsense of academics and judges.

Tennis star James Blake never seems to be relaxed during a match. Maybe he would be ranked even higher if he could relax. Most sports require some combination of concentration and relaxation— and too much of either is a big handicap.

Many on the political left are so entranced by the beauty of their vision that they cannot see the ugly reality they are creating in the real world.

With all the old movie favorites being shown again and again on television, it is remarkable that the old movie classic "Alfie" is seldom shown. Could it be fear that the scene where cold-blooded Alfie breaks down and cries at the sight of an aborted baby is something that would unleash the furies of the feminazis?

It is amazing how many people see no problem with having pay levels determined according to what third parties would like to see, instead of according to supply and demand.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all— and the government should step in.

Despite people who speak glibly of "earlier and simpler times," all that makes earlier times seem simpler is our ignorance of their complexities.

We all believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Some on the left believe that they are innocent even after being proven guilty.

Chutzpah department: When disbarred former D.A. Michael Nifong mailed his Bar card back to his state Bar Association, he included a note decrying "the fundamental unfairness" with which the Bar had treated him. This from a man who was ready to ruin three lives and polarize a community, in order to win an election.

"Fundamental unfairness?"    The very idea.

Nifong was a democrat, wasn't he?   And defended by the main stream media, as I recall ....

Call this my "catch up" post .... pneumonia sorta knocks the wind outta ya, IYKWIM.  Back to earth.  Back to earth. 

McCain and ANWR .... Not that it matters, actually.  ANWR drilling will not be a campaign issue in the near future.   But credibility will.  

Hugh Hewitt's original and recent post on McCain and his ANWR statements brought back old memories (not to mention another reason to affirm John-boy as a legend in his own mind and -- for all of his 70-plus years -- as one not well versed in the natural beauty/resources abounding in this glorious land). 


I spent 3-months tent-camping in Alaska -- mostly north of Fairbanks one spring-summer not long ago.  Of that time, a few days were spent north of the Arctic Circle, so I speak from real time, real life experience.   Not those gained by camera via an airplane or a Discovery Channel documentary, but on [a subsequently admitted foolish] drive to the top of the world.

I was lucky to get out of that region.  And it had nothing to do with grizzlies or black bears or charging moose or elk (I never had time to ask if I'd just been charged by a caribou). 

My trusty jeep, my beloved dog and I were lucky to survive Mother Nature doing what she does naturally in a desolate, relatively uninhabitable region which is "home" to neither man nor wildlife.  (Oh, they may pass through, but they certainly don't call it home.) 

Contrary to McCain's observations -- ANWR is NOT comparable to the Grand Canyon or to Yellowstone or to the Everglades.   I've seen them all; the contrast between these natural reserves goes far beyond beauty being "in the eye of the beholder."   

But I digress.

A quote from Dean Barnett sums it best: 

Then again, has John McCain ever been to ANWR? We've inquired of the McCain campaign three separate times in the past day whether McCain knows of ANWR's epic beauty from first hand experience. Regardless of whether or not the senator has ever been there, his comments on ANWR reside somewhere on a continuum between laughable blustering and ignorant blustering.

I suggest blustering ignorance. 

My experiences aside (including a year in Vietnam while McCain was held as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton), I'm not impressed when I hear someone spouting off about something he obviously knows nothing.  Who's McCain trying to impress?  Environmentalists? 

IMO, the decision to drill should be a state or regional decision, and, if in the affirmative --  the federal government should act to revise and/or amend related legislation to support that decision. 

We're talking survival here.  We're talking about our dependence on oil.  To counter the environmentalists (assuming that's possible) -- we're not talking about a concerted or reckless effort to destroy the environment or an ecological system.  We're talking about retrieving an energy source that lies beneath our land.  We're talking about retrieving a critical resource via technological advances which impair neither our natural refuges nor our natural vistas. 

My objection(s) to John McCain's candidacy go far beyond ANWR or a state's right to retrieve it's natural resources.  The man graduated near the bottom of his Navy class and personally crashed at least two airplanes as a pilot.    But surely, a man who claims to have traveled the globe in the cause of America's fate and future would know more about its geography.


On second thought .... maybe John was thinking about the "pristine" beauty captured in an image of the tundra during the unfathomable cold of winter under the polar auroras ....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sklBatcXAhs

A musical interlude for the Huckster fans ....

It's going to be difficult.  But I'm optimistic.  Supporters must remember that tallies in both Iowa and NH were foiled by a liberal base.  Neither Huckabee nor McCain have faced a truly conservative voter-base. 

I want Mitt to continue to hit hard on the problems in Washington.  I want him to remind voters that (fine man that he is yadayadayada) McCain has been part of the problem in Washington .... McCain has been no friend to conservatism; no friend to the issues of immigration, free speech, ethics, low taxes. 

I want Mitt to demonstrate his expertise in economics.  He must set his own agenda and refuse to be distracted.  He must remain optimistic about the revival of the auto industry market.  He must remind voters that, while education and retraining are critical to industry revival, McCain's trillion-dollar educational reform package is not going to relieve the state's economy. 

And no one has yet asked McCain how he's going to pay for it .... ASK!  Ask McCain who is going to pay the trillion-dollar budget to fund his unemployment/re-training project. 

As for Kos suggesting that dems cross over and vote for Mitt, come on over, kidlets!  You crossed-over in NH -- what's new?  The "newness" will be in getting it right this time!

More here.

Leadership.



Today.  For tomorrow.

I've always held the Vietnam vet in high esteem.  I was with them -- literally and figuratively -- and experienced first-hand the harassment and spite they have endured.  That being said -- I have historically distrusted John McCain for how he has used his military service (particularly as a POW) as a crutch to further his political career. 

His political career always has that subliminal disclaimer: "...yeah, but he was a military hero ..."   As if he's "entitled" to forgiveness when straying from his conservative roots or ethics.

My contention is that, had his father not been an admiral, his lack-luster record (including the loss of at least 2 airplanes) would have gotten him thrown out of the military or notably demoted.  For whatever he didn't accomplish -- it was not until his POW status that he gained any esteem. 

Is this relevant to his run for an office to which he has always aspired?

I think so.  There are too many correlations and incidents of self-service, entitlements and compromise in his background to qualify him as a reliable conservative candidate for POTUS.  Much less as commander-in-chief in a volatile time.
 

If you choose to disagree -- fine.  But when you do, keep in mind his voting record, his defense of amnesty, his history of sanctions by his peers, his emotional instability, his flip-flops and inconsistencies in promoting basic conservative tenets. 

----------------

From Pat Murphy:

Those who've known John McCain since he began his Arizona political career two decades ago made two mistakes. First, we underestimated the Washington media's gullibility for a political schmooze job. Second, we underestimated McCain's mastery in reincarnating himself as a lovable maverick glowing with political virtue and amiable charm while camouflaging his bullyboy and deceitful ways.

If McCain were to become president, Americans would wake up to more than a commander-in-chief with a prickly temperament and a low boiling point. McCain is a man who carries get-even grudges. He cannot endure criticism. He threatens. He controls by fear.  He's consumed with self-importance. He shifts blame. McCain's thin skin and demand to have it his way have been obvious since infancy, when he held his breath until he was unconscious, and later in Washington, where he has resorted to pushing and shoving colleagues when irritated.

McCain is a man obsessed with political ambitions but plagued by self-destructive petty impulses. It was vintage McCain who exploded when the Arizona Republic questioned whether the man dubbed "Senator Hothead" in Washington is fit to be entrusted with presidential powers. Instead of conceding what's common knowledge about his volcanic personality, McCain exploded in denial, blaming a newspaper vendetta and George W. Bush for "orchestrating" the criticism. When his claims drew snickers, McCain shifted to another explanation: He explodes when he sees "injustice."

But this sort of blame-fixing works where it counts--with reporters who've come to blindly lionize McCain as a high-minded champion of political virtue fighting demons of political corruption. Perhaps McCain's master stroke in inoculating himself from serious media

scrutiny was his early fusillade of confessions--his adultery ruined his first marriage, the Keating Five scandal was a blemish on his reputation, he indulged in wild and reckless misbehavior as an Annapolis midshipman. He finally endeared himself to the media with

his Quixotic promise to reform campaign financing and by holding court with reporters aboard his "Straight Talk Express" bus.

The new journalism of dwelling on personalities rather than tedious investigative digging gives McCain a free ride from the national media. Swooning media ensure McCain special treatment in the right places: 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace cooed on the air that he likes McCain so much, he might leave TV to become his press secretary. Salon's Jake Tapper dubbed him "basically just a cool dude." Newsmen of another generation note that reporters covering McCain also are reluctant to seem tough on a man with McCain's painful experience as a prisoner of war.

One who hasn't been so quick to fall in line is Washington Post columnist David Broder, who warned on NBC's Meet the Press that "after the experience we all had with President Clinton [ignoring Arkansas reports of his misdeeds], I'm not inclined to discount the view of home-state reporters and journalists who have covered a candidate over the years." A few enterprising non-Arizona journalists have peeled back the McCain veneer. Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson spent several weeks digging into McCain's Arizona behavior and reporting his dark side. Ditto Ted Rose of Brill's Content. And the acknowledged Arizona media expert on

McCain, reporter Amy Silverman of the Phoenix New Times (more on her later), gave readers of Playboy a McCain portrait not found elsewhere. ABC's Sam Donaldson came close to giving millions of viewers a clearer picture in a taped interview with Silverman for 20/20. But

the segment was canceled the night before airing, fueling speculation that McCain's oversight of broadcasters as Senate Commerce Committee chairman makes the networks wary of offending him. Several years ago, when NBC refused to support his TV-rating system, McCain wrote a letter to NBC President Robert Wright, threatening to ask the FCC to review licenses of the network's locally owned stations.

I'm among the swelling ranks of onetime McCain acquaintances ostracized for not being slavishly loyal. After McCain settled in Arizona with his young second wife, a millionaire, he asked me at dinner for help with a political career. As editorial page editor (and later publisher) of the Arizona Republic, I declined to be his political coach. However, we socialized, including dinners at his home. We even discussed writing a book. The relationship ended, however, when our newspaper exposed McCain as a liar who used an underhanded political trick.

Here is what happened: McCain boasted to my wife and me over lunch in Washington that he had planted complex questions with the Senate Interior Committee chairman to sabotage the testimony of Arizona Gov. Rose Mofford, a Democrat, about the Central Arizona Project, the multibillion-dollar Colorado River water delivery system for Arizona urban areas. When I protested to McCain that the project had enjoyed bipartisan support for nearly 50 years, from conservative Barry Goldwater to liberal Morris Udall, McCain retorted: "I'm duty bound to embarrass a Democrat whenever I can."

When reporters later asked McCain about planted questions, he feigned insult and injury and denied any such ploy. Editors in Phoenix were informed of McCain's deceit. After a news story and editorial appeared, McCain went into meltdown, shrieking on the phone: "I know you're out to get me!" (Several years later, McCain admitted the dirty trick and apologized to Mofford, who was then out of office.)

When Barbara Barrett, wife of Intel CEO Craig Barrett, ran against McCain's protégé, Gov. Fife Symington, McCain offered to buy her out of the 1994 GOP primary. She refused. Furious, McCain threatened revenge. Barrett lost, but Symington later was forced out of office after being convicted of seven counts of fraud (his conviction was overturned and is under appeal). McCain's wife was a front-row regular at Symington's criminal trial in Phoenix. McCain still calls Symington "my friend."

While Barrett, a successful attorney, emerged mostly unscathed, others weren't so lucky. Maricopa County (Phoenix) schools superintendent Sandra Dowling, a Republican, refused McCain's demand to abandon support of Barrett. Dowling told Morley Safer during a 60 Minutes interview about Arizona politics (which never aired) that McCain exploded and threatened to "destroy" her. Thereafter, her son lost his appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, where McCain sits as an ex officio member of the Board of Visitors. McCain denied any connection.

Even former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, McCain's onetime senior aide who

considered succeeding him in Congress, was purged from the senator's circle for investigating Symington and refusing to seek McCain's advice as a loyal understudy.

More of McCain's style:

McCain indulges in hypocrisy with a flair. He attacks tobacco but ignores alcohol. Why? His wife's millions flow from the family beer and wine distributorship, Arizona's largest.

The affable, candid, gregarious candidate, who mingles with reporters and yuks it up in the back of the bus, is no friend of free speech, and merely tolerates and uses the press as part of his political strategy. In Arizona, McCain tries to subdue reporters by threatening to have them fired when he's displeased with their pieces. Upset about critical reporting in the Phoenix New Times by Amy Silverman, McCain complained to her father, Richard, general manager of the Salt River Project, an Arizona hydroelectric utility. McCain's intent seemed clear: muscling the federally chartered SRP in hopes Silverman would pressure his daughter to back off.

One of my Arizona neighbors, Dianne Smith, wrote McCain protesting his criticism of Anita Hill in confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. A widow then in her sixties, Smith was flabbergasted when McCain telephoned her, shouting at her for "questioning my integrity."

McCain promised Arizona voters, "I've never tried to exploit my Vietnam service to my country because it would be totally inappropriate." But his presidential campaign is festooned with reminders of his POW years, from campaign videos to speeches to best-selling books, trying to capture the veterans vote.

Even as he moralizes about corrupt corporate money, McCain rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars from Washington lobbyists and asks corporations for use of their jets for campaigning. Last year, the Washington Post documented thousands of dollars of donations to McCain's political war chest from K Street lobbyists who do business before the Senate Commerce Committee.

McCain himself has acknowledged that he intervenes before regulatory agencies with letters on behalf of campaign donors, but claims he's merely performing a "constituent service"--the same explanation he used when initially defending himself in the Keating Five scandal. As a peevish lobbyist told Newsweek: "He sees no connection between twisting our arms for money and then talking about how corrupt the system is."

The John McCain glamorized by the national media is a total stranger to Arizonans who are painfully familiar with a far coarser and more foreboding man. His victory in the New Hampshire primary may bring greater scrutiny. Instead of treating him as a lovable maverick and quotable long shot, the national media that have been fawning over him are certain to begin digging seriously into the McCain background that has turned so many of his home-state Republicans against him.

The insincerity of John McCain .....

From The Carpetbagger Report:

"... McCain is once again abandoning any pretense of consistency and integrity, and is now willing to say literally anything to win.

Let’s return, once again, to McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwellas “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt,spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade."


Just don't make him mad.  The capacity to strike out in anger has never waivered.