Self-destructed - from 06 to today, and the way to climb back

Going into yesterday, I told those that asked me that I gave McCain a 40% shot to win. I thought he had a shot at Pennsylvania. If he didn't win there, he had to run the table. I didn't think that could be done. My realistic odds were closer to 30% than 40%. Part of that was the McCain campaign's doing. Most of it was due to Congress, Bush, and Washington screwing up. This was not that hard to see coming. I'm not going to post anything close to the election that would decrease turnout on the right.

Obama's strategy was largely built on the 2000 Bush message and 2004 Bush organization with a few tweaks. Bush won largely thanks to the classic outsider message and by winning the ground game. Bush's people had a tin ear when it came to policy related issues, but they are ace organizers, and the difference was striking between 08 and 04. As far as Obama's campaign organization, Obama used to organize for a living. He was one of ACORN's best people. Seeing 2000 and 2004, the plan was all laid out for him and Axelrod. Obama expanded on the 2000 Bush strategy with with the financial jaggernault, a media in the tank for him, gullible voters and capitalizing on blunders. The one good thing I can say is that anytime one party gets total control of government, they eventually screw up badly. The Democrats will screw up badly, eventually. Chicago style Daley Machine Politics is coming to America. The bad part is that I'm going to get screwed as well as those who voted for them. Until then, protect your wallet, buy some more guns and ammo before the new bans (as soon as a high profile shooting takes place - it will nickle and dime us out), get out of the market before the capital gain increases and switch to other investments. They are going to do for this country what Granholm is doing here. Don't bitch to me about it if you voted for him. He's your president, not mine.

However the title of this isn't about how bad of a president Obama is going to be. It's titled Self-destructed - from 06 to today, and the way to climb back. I've always been a believer in taking care of our own house first. You don't beat even an empty suit with nothing. The worst aspect of the last few years in Congress is that the few real alternatives and the piss poor communication (and some cases, stepping on) of any alternatives that did exist. That was the biggest problem of the Bush administration and Congressional leadership.

1. Mistake number one is this. When Congress/Senate got its ass kicked in 2006, why did we put the same people in charge of leadership? Whips were put in charge when leaders were needed. John Boehner and Roy Blunt are not leaders. What alternatives to the crap from Pelosi that Boehner/Blunt proposed? Where was the fight against big government? They let Pelosi run the show and at most just said no and lost the vote. That's unacceptable. They needed then to put Pence (Who won with 65% overall and 56% in a county that Obama won with similar margin) Shadegg, and Hensarling in charge. They need to do that now, or at the very least take a page out of that playbook or they will not take Congress back, even when Obama screws up. Stop following and start leading. The GOP Congress spent time letting Bush do all the leading (he's not a leader. He'll sometimes take a stand, but there's more to leadership that just that.) and even stepped on the leadership of some of their own members at the behest of DC consultants and beltway people. That's unacceptable. That needs to change and change now.

2. Bailout. Bailout. Bailout. McCain sealed his defeat by his handling the bailout situation and never recovered. That lost much of the blue collar vote nationwide. After the house defeated the "crap sandwich" the first time, he suspends his campaign, and votes for a worse bill. McCain could have been the Maverick and fought this bailout bill for saying what it was, a bad bill, then offered an alternative. McCain's biggest strength was his fiscal restraint and he lost it there. Both parties were behind the bailout.

3. You had a matching funds candidate taking on a 500 million dollar machine, plus the union leadership, plus the media completely in the tank for Obama, plus the congressional money. There's only one way to fight against that and it is to run against the big money special interests. Run against them, expose them. What happened to taking down their names and making them famous? That needed to be done much more often than it was.

4. Cliff Taylor. This was the worst loss. We knew that Jon Stryker and his gazillions was going to try and take him out and we were unprepared to strike back. I saw a couple of anti-Hathaway ads, but why didn't we fight back with better ones, like Michigan's Surpreme Court being considered the best in the country, and show the voters why he deserved to keep the job. I did not see one Cliff Taylor sign. I tried for three months to get one. Most people did not know who Cliff Taylor was, but the democrats made sure their people did. The GOP has been counting on the incumbent tag and has neglected these races for years, counting on the Michigan Chamber of Commerce to do the job for them. The Chamber needs more help.

5. Conceding the state. Whoever that aide was that announced McCain was pulling out of Michigan needs to get blacklisted. If you pull out of states, you don't announce it to the world. That gets you tagged as a quitter. Even that aside, I was not laughing at Howard Dean's 50 state strategy in 2004. Reagan won 49 states. Probably more impressive given the quality of candidates, the first Bush won 426 electoral votes. Nobody comes close to that today. McCain lost many of his votes by not fighting hard there. Bush made the same mistake in 2000, but was able to run the table.

6. No planning whatsoever. When the party throws as many people to the wolves as they did, there needs to be mass firings up and down the board. This crap has gone on for too long and is a big reason why you will never see me ever donate to the NRCC or NRSC. The conventional way hasn't worked. The 1994 way did. It's a great blueprint. Stop tossing tough seats to the wolves and conceding them before it gets started. Limiting the playing field limits victories to running the table. Hell, this year in the senate, the NRSC considered losing 4 seats a victory. What the hell is that about? Losing one is defeat, but I expect to win every game I play. The worst case was in Arkansas. Pryor was almost unopposed. No Republican ran.

After 06, I posted these pieces and much of what I said then applies today.

First is why I supported Mike Pence for minority leader. Second is is Newt's advice about turning 2008 into 1994. That didn't happen. That did not happen largely due to putting the same people with the same strategy in charge. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Lastly in 2006, I said then that it was time for Big Government Conservatism to end. Two words with that. The bailout.

That common sense I posted in 2006 wasn't followed, and we got our asses kicked as a result. Now we're back in 1976 all over again. Now this is what I would do if I was GOP boss, both state or federal.

1. Run a slate in each state taylored to the dynamics of each state (or localities within the state). Obama's the money machine. They have a lot of money to defend seats. Run against the fat cats, K Street, and rich leftist hypocrites funding them. Contest all races, and pick a half-dozen issues to run on. Criteria for these candidates - no rematches. Once you're knocked out of congress, that's it. Game over. New blood is needed, as well as new ideas to change Washington without being changed by Washington. The slate needs to be by state. At the same time, that means putting up with Republicans who may be more liberal or conservative than others on some issues depending on the issues. That I'll get to more in "balance." Run on the 70% issues. This is to get around the money defecit that will happen under the Obama regime.

2. Balance. Outside of being a great communicator, this is what Reagan brought that people forget. He knew what played well in which state, and found a way to balance Western libertarians, Midwest conservative populists, Security voters, Northeast Rockefeller Republicans, and Southern Conservatives, and even was able to win California which while at one time was more Republican friendly, was never a conservative state statewide. The Republicans lost this when they ditched states rights. This more than anything else is the problem that Bush and Congress had. They alienated all groups here as some time or another. That I pin mostly on Bush's policies. This needs to be remembered with any nationalized campaign. Hit those 70% issues. Then leave the rest of the stuff to the states where it belongs. We don't need a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. I don't live in Massachusetts. I live in Michigan. We don't need DC'ers running our states. That goes for perscription drugs bills, no child left behind, and all the other "compassionate conservatism" stuff that was pushed over the last eight years. Leaving things to the states is what preserved the big tent.

3. Don't neglect the intellectual side of conservatism, especially limited government. We need the "Joe the plumbers" but we also need the Jerry Zandstras. Without the ideas, a party is bankrupt. Without practicality, a party is still in perpetitual defeat. Both are needed. This side has been neglected over the past few years in all areas outside of foreign policy, and even that is debatable. Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, and Dick Armey were never replaced in Congress. I don't always agree with them, but when they left was when the mismanagement really started to begin.

3. Screw mandates. They don't exist. Period. The democrats never let Bush have a mandate. In 2004, when the GOP gained seats along with the presidency, there was no mandate. Bush thought he had one. He thought wrong. In 1992, Bill Clinton thought he had a mandate. He thought wrong. "Mandates" last as long as the policy is accepted by the people. No more, no less. Those who think otherwise, overreach and lose their jobs. That goes for Democrat and Republican alike. If the GOP buys into the mandate talk, they'll lose more seats.

5. Run on the 70% issues. We can start with balancing the budget without raising taxes, something a democrat congress has not done since before my lifetime. It was the 1994 Republicans that did it. Other issues. Ballot integrity which democrats hate because they sometimes steal elections. These issues need to be brought up immediately when Obama takes office. The GOP members of Congress need to lead, communicate the message, and tell Pelosi, Reid and Obama to put up or shut up on fiscal responsibility. Pence brought in a balanced budget before. It got voted down by his own party. Guess who is still in office and ran ahead of the ticket. Guess whose leadership got an ass kicking. It's time to lead, and make them follow or at the very least, get the hell out of the way like Clinton did to an extent after 94.

Maybe this time Congressional leadership got the message and will stop listening to the DC beltway. If not, maybe their seats go next.

NRA endorses McCain

I saw this coming as soon as it was a McCain v Obama race. The NRA is if nothing else, pragmatic. I don't agree with them giving McCain a flat out endorsement, although I agree with their "Defeat Obama" campaign. This isn't the Joe Schwarz endorsement which was pitiful of a clear anti vs clear pro. This election here is a leans our way vs the worst ever. It was a pragmatic pick from a pragmatic organization. Among gun organizations in Michigan, you have NRA's pragmatism sometimes to a fault, GOA's ideologues sometimes to a fault, and SAFR being at IMO, the rights spot in-between. MCRGO is just a joke and has been since June of 2002. American Hunters and Shooters Association is a fraudulent group that is a gun control organization committing astroturf in an attempt to look pro-gun and split gunowners away from voting against gun grabbers like Obama. Look up Ray Schoenke on my previous blog posts and you'll see what they are really about.

McCain's been good on this issue lately, signing the amicus brief regarding the DC Gun ban and voting against the ugly gun ban. He hasn't been perfect and had that bad stretch in the early 2000's on this issue, most likely IMO because of a spat he had with the NRA quasi-endorsing Bush in the primary in 2000. With their man Bill Richardson (from what I've heard he was their top choice) losing the democrat primary, and giving us the choices we have, it clear who is better than the other guy.

GOA on the other hand doesn't care and supports nobody at all. Both are equally bad to them.

SAFR's PAC (Bipartisan, I was the Republican and there was an active Democratic Party member on the PAC as well) graded McCain a "mixed" rating and Obama an unacceptable rating. SAFR's PAC has never endorsed a mixed rating candidate for president, and this year was no exception. If someone sees the candidate list, it is obvious who is better, but there's a difference between "better than the other guy" and an "endorsement."

From a partisan standpoint, the NRA's endorsement was great. From a gun rights standpoint, I can see the argument, I'd rather see a McCain B- (which would be an accurate grade, up from his C before thanks to a couple of very good votes recently) and Obama F- grade instead of giving McCain the endorsement from a gun rights credibility standpoint. They still should go with a continuation of the Defeat Obama campaign. I understand the pragmatism here as McCain's no Joe Schwarz, but I don't like lowering standards either.

One thing all gun rights organizations agree on however. Mr. Joyce Foundation Obama hates the 2nd Amendment and would ban everything if he had the chance. Let's not let him do it. Defend freedom and defeat Obama.

McCain scales resources back from Michigan

I think there are two big mistakes here. The first mistake is pulling back from here. The bigger mistake is announcing it to the media.

I long thought that Obama could not win Michigan. I still think he can't win Michigan, but McCain can lose Michigan if he can not seal the deal to why people should vote for him. So far, I don't think he has sealed the deal, and the window is a lot smaller than it was a week ago. Right now it's closed, and it needs to get broken open. I'll no longer comment on the bailout, but I think that hurt badly.

Michigan likes fighters. They don't respect "let's be nice" which is the McCain we've been seeing lately. Michigan respects the McCain that we saw on the debate. "Fight with me. I'll make them famous." That needs to come back, fast.

It's the economy stupid. James Carville understood it. There is no reason why McCain should concede this issue to a effeminate, elitist, arrogant, big mouthed, wuss who never struggled in his life like Obama. Obama has no blue collar appeal whatsoever. He's not man enough for this area. McCain needed to, and needs, to take advantage of that. He paid his dues. Obama has not. That opens a window and is nearly shut. Break it open.

My gut tells me that Michigan would have gone McCain as recently as last week. Not today. I think Obama would win here right now by 5-6%, similar to Gore in 2000 or Clinton in 1992. Today. There is still a month to go. McCain can not play prevent (from winning) defense and put all his eggs into Ohio, Florida, and Colorado. He's still in Pennsylvania, but that's a similar state demographically and culturaly to Michigan, especially in Western and Northeastern PA. Socially moderate conservative, economics moderally liberal and very populist. If he's struggling here, he's struggling there too, and a lot of the same issues here are factors there. Obama isn't man enough to win there or here, but that doesn't mean he won't get enough of those votes by default, because McCain is not hitting the right issues.

If I were Mac's campaign manager, I'd do this whether it be here or elsewhere:

1. FIGHT! Less Bob Dole. Less of either George Bush. More Harry Truman. Be the Maverick.
2. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Most people are not overly concerned with Wall Street. We're concerned about main street, our jobs, and eventual retirements.
3. Experience. Obama had a chance to change four years ago and failed. I brought change, by fighting for it.
4. Expose what a radical Obama is. Total handgun ban. Failed to protect babies that survived abortions. Big giveaways of our tax money. Leftist judges. Worked for ACORN and their crookedness. Tied to the Chicago machine. Tied up with the scandals and golden parachute of Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines. Tied with slumlord Tony Resko. Tied up with terrorist Bill Ayers. We should be seeing TV ads with Obama and Ayers and their work together on two boards of directors, and fundraisers at Bill's house.
5. Let Palin be Palin. Stop having Bush's people manage her and let her be herself. Why was she picked and not others, including other women. She was a reformer in Alaska. Don't let the cocktail party types influence you. Fight them too if you have too.

It's the 4th Quarter. Are we going to depend on John Elway taking shots downfield, or are we going to depend on the Detroit Lions secondary? Outside of the little I can do, it's not my call to make. This campaign has had a nasty week, but it is winnable with a little work and a little more aggressiveness.

Bailout politics (Debates, ACORN)

First off, some people are complaining about McCain probably missing the debate. That's a big gamble, but McCain can make it to his advantage if there is a good deal that we can live with. Right now with Goldman Sachs man Paulson on Bush's team, and the democrats controlling the house/senate, I'm not real confident on this. We'll see.

As for the debate itself, what's more important. Two senators yapping behind a podium in the first of three or four debates, or doing the job they are currently elected to do right now in a near crisis situation. McCain and Obama have a job to do. They are needed at the capitol right now. I blame government to an extent for causing the problems in the first place with its atrocious handling of the house of cards over the past 10 years, led by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

A lot has happened with negotiations. The media was reporting a deal, but that was premature. There was no deal.

Is the revolt due to an earmark to the Vote Fraud kings where Obama used to do his community organizing work? ACORN? Apparently, on Fox News, moderate Republican Lindsay Graham balked at a lot of this bailout money going to ACORN. I didn't see it, but it's confirmed by one Republican (Ed Morrisey) and one Democrat blog (Larry Johnson).

From Morrisey's blog

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise. One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:

and Graham's quote

And this deal that’s on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I can’t believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesn’t work.

Chris Dodd, the leading receiver of Fannie and Freddie funds? That gives me a lot of confort. I need a drink, and it's not even noon. Make it 151. I really hope Mike Pence and the RSC in the house can work a miracle, since I'm expecting a real turkey of a bill to pass. If I get half of what I want here, I'll be estatic. (No handouts to rich bankers like Goldman Sachs, only loans if anything, no pork, no crap to ACORN or other groups, no drilling bans)

What the hell is with these bailouts? (Fannie Mae, AIG, etc)

Fannie and Freddy, now this? The government is sending a message. If you are a bigtime company failing, do not worry. We'll save you from your mistakes.

WASHINGTON - Another day, but not just another bailout. This one's a stunning government takeover.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve, the government stepped in Tuesday to rescue American International Group Inc. with an $85 billion injection of taxpayer money. Under the deal, the government will get a 79.9 percent stake in one of the world's largest insurers and the right to remove senior management.

AIG's chief executive, Robert Willumstad, is expected to be replaced by Edward Liddy, the former head of insurer Allstate Corp., according to The Wall Street Journal, citing a person it did not name. Willumstad had been at the helm of AIG since June.

A call to AIG to confirm the executive change was not immediately returned.

It was the second time this month the feds put taxpayer money on the hook to rescue a private financial company, saying its failure would further disrupt markets and threaten the already fragile economy.

AIG said it will repay the money in full with proceeds from the sales of some of its assets. It will be up to the company to decide which assets to sell and the timing. The government does, however, have veto power.

Under the deal, the Federal Reserve will provide a two-year $85 billion emergency loan at an interest rate of about 11.5 percent to AIG, which teetered on the edge of failure because of stresses caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and the credit crunch that ensued. In return, the government will get a 79.9 percent stake in AIG and the right to remove senior management.

AIG shares sank $1.34, or 36 percent, to $2.41 in morning trading Wednesday. They traded as high as $70.13 in the past year.

The government's move was similar to its bailout of Sept. 7 of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where the Treasury Department said it was prepared to put up as much as $100 billion over time in each of the companies if needed to keep them from going broke.

The Fed said it determined that a disorderly failure of AIG could hurt the already delicate financial markets and the economy.

I don't like this at all. Besides the socialism, this strikes me as a panicked decision. Every company now is going to be asking for even more handouts as usual.

Now, many saw problems far in advance on the horizon with this stuff. McCain called part of this back in 2005. Freddie and Frannie.

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005

The United States Senate

May 25, 2006 Section 16

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

I'm not a big fan of regulation, and probably would have balked on this back in 05. McCain called the problems with that. McCain wasn't the only one who called this. Bush called it. Back in 2003

Now I wish Bush and McCain pushed this through in 2005 (and Obama was part of the problem too).

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

Then there is Barney Frank and Mel Watt, democrats.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

Now, what about Obama's ties to Fannie and Freddie?
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

1. Dodd, Christopher J D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E D-PA $65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F R-UT $61,499

And it gets worse for Obama. Former CEO Jim Johnson was Obama's VP vetter. Elect Obama, and you get more of the same.

Sarah Palin for VP!!! I'm no longer holding my nose in November

Sarah Palin for VP! Great pick by Senator McCain.

This is a risky, but high reward pick for McCain. Overall, I'd give it an A- (and four years from now, an A+). I have to give McCain a lot of credit here for having the guts to make his own pick and not one a lot of the establishment was hoping for (Romney).

From a personal standpoint, Palin was my 2nd choice.....of EVERYBODY. Mark Sanford was my first and would have been the A+ pick (experience edge), but what this does with me is for the first time ever, really get me to vote FOR somebody for President/VP instead of just voting AGAINST the other people.

First, what is bad about this pick? Experience. She has slightly more experience than Obama (although it is EXECUTIVE experience). It is four years two early. That is the ONLY negative. She has 16 years of political experience, (Obama has 12 years total, four in high office counting the last three years he has done nothing but run for president), and eight years in an executive role. In between her time as mayor and governor, she was on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission until she resigned in protest over poor ethics by some of the bigwigs...including the then state GOP chair of her state. She then defeated incumbent Frank Murkowski to be governor. Eight years of executive experience is not enough to be PRESIDENT (Although it is two years more than Bush and eight years more than Obama), however this is VICE president, and a VP can afford some on the job training. McCain can show her the ropes on what she doesn't know, and her experience in executive office will help her learn quickly.

What is GOOD about this pick? Several things.

1. Real change requires real change. Obama talks about change. What has he done in the Senate outside of TALK about change? Absolutely NOTHING but piggyback off of other senators. Obama talks about cleaning up Washington. Palin HAS cleaned up political messes of others. She defeated an incumbent mayor over tax issues, and then lowered property taxes. She resigned from the Oil and Gas commission because of ethics of her own party members. She then ran for governor and took out the trash there. She fought against pork spending and passed an ethics bill. She talked, and then delivered. Currently she's pushing for energy reform in Alaska, including a new Natural Gas pipelines and fighting Congress for not drilling in ANWR to increase our oil supply here at home.

2. Solidifies a fractured base. Fiscal conservatives are important again. After Bush crapped on us for eight years, we have two people with REAL records against pork barrell spending. McCain is decent on this issue, and Palin is great on this issue. McCain has problems with trust among gun owners. Palin alleviates many of those doubts and is the most pro-2nd Amendment candidate on a major ticket since Teddy Roosevelt. You won't hear any "can I get me a huntin' license" types of blunders from Palin. She's the real thing. And on the life issue, Palin walks the walk on being pro-life more than just about anybody (although John McCain's record is quite good on that issue...he's walked the walk too and more than just by voting records). McCain came through for us with this pick.

3. The Outsider. Obama talked about change and gave us a 30 year career hack whose only claims to fame is lifting other speeches, writing a gun grabbing bill, and being a self-proclaimed foreign policy expert (how so anyway?). Outside of political junkies and Delaware, nobody knows who Joe Biden really is. Palin is the only major party candidate not to come from Washington and its 17% approval rating. Washington doesn't change Washington easily.

I didn't mention the obvious here that can cut both ways. McCain named a woman to the ticket. How will that play? I don't know. I think it can gain some votes and lose others. It doesn't effect my vote. However she's very easy on the eyes, so I won't be changing the channel on my TV set when she's on there, unlike the normal reaction I have with politicians. That can't hurt.

Would I support this pick if Todd Palin was the governor of Alaska with the same record, and if Sarah Palin was the oil rig worker and fisherman instead? Absolutely. I can say that without a shadow of a doubt.

I support people who walk the walk in their politics. It is extremely rare, and it is even rarer when one is a governor, and rarest of all when one is tapped to be VP. None walk the walk better than Governor Sarah Palin. That's why I'm no longer holding my nose this November. I'm not just voting against Obama and Biden anymore. I'm voting for Sarah Palin.

The boy who cried wolf

One thing that irks me about many activist groups is what I call "The Boy who cried wolf syndrome." While my email box was flooded with the Obama's UN gun control bill email (not true, it was a bad spending bill but not a gun control bill and his record is so horrific on that issue that it doesn't need falsehoods) and the Obama's a Muslim rumor, it detracts from the real record of his that sucks. These false wolf sightings hurt the real disasters that Obama presidency will bring to us, like his appointments of Supreme Court justices and Federal Reserve governors that have a lasting impact on our country long after he is gone. At best, the real wolf is overshadowed by false wolf sightings, and at worst when the real wolf appears, nobody listens.

Now we have this battle brewing among the GOP. From the Detroit News

Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of this summer's GOP convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party's official declaration of principles.

McCain has not yet signaled the changes he plans to make in the 2004 Republican platform. But many conservatives say they fear wholesale revisions could emerge as candidate McCain seeks to put his stamp on a document that is a paean to the policies and principles of President Bush.

"There is just no way that you can avoid anticipating what is going to come. Everyone is aware that McCain is different on these issues," said Jessica Echard, the executive director of the conservative Eagle Forum. "We're all kind of waiting with anticipation because we just don't know how he's going to thread this needle."

The convention platform is not worth a fight. It is symbolic and nothing more or nothing less. What the REAL platform is not given at the convention, but it given by the combination of all the candidates running for all the partisan seats across this country, from precinct delegate where I'll be serving a fourth term to township trustee to county commissioner to sheriff to state rep to state senate to congress to senate to president. The convention platform is a piece of paper, not a constitution.

I haven't even looked at the current platform until this article. That tells you how important it really is. 92 pages. I only needed to get to page 2 when I found a major domestic policy disagreement. His boondoggle prescription drugs plan and No Child Left Behind. Since when are federal expansions of government republican values? Now where I come from. It's inclusion in the platform doesn't bother me that much. The actions themselves are another story.

I have no problem with a total rewrite. I'd reduce the GOP platform to one sentence. The Republican party supports less government and more freedom. That's it. 92 pages dillutes its value. I'm not reading 92 pages of something that is purely symbolic. What's there may be important to the marketing crowds and cocktail parties in DC, but it isn't that important to real America.

The most important thing though isn't the platform language. It is the grumbling about McCain changing the platform....when it hasn't been changed yet. The wolf hasn't been on the hunt yet. Why is the Eagle Forum raising Hell before there is something to raise Hell about? If McCain is excluding pro-life speakers like Clinton did to Bob Casey Sr in 1992 than I would be raising a little Hell as that would be sending a clear message. We as conservatives need to pick our battles. Be prepared for the wolf, but don't sound the alarm until he's there ready to attack our pets and lifestock. If I was the Eagle Forum, I'd be pushing McCain more on the VP choice and judicial nominees than I would be on platform language.

Barack Obama to small town America - I don't respect you

The Jackass party lives up to its nickname with the "rock star" Obama showing his true colors at a San Francisco fundraiser at a place nicknamed "Billionaire's Row." Billionaires Row isn't a place for people like you and me. Far away from the Midwest, he showed what he thought about us small town Midwesterners with these comments:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

"No guts" gives out some arrogant elitism at its worst. Not the bitter comment, and I'll get to that later and the Thomas Frank attitude among the elitist wing of the democrats (Obama, Hillary although she's hiding it better, John Kerry). Obama, who claims to be religious himself, says that small town Midwesterners claing to religion because of being "bitter." He says that's why they "cling to guns." Now, I don't see what clinging to guns have to do with being bitter. Gun owners do tend to be more apt to be middle class, anyway (and have jobs). Antipathy toward people who aren't like them? That's what Obama seems to have. Anti-trade? No shit sherlock. That's a bad thing, Obama? Son, look what your party's NAFTA and GATT has done. Anti-immigrant? No son, but very anti-ILLEGAL immigration - and their taking of blue-collar jobs.

Now I know what Obama is getting at here. The leftist elite is obsessed with the book "What's the matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank. To sum it up, the leftist elite thinks that white working class voters vote republican because in their view "we vote against our best interest" and vote on "unimportant wedge issues." They think our real interest is with the "democrats for the workin' man." That's absolute piles of horse manure.

First off, democrats do not know our best interests. Hell, I don't claim to know the best interest of my small-town neighbors. That makes me smarter than a lot of democrats who think they do know them. I do know my best interests and vote accordingly. This attitude hurts democrats immensely. This isn't going to sell. Arrogance from big city politicians does not sell in small town America.

Secondly, what did democrats do for small town Midwestern voters? The answer is a lot of damage. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and GATT. Republicans share some blame for that one, but it passed a democrat house, democrat senate, and democrat president. Tax increases. What do we get for tax increases? Nothing but bridges to nowhere, $500 hammers, and $600 toilet seats. Energy Independence. Pennsylvania is coal country. With $3.50 gallons of gas (much of it taxes), why not eliminate oil for non-gasoline related things - like heating and electicity. The anti-coal lobbies though want to keep our dependence on foreign oil. The CAFE standards push doesn't help either. Rapid government regulations increase the costs of American automobiles. Most of them are made from STEEL. Western and Northeastern Pennsylvania is steel country. Democrats wonder why so many people out here don't trust them? It is not only because of the cultural issues, derisively called "God, guns and gays" which really cuts across all class lines (gay issues being quite overrated). It is due to regulating the industries of these areas out of business. It's not solely the factor for going out of business, but it is one of them, due to the San Francisco wing of the democrats. It's a long time story of the rust belt to one degree or another. From Rochester NY around the great lakes through Pennsylvania, Northern Ohio, most of Michigan, Milwaukee, to parts of Illinois (Rockford), and arguably St Louis. The rise and decline of industry. Many small towns are dependent on the industry of larger towns through suppliers, etc.

The voters in small towns are some of the most independent voters I've ever come across. Notice what I said. Independent. Most are moderate on economic issues and conservative to some extent on social issues, but do not support a theocracy. They are NOT necessarily Republicans. I'm going to repeat that. They are NOT necessarily Republicans. A lot of them are ticket splitters and three way swing voters. Democrat, Republican, and skipping the race. Right now, I think skipping the race is leading. Obama's comments, policies, and style show he is a poor fight for small town American. Hillary Clinton isn't well liked either. Bill Clinton shifted these areas to the right. Now I can't let the Republicans off the hook. I have limited experience with Pennsylvania, but I have spend a lot of time in Midwestern small towns. Brighton and Howell used to be, and I've been in every county except two in this state. Farmlands, woodlands, and "company towns." Some I have been more than others. Republicans often think they are entitled to the small town vote. They aren't. In this state alone, you have a lot of ticket splitters in the rural areas. The thumb has had a lot of it lately. North Michigan as well. Some areas lean one way more than another, but they can not be taken for granted. Republicans have a LOT of work to do there, between war weariness, high gas prices, big spending from Bush and Ted Stevens, corrupt jerks like Mark Foley and Don Sherwood which hurt immensely among ethical voters. McCain has a lot of work to do there. He was dealt a hanging curve by Obama with his "What's the matter with Kansas?" and Thomas Frank attitude, but he needs to hit it out of the park. He can not take an attitude of "Who are they going to vote for? Obama?" The answer is probably not, but they might not show up at all instead.

Obama disrespected small town America. McCain needs to show the area respect. Not with pandering which is another form of disrespect, but with a plan. The ball is now in his court. We'll see what happens.

Americans for Prosperity Report

Now that I blew off some steam from the 2nd Amendment betrayal.... Today I was the Americans for Prosperity event in Livonia. It was a summit for economic conservatives. All the presidential campaigns on the GOP side has some support there, and three candidates were there themselves. Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter. Steve Moore (Wall Street Journal), Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform), and the token libertarian from ABC News, John Stossel, was there as well.

Most of the speakers talked about the biggest problem in this state. Too much government. Too many taxes. Too much spending. Too much regulation. Who can do a better job running our lives - us, or the government.

Nick from Right Michigan and EM Zanotti from American Princess also liveblogged the event and commented on the speakers and candidates there.

Romney - He did well. I though he laid an egg at Mackinac considering he is a very capable speaker. Mitt sounded "real" here. This was a purely meat and potatoes economic and change speech. That's his strength. He's not Washington. He talked about cleaning up the Olympics and Massachusetts, balancing budgets, and not raising taxes. He dropped most of the social issues talk, especially the gay marriage stuff.

McCain - McCain has two strong things going for him. One is his military background. The other is his consistency on the earmarks. On Bridges to Nowhere, he walked the walked. I also have to give him some credit. I almost NEVER see any candidates take questions from the crowd anymore. The only one I've seen do so this election season was from Duncan Hunter at his Troy event. McCain's stance on immigration doesn't sell well out here at all. That's no surprise considering the jobs situation here. (Buchananism is making a comeback in these parts) He answered them. I don't support some of the heckling from the crowd when he was interrupted. I wanted to hear why he supported what he did. Some people there were undecided voters and wanted to hear what he had to say.

Duncan Hunter - Too bad nobody gave him a chance in the beginning. If everyone had equal time and chance to win, I'd vote for him in a minute. If he was getting 5-10% in the polls, I'd have voted for him. He didn't have a good time slot, but he made the best of the time he had. Hunter is an ex Army Ranger. The most cheering in the crowd I think came for him during the talk of his accomplishment of building the fence near his home of San Diego. He also talked about his vote againt NAFTA, GATT, and those bad trade deals, as well as the cheating from the Chinese Government with their currency devaluation. One of the other issues not talked about much outside of Hunter is that China is using our money to build a stronger military while we outsource our manufacturing. We need to build our defense here. I hope Hunter stays active and runs for Senate or is tapped for the VP or cabinent position. We need some help there. On a side note, his son, also named Duncan, is running for his dad's spot in Congress. Duncan D. Hunter is a Marine Captain who served two tours in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. His stances on the issues are very similar to his father's. I wish him the best of luck in his race.

Overall, it was a good event. I hope AFP stays active, especially in this state as we have three more years of the Matt Millen of Governors, as well as at least one more year of a leftist democrat controlled state house, and three more years of a center-left majority in the senate (even if Republicans control it). Our work is cut out for us and we must stay vigiliant.

Preview of Michigan 2008 Presidential Primary

Game 4 will be interesting. Besides it being my home state, there is much on the line here. Here's a scouting report.

First off, the democrats outside of Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel ought to be kicking themselves for their decision to take their names off the ballot. John Edwards needs the union voters. What state is more unionized than Michigan. Barack Obama needs the college towns and black voters. What better for him than Ann Arbor, Detroit, Southfield, and Flint? Bill Richardson could have taken advantage of the others not campaigning. For them, this is all Fubared. "Fouled" up beyond all recognition. Hillary isn't campaigning here, but her name is on the ballot at least. Unless "uncommitted" beats Hillary, I don't see anything outside of being a win for Hillary on the 15th.

The GOP side will be much more interesting. This race is LIKELY between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both of them have been working this state extremely hard over the last three years in this state. Numerous visits have been made by both candidates. McCain won here in 2000. Romney was born and raised in Oakland County.

I was looking at the exit polls for New Hampshire and Iowa. A few things stuck out to me.
In Iowa
Gender Gap
Men
Huckabee 29%
Romney 26%
Thompson 16%

Women
Huckabee 40%
Romney 24%
McCain 13%

The gender gap wasn't a big deal in New Hampshire, but Huckabee did get 10% of the votes from men and 13% from women. McCain won both among men and women by fairly similar margins there. Will Michigan be more like Iowa or New Hampshire?

There were no Immigration or gun questions in the Iowa exit poll.

In New Hampshire
Gun Owners:
McCain 42%
Romney 27%
Huckabee 13%

Non Gun owners:
Romney 34%
McCain 32%
Huckabee 12%

Neither McCain or Romney are great on guns. SAFR gave McCain a mixed rating and Romney an unacceptable rating. However, McCain voted bad on gun shows and for McCain/Feingold. Romney signed an ugly gun ban in neighboring Massachusetts. McCain voted against that ban. If the gun owners negative voted AGAINST Romney, then that explains the 15% spread. Will they vote negative, or for someone completely different?

Illegal immigration:
Those who supported a path to citizenship
McCain 54%
Romney 15%
Huckabee 12%

Those who supported guest worker programs
McCain 42%
Romney 32%
Huckabee 10%

Those who support deporting illegals
Romney 40%
McCain 24%
Huckabee 14%

This is another issue to watch in the closing week. McCain is like Bush on the immigration issue, and that is a major factor here, almost like the gun issue is for Romney (and Giuliani). With jobs such a big issue here, that's something to keep an eye on.

The life issue is normally another factor, but it really did not matter between McCain and Romney if the exit polls are to be believed. Huckabee did pick up some votes based on the life issue however in New Hampshire. I didn't see that question in the Iowa poll either, but I think it was a much bigger factor there based on the demographics and turnout.

Now the question is how does this all play in Michigan. I expect a lot of independent voters in this race. With the democrats not having many names out there, that will skew some of the indy turnout, but not as much of the hard core democrat turnout which will go for Hillary, Kucinich, or uncommitted.

I'm predicting a 1-2-3 finish of McCain, Romney, and Huckabee.
McCain wins West Michigan. He's pro-life enough to be accepted there. His spending stances will help him, and he'll get enough independents in Macomb and elsewhere to support him to a win. Those in New Hampsire irked with Bush voted for McCain. The veterans vote in the end wins it. He wins by 5%

Romney takes Oakland County. The business support and organization edges for him, but he loses too many gun owners and others who are not sure where he really stands on the issues. Huckabee takes a lot of votes from him. Immigration helps, but isn't enough.

Huckabee takes the Northlands. The populist center-left economics and center-right social conservatism fits in Up North, near Flint/Saginaw, Downriver, and the thumb area. His drawback is that the business crowd and economic conservatives do not care for him much. If he can get some pro-life leaners and gun owners away from McCain, he has a shot, but he did not spend enough time in his state to win. I'd say about 15%

Ron Paul will likely get his 10-12% of support. I'd predict more, but not after his weak showing in New Hampshire. Thompson and Giuliani aren't catching on here for whatever reason. I think their votes will go to McCain over Romney (Thompson has similarities to McCain, Foreign policy in Rudy's case). Hunter is a good guy, but most do not know who he is.

Whatever the case is, there's a lot on the line here, so expect a lot of TV ads, robocalls, political calls, mailings, and other invasions by politicians on the way.

By the way - some last minute stuff in Livingston County:
McCain is visiting this Sunday. January 13. 2PM at Crystal Gardens in Howell. That's a free event.

The Livingston GOP has a fundraiser and pre-primary party on the 12th. All Presidential candidates invited. Shark Club in Howell on D19, North of I-96. $20 at the door. Duncan Hunter will be there. Other may stop by as well.

Current Delegate Standings:
Current Standings
GOP: (after 3)
Romney 24
Huckabee 18
McCain 10
Thompson 6
Paul 2
Hunter 1
Rest 0

Dems: (after 2)
Obama 25
Clinton 24
Edwards 18

Brownback backs McCain, Pat Robertson backs Giuliani

Yes you read that right about Giuliani.

I'm not surprised at all about Brownback backing McCain. There was a real friendliness between the two camps that goes back aways, especially in Michigan. That's not even mentioning the fact that both of them are senators. However, I think the issue came down to the life issue and pragmatism. Most of the "pundit" class think this race is between Giuliani, Romney, and some thrown in McCain, some Huckabee, and some Thompson. I still think it's too early to tell and am waiting things out before making my decision. In a three way race between Giuliani, Romney, and McCain, who has the best record on life issues? McCain. If that's your sole issue on voting, it's an easy decision among those three.

As far as Giuliani and Robertson goes, I'm shocked. It doesn't influence me much as I never cared for the guy, but I did not expect that to happen. I thought he was going to be back someone more social conservative at least on the life issue. Huckabee if he was going to be pragmatic and Hunter if more ideological.

Is the name of the game of them to "Stop Hillary/Obama/Edwards?" That's my guess.

More budget updates

The battle of attrition is still going on.

First, I got this in an email forwarded to me. An excerpt of the Political Diary in the Wall Street Journal.

GOP's Future at Stake in Michigan Fight

Michigan's Republican Party is in the midst of an internal skirmish over, of all issues, taxes. The infighting came to public light in recent weeks when certain establishment-oriented party insiders began complaining that the state party chairman, Saul Anuzis, was sounding a message that's "too" anti-tax.

The state now faces a $1.8 billion deficit and Mr. Anuzis sensibly wants that wiped out by cutting a bloated state budget, not tax hikes, but some Republicans in the legislature want to strike a deal with pro-tax Governor Jennifer Granholm. Mr. Anuzis' persistent proclamations against higher taxes have caused grumbling among party moderates, who complain he's "making it more difficult to work out a deal to resolve Michigan's nagging budget deficit," as the Detroit News recently reported. The moderates insist that it's inappropriate for a party chair to dictate the party's policy to elected officials.

Conservatives, for their part, can't fathom why Mr. Anuzis' behavior has come under attack in his own party. They fear it means liberal Republicans in Lansing are signaling their readiness to cut a budget deal with pro-tax Democrats at a time, peculiarly, when Democrats seem disposed to shoot themselves in the head on the budget. House Democratic Speaker Andy Dillon has become so frustrated with the refusal of Senate Republicans to negotiate on taxes that he just announced: "We are going to act alone." He wants to raise income and/or sales taxes in the state.

That budget solution would be an economic catastrophe for a state that already has among the nation's highest unemployment rates and highest number of mortgage foreclosures (despite having missed out on the housing boom that led to mortgage excesses in other parts of the country). Why Republicans would want their fingerprints on this economic suicide pact is a mystery to the conservative activists I interviewed in the state.

Democrats have been gaining electoral ground in this national battleground state in recent years, but today's tax fight could be a pivotal moment to define the differences between the two parties. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says that Mr. Anuzis is a "party chair worthy of cheering." And Mr. Anuzis isn't backing down. "We have to hold the line on no new taxes," he tells me. By giving voters a real choice between lower taxes and more spending, Mr. Anuzis is doing exactly the right thing to bring Republicans back to majority status in Michigan.

-- Stephen Moore

So far so good, the GOP has stayed strong. What's right for the state is also right for our party in this case. No more taxes! Re-establish our fiscal conservative bonafides in our brand image, and move away from the big spending jokers who killed us in 2004 statewide, and 2006 on a state and national level.


Also, Right Michigan reports that Andy Dillon took some time off after the lockdown ended to go golfing at Oak Pointe with some lobbyists. I wish I knew about it and was able to get up there to welcome him with my camera. "Out golfing with lobbyists while Michigan burns." BTW - Who let that joker into Livingston County, anyway?

Few changes. The dems still aren't united on this tax increase. Mike Simpson of Jackson County voted for the tax before not voting for it. The Matt Millen of governors is still running her mouth pushing for a tax increase. Andy Dillon is still the Marty Morningwig to Granholm's Millen.

And in other news, our AG Mike Cox resigned as co-chair from John McCain's campaign. Interesting development this close to our Mackinac Conference.

Ron Paul - more cash on hand than John McCain

As a bit of a maverick who hates coronations in elections, I love seeing this (although I'd rather see Giuliani get knocked down)

Very interesting development here. Either Ron Paul's online presence is spreading, or John McCain is in big trouble moneywise. Or both. Keep in mind that McCain has some strong establishment support, while Paul has zero establishment support.

From ABC News

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank.

In an exclusive interview taped Friday and airing Sunday on "This Week," Paul said his campaign is on a better trajectory than McCain's.

"I think some of the candidates are on the down-slope, and we're on the up-slope," said Paul.

Paul's cash on hand puts him in third place in the Republican field in that important metric, although he is well behind leader Rudy Giuliani, who has $18 million in the bank, and Mitt Romney, with $12 million.

Paul, who polls show with support in the low single digits, said his surprisingly strong fundraising is the best measure of his support.

"I think people have underestimated the number of people in this country who are interested in a freedom message," says the Republican congressman from Texas, who has strong libertarian leanings.

As McCain is one of the "Big 3" (or 4 with Fred Thompson), this is big. I think small l libertarianism is starting to make a much needed comeback in 2008.

Even is Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, at worst he brings some issues that need to be addressed to the table, issues that haven't been brought to the table since before 2001. Yes, security is important, but if we have to give up all our freedoms to be "safe", then the terrorists have won already. Ron Paul has been consistent on freedom issues, fighting Bill Clinton's big government as well. I well remember the popularity of his Project Freedom newsletter back in the late 90's. I don't agree with Ron Paul on every single issue, but his consistency and his support of our constitutional rights is something I respect, and something I'll be considering in my vote. I am REAL sick and tired of "Big Government Conservatism" and "George W Bush Republicanism". I'd like to see a return of the 1994 style of Republican where Government is the problem.

One interesting aspect to watch with Ron Paul is what the 2nd Amendment Crowd will do. The High Road, a 2nd Amendment centered gun rights message board, is generally split between Ron Paul and Fred Thompson (ideological vs Pragmatism in stopping Hillary). GOA and NRA will be interesting to watch as well. I predict Ron Paul to be endorsed by GOA. NRA is capable of anything after the Joe Schwarz debacle in 06.

Whether the establishment likes it or not, Ron Paul will be a force to be rekoned with in 2008. How much of a force remains to be seen.

2008 GOP Candidates - Debate Report

I caught the debate (taped, saw it tonight) on MS-NBC between the 10 presidential candidates on the GOP side. This was in my normal transcript shorthand format when I watch these things and can be difficult to read. Overall, I thought the winner was Mike Huckabee, although I did not care much for the format.

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

10 candidates
Mitt Romney – Former Mass. Governor
Sam Brownback – Kansas Senator
Jim Gilmore – Former Virginia Governor
Mike Huckabee – Former Arkansas Governor
Duncan Hunter – California Congressman (San Diego area)
Tommy Thompson – Former Wisconsin Governor
John McCain – Arizona Senator
Ron Paul – Texas Congressman (Surfside)
Rudy Giuliani – Former NYC mayor
Tom Tancredo – Colorado Congressman (Littleton)

Debate 90 minutes. Chris Matthews, John Harris – Questions
Some view questions
60 second answers to Matthews/Harris Q’s, 30 seconds for viewer Q’s
Rebuttals – 30 seconds
No open/closing statements or thank yous to hosts for time purposes.

Some Q’s A’s. I skipped most of the fluff. Some of the more interesting answers IMO (Whether I agree or disagree)

Iraq:

McCain – I need to show success in Iraq to people. He takes Congress to task over the Democrat’s bill, Harry Reid specific for his comment. “IF we lost, who won?” The house cheered surrender. We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, genocide will happen and it will follow us home.

Thompson. First, we must support the troops. 3 things also need to happen.
1. Iraqi Government must vote if they want us there for legitimacy.
2. 18 territories. They need to elect governments there, prevent civil war
3. Split oil. 1/3 fed, 1/3 state, 1/3 every man, woman, child. Investing in their own country.

Duncan Hunter – Key to winning in Iraq is standing up 128 batallions in Iraqi army. They need to be ready and displace American units. Right way to leave Iraq.

Polls say 55% is unwinnable in Iraq:
Romney – If we want polls to win, we let TV run the country. That’s not want America wants. We need president of strength. We want troops home, in right way. If we leave wrong way, we could have more regional conflict. We may have to come back again.



Huckabee on Rumsfeld – “I would have fired him before the election. I certainly would not have said that I wouldn’t fire him, and then do so, but that’s the president’s call” Real error in judgment by listening to civilians in suits and silk ties and not listened to generals with real mud on boots and medals on chests. Those generals told us early on it would take 300,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. We gave limited troops/budget. That was mistake, but we need to finish the job, do it right, and not go back and do it over.

Ron Paul (asked about voting against war) – We need a non-intervention traditional foreign policy. That was Republican foreign policy in 20th Century. Eisenhower got us out of Korea, Nixon out of Nam. In 2000, we ran on no nation building and humble foreign policy. Declare war if we go, not for UN resolutions or political reasons.

Iran
McCain – We need to bring greater pressures to Iran. Diplomacy, economic, etc with Iran, which is very cultural. Greatest fear – Iran getting nuke and giving to terrorist. There are lots of options, but not war right now.

Constitution to allow foreign born candidates to run for president.
Romney – probably not
Brownback – no
Gilmore – no – don’t like to amend constitution
Huckabee – after 8 years, yes
Hunter – no
Thompson – no
McCain – consider it
Ron Paul – No, strong supporter of original intent
Rudy – yes
Tancredo – no

Ron Paul – Phase out IRS?
Absolutely! Immediately. If we want to lower taxes, change policy (Spending)

Okay Abortion first 8 weeks?
Gilmore – Yes. But I have a pro-life record. Waiting period. Partial Birth Abortion

Thompson – Leave abortion up to the states. I have a prolife record. Signed pro-life bills (listed them). States law.

Romney –
Always personally pro-life, but question on government. I changed my mind 2 years ago.
States should make decision

Brownback asked if he can support GOP’er who is prochoice
I can – Reagan commandment. Agree with 80% But life is a central issue of our day.

Rudy – Asked Why support public funding for abortions? “I don’t” I support Hyde Amendment. State decision. I supported it in NY, other places can make decision.

Moral vs Libertarian with purpose
Paul – What is the goal of govt? Promote liberty – brings us together. Police weakens liberty. We’re fretting about 3rd war countries but stood up to Soviets.

Ok for private employee to fire gays
Thompson – Private decision

----
Hunter - We need to win the right way. Build the border fence, let people knock on the door.

Tancredo – Karl Rove wouldn’t be employed in my White House.

Thompson – Biggest problem in our party - We went to change Washington, and it changed us. I started Welfare Reform plan as governor. It would get democrats, independents to support.

McCain – We lost in 2006 – spending got out of control. I will veto a pork bill and make them famous.

What specific cuts:
McCain – Line item veto best tool. Start with defense aqusition. Stop pork spending, then go programs.

Fed funding of embryonic stem cell way.
Romney – None on farming embryos. Fine to be legal, not government. Support AlteredNuclear transfer.
Brownback – no
Gilmore – no Can’t create people to end life
Huckabee – no
Hunter – No, alternatives
Thompson – Not yes/no. A lot of research right now. Adult stem cell research right now.
McCain – We need to fund this.
Ron Paul – Not authorized on constitution. Market/states should deal with it.
Rudy –Yes if not cloning or created to destroy.
Tancredo – Not with tax money.

Flip Flops
McCain – No provisions on Social Security or contingency. Make tax cuts permanent, else it’s a tax increase.

Taxcuts
Romney – 0% Capital Gains tax on middle income
Brownback – Flat tax – choose between current or flat
Gilmore – I kept my word on taxes as governor. Cut Alternative minimum tax.
Huckabee – We need Fairtax! Get rid of IRS and all capital gians, individual/corporate
Hunter – Manufacuters getting killed with dumb trade deals with double tax. Eliminate manufacturing taxes.
Thompson –Vetoed 1990 items, reduced taxes. Alternative min tax – flat tax.
McCain – Line item veto on these. Alt min tax, 3000 tax credit for purchase health insueance. Flatter fair tax.
Ron Paul – Get rid of inflation tax and income tax. Printing too much money. Need sound money.
Rudy – AMT and death tax. Keep tax cuts. 2011 tax increase needs to be stopped.
Tancredo – Support fairtax. Repeal 16th Amendment or we’ll have both. We need to deal with mandatory structural problem.

What Govt does poorly:
Hunter – Secure border. People crossing Mexican border illegally – not just Mexicans. Communist China. Iran.

Romney asked - What cabinent would you keep? A: Entire new team.

Gilmore – I ran as conservative. I governed as conservative. I’m consistent and don’t flip and flop.

Ron Paul – We should NEVER interfere with internet. I always voted against regulating the internet. I trust the Internet a LOT more than mainstream media.

Mike Huckabee (Cronyism) – As president, we need to make it clear that we not going to continute to see jobs shipped overseas, and watch as CEO takes 100 million bonus to take jobs somewhere else and take pensions as well. We don’t stop it, we don’t deserve to win in 2008.

National ID Card
Rudy – support it, with immigration. Database, tamperproof. Foreigners
Romney – Agree with Rudy. Aliens, not citizens
Brownback – Don’t need to go this way. Secure borders and interior – Social Security number must mean something. Don’t need new system.
McCain – Support it if they want to work.
Paul – Absolutely opposed to national ID card. Contridiction to free society. Do not need it.
Tancredo – Do not need one for same reasons Dr Paul said.
Thompson – No national id.

Scooter libby pardon
Romney – don’t make decision until judiciary process. Fitzgerald.
Brownback – Let process go. (undecided) Not law that was violated
Huckabee – I was prosecutor. Law applies to discretion. Go to people and make case. Can’t make case, don’t do it.
Most others - no
Tancredo – Pardon him, and pardon Ramos and Camprien (Border Patrol)

Terri Schiavo Case:
Romney – Usually family decides. Courts decides. Florida did right thing, but Congress needed to stay out.
Brownback – Right decision. Life is sacred, stand for it in all circumstances.
McCain – We acted too hastily.
Rudy – Court decision. Family in dispute. Courts are for that.

On Clinton
Ron Paul - I voted to Impeach him

Overall:

The format sucked. Some of the candidates had a lot more facetime than others. All candidates IMO should have had the same questions. That is my biggest problem with this. The other problem was some of the questions were BS and fluff. Why ask 10 republican candidates about the Clintons? Right now we have a primary. I don’t want to know what Jim Gilmore thinks about Clinton. I want to know what Jim Gilmore thinks about policy.

The candidates were mostly cautious and my opinion of most of them did not change based on this. One thing I DID like about this was the lesser known candidates being allowed to participate. Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, and Mike Huckabee all bring something to the table and are running as well. It was good to see some of the “choice c” candidates involved to some degree.

If I had to pick a “winner” based on the limited format, I’d have to go with Mike Huckabee. I am more open to his candidacy than I was beforehand. I still have a lot of fiscal concerns with him, particularly on his record on taxes, but I’m more open to supporting him than before.

I liked Tommy Thompson's answer on Iraq, Huckabee's on Rumsfeld and Scooter Libby, Ron Paul on the National ID, Internet, and nationbuilding, Tancredo on Fairtax and Karl Rove, McCain on Pork, Romney on Stem Cell, and Duncan Hunter on trade.

I’m still undecided however, and will be for the foreseeable future.

Q&A in Class with Judge Bork

During this week in class, Judge Robert Bork was one of the lecturers in the Moral Foundations of the Law class.

Friday's class is a Q&A session where the students are able to ask questions to Judge Bork. One of the questions were as follows:

Student Question - Who is the most dangerous person threatening the Constitution in America? - Who is the best person in terms of National Security? (Parapharasing the second part)

Judge Bork responded ""The most dangerous person in terms of the constitution is Senator McCain"" and then stated that the strongest protector of national security is Senator McCain and referred to the McCain/Feingold prior restraint of the constitution, specificly mentioned the 30 day and 60 day references to political ads. He referred to the war on national security with McCain.

-----------------------
From a personal staindpoint, I'm not sure if Mr. McCain is the most dangerous compared to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or even Rudolph Giuliani. However, Mr. McCain is no friend of the 1st amendment, and is not a real friend of the 2nd Amendment either.

John McCain - You sir, are no President Reagan

I was at our state's GOP convention in Grand Rapids and several campaigns were there. One of the tactics by a campaign is enough to merit a special post. John McCain's campaign had T-shirts with Reagan on them, and he is reinventing himself to be of all things, a less government and pro-2a conservative and the "heir" to President Reagan.

One of President Reagan's most famous quotes is this:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain views government as the solution to the problem.

The McCain/Feingold law censors political speech with the ban on issue ads
He opposes the 2nd amendment with his attempt to ban gun shows.
He talked about tax cuts - he voted against them.
He pushed to ban the UFC and pushed for hearings on steroids in baseball
He wants government to more heavily regulate cars.

That doesn't sound very Reaganesque to me. John McCain may be a big fan of President Reagan, but despite his reinventions - he ain't it. McCain - "You sir, are no Ronald Reagan"

More on the convention later.