Screw Ups and Saves

The McCain campaign blew it today by allowing talk radio host Bill Cunningham to do an opening speech at a McCain rally. From FoxNews.com:

Cunningham, a radio host at WLW-AM, had warmed up the crowd at Memorial Hall with comments about Obama and Hillary Clinton, likening Obama to a “hack, Chicago-style” politician and saying the Illinois senator would “saddle up next to Hezbollah,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il if elected president.
...
Cunningham had delivered remarks that painted a grim future for America if “Barack Hussein Obama” is elected president. He mentioned Obama’s middle name three times.

“Obama just came back from meeting Ahmadinejad; he’s got a meeting the next week with Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Then he’s going to saddle up next to Hezbollah; they’re going to have a little cookie-and-cream party. All’s going to be right with the world."
...
McCain later took the stage and apologized for the remarks... McCain said he didn’t know who decided to allow Cunningham to speak, but he said he was sure it was in coordination with his campaign.

Soon after, Cunningham, angered over McCain's apology over his remarks, reminded the media in multiple apparances what he has always thought of John McCain: referring to him as a liberal who will destroy conservatism for the next 20 years. He then also gave a nod to Ann Coulter and said he was going to join her in supporting Hillary over the liberal John McCain.

This guy was never a McCain supporter and should have never been used by the Campaign. Some are attacking McCain for distancing himself from his remarks as if these smear campaign tactics would do anything but make McCain look worse. McCain's apology was the only thing that kept this incident from being a total loss.

There are plenty of issues to attack Obama on without resorting to making crap up and trying to bolster smear campaigns. McCain needs to get his campaign better organized to prevent this nonsense. His apology wasn't the problem. It was the best thing to do in order to clean up Cunningham's manure-slinging mess.


-- UPDATE 11:58 PM --

Here's this same yahoo on Hannity and Colmes making a further fool of himself. A yelling, screaming, hateful, idiot... or as Hannity calls him, "a great American."

Good luck making it through the whole video. It's hard to put up with "concentrated dumb":

Tribune Sells the Soul of Chicago

THIS is such crap:

Cubs owner: Naming rights for Wrigley Field on the table
CHICAGO -- The chief executive officer of the Tribune Company said Wednesday he won't hesitate to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field -- even if baseball purists don't like the idea.

During an interview on CNBC, Sam Zell said despite Wrigley Field being known worldwide, he didn't get a discount because he wasn't going to use the naming rights that the field represents.

Zell said he plans to sell the Cubs and Wrigley separately and in his own time frame. He also disclosed that Major League Baseball has approved "four or six" potential ownership groups and that any one of them would be fine.

The sale of the team has been delayed by Zell's plan to sell the team and the stadium separately, and to have a state agency acquire and renovate Wrigley.

The Tribune can burn in hell and kiss my ass along the way.



The 4 Cubs Fans of the Apocalypse are taking note.

Elmo: Chucky or Tyler Durden?

An otherwise humorous news item today: Death Threat Elmo

Apparently a "glitch" in this toy that learns phrases left it demanding the death of its child owner.

Ha ha, ain't that funny, right?

That's not the scary part. The scary part is that the kid loved it and the mother still can't stop his Elmo worship. He now runs around the house demanding people kill him because Elmo said it.

So what you really need to ask yourself is: "Why is Sesame Street building an army?"

Crazy talk, eh?

Keep telling yourself that...







The question isn't just who Elmo will tell your children to kill... the big question is: Will they listen?

;-)

Hillary's Firewall: The Alamo

Hillary is still slightly ahead in the polls... but after the last couple weeks, there appears to be a new sheriff in town:



Right now Hillary's firewall is barely holding on to the margin of error:



Within a couple weeks, will we be seeing this?

Unsettling the Unsettled

In the aftermath of the NIU shooting there are a great deal of unanswered questions. Unlike some of the other recent high profile shootings there appears to be a complete absence of warning signs. With the Virginia Tech shooting there was a long history of unsettling behavior that just barely missed the system's red flags to put him on the prohibited list of those who can purchase firearms. With the recent mall shooting in Nebraska there were all sorts of indirect or direct statements/behaviors that the guy was about to snap and do so in an extremely violent and armed way.

With this guy... there was little beyond the typical depression/anxiety issues that are hardly exclusive to mass murderers. In fact such issues are fairly common among almost any group of people with Prozac being one of the most commonly prescribed medications to help deal with it (also a common drug for people to stop taking without ever going on killing sprees).

The overwhelming majority of the folks in this situation aren't ticking time bombs waiting to go off out of nowhere. But when they do, it tends to unsettle many who sit in classrooms in the following weeks.

In such an environment I was shocked and dumbfounded to witness a professor put up pictures of the assailant, the victims, the weapons, the disturbing details of the person and act up on the overhead projector... and then afterwards mimic shooting students in his class with a handgun, asking if they thought he could hit them from there.

I could probably understand if this was leading up to proper procedures in case of responding to such an incident... but there appeared to be no such intention. As if students aren't unsettled enough over this news, it seems like some would want us even more unsettled. Why? Perhaps his focus on the lack of warning signs was intended to encourage us to look suspiciously at each other? Perhaps he wanted to encourage students in his class to worry more about the students sitting right next to them instead of the stranger in the hall?

Beats me. He never said.

McHotties

By popular demand, I'm incorporating hot girls in a weekly post. In this case it seems overly appropriate. As the NY Times is reporting:

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

...

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

All the makings of a potential sex scandal without any substantiating evidence. But oh my, the election could get interesting.

As a defender of Clinton during the Lewinsky Scandal though... I must ask... look at the picture... would you say no? I mean, if there was no chance of getting caught... honestly... like if you were president...

oh wait...

If you were president of some other country. Yeah, that's it.

I see you thinking about it. You're going straight to hell. Ha!

Too Little, But Not Too Late

As someone who has used the train system more than most, and with friends who used train systems for daily commutes, this has been something that has bugged me for years... but Amtrak is finally starting to take at least some minimal steps to address a blatant vulnerability to terrorism:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Amtrak passengers will be subjected to random screening of their carry-on bags as part of a new security initiative that will include armed officers and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling platforms and trains, an Amtrak spokeswoman said Monday.

Details of the new effort, which were first reported by The Associated Press, will be announced Tuesday, the spokeswoman, Tracey Connell, said.

Unlike airlines, Amtrak has had few visible changes to security since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but in recent years trains have been the targets of terrorism.

In 2004, bombings of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killed 191 people. A series of bombings in London in 2005, most of them on subway trains, killed 52 people. And security experts have long pointed out the vulnerabilities associated with rail travel and the difficulty in securing trains.

Amtrak chief executive Alex Kummant told AP the new measures are not a response to a "new or different specific threat," but rather, he said, "just the correct step to take."

Why'd it take so long to take such a "correct" and obvious step? How much you want to bet that this would have been implemented much sooner if a bombing had occurred here too? Are we just lucking out that this is too little, but not too late? It would appear so.

It makes me curious as to what changed. I imagine demand for more security was much stronger after Madrid and London. I can't see how the financial costs vs. benefits equation changed much for either Amtrak or government agencies looking at the potential lawsuits, insurance costs, and/or potential targets near/over rail lines.

Was there a shift in leadership/management? Or is this a ploy to maintain funding? From a couple weeks ago:

Bush Would Cut Amtrak Funding 40 Percent
By NEIL H. SIMON, Media General News Service

WASHINGTON – Though he has been rebuffed the last three years by Congress, President Bush is again seeking major cuts in funding for Amtrak.

Bush’s budget proposal for 2009, which he sent to Congress this week, calls for $800 million for the beleaguered passenger rail service – a 40 percent cut from last year.

The proposal is likely to meet with a new round of stiff resistance on Capitol Hill, where the money-losing rail system enjoys broad support, particularly amongst lawmakers along the Eastern seaboard who use the service.

The cuts “could potentially cripple Amtrak,” said Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va. “I don’t want to see that happen. I want to see Amtrak operate efficiently.”

...

Amtrak spokesman Black said the company plans to submit its own budget proposal to Congress later this month.

Imagine how much more persuasive their budget arguments will be if 'American lives hang in the balance!' during an election year when everyone wants to prove their party is the one doing the most to defend us from the next terrorist attack.

Rumors and Priorities

Well this video is already making the internet rounds. People are wondering if Obama's wife is just now proud of her country, what was she before? Mainly due to this comment:



I'm going to assume this does not reflect upon Obama's views and likely was just poor wording on his wife's part.

More concerning to me was his comments that genocide takes talk, not action:

Obama: Don't Stay in Iraq Over Genocide

SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

...

"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate."

So UN approval apparently means genocide suddenly makes it more important to stop genocide. Without UN approval it's better to talk people out of genocide than try to physically stop them.

But that'll never get the same hype as the nutjob claiming he had gay sex and coke fests with Obama, no matter how absurd and unsubstantiated.

Glad the netizens have their priorities straight. Nutjobs and verbal slip-ups: important. Standing up to genocide with little else than talk: shrug.

Oh well.

Let Them Vi-Brate!

There'll be time for cake afterwards. Hat tip to Gamera for this gem off the AP wires:

Texas Ban on Sex Toy Sales Is Overturned
By ANGELA K. BROWN – 4 days ago

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court has overturned a statute outlawing sex toy sales in Texas, one of the last states — all in the South — to retain such a ban.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by as many as two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Companies that own Dreamer's and Le Rouge Boutique, which sell the devices in its Austin stores, and the retail distributor Adam & Eve sued in federal court in Austin in 2004 over the constitutionality of the law. They appealed after a federal judge dismissed the suit and said the Constitution did not protect their right to publicly promote such devices.

In its decision Tuesday, the appeals court cited Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 opinion that struck down bans on consensual sex between same-sex couples.

One small step for horny people, one giant leap against naughty-nanny-statism!

(Oh, and here's the Urban Dictionary link, just in case you're wondering, "who the hell is Bob?")

Ahh... Berkeley...

Zombie Time has a pictorial update from the Berkeley Marine recruiter protests here:



Yeah, I'd be worried too.


On a much less disturbing note, I saw this linked at RedState today: The 5 Most Badass Presidents of All-Time

Definitely worth the read. An excerpt:

Greatest Display of Badassedry:

Andrew Jackson was the first president on whom an assassination attempt was made. A man named Richard Lawrence approached Jackson with two pistols both of which, for some reason, misfired. With the possibility of an assassination taken off the table, Jackson proceeded to beat Lawrence near death with his cane until Jackson's aides pulled him off the assassin.

The guns were inspected afterwards and it was discovered that they were in perfect working order, leading some historians to believe that it was an odds-defying "miracle" that Jackson survived, while we're pretty sure that the bullets, like everyone else, were simply scared of Jackson.

Most Badass Quote:

"I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun."

That's right. In a life rich with murdering people for little-to-no reason, Jackson's only regret was that he didn't kill quite enough people. People like Calhoun who, it should be noted, was Jackson's vice president.

Yeah... read it. It won't disappoint.

Anatomy of a Media LIE

Imagine perusing headlines and seeing this gem:

Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights

By NEDRA PICKLER – 5 hours ago

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

Obama said he spoke to Northern Illinois University's president Friday morning by phone and offered whatever help his Senate office could provide in the investigation and improving campus security. The Democratic presidential candidate spoke about the Illinois shooting to reporters while campaigning in neighboring Wisconsin.

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

If you're a big 2nd Amendment activist like me you'd love to hear something like this right after a shooting where most pandering politicians jump on the gun banning bandwagon... right?

As usual with media in its irresponsible funk wrote an article that absolutely contradicts its own headline.

Further down in the article:

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

He said he would support federal legislation based on a California law that would facilitate immediate tracing of bullets used in a crime. He said even though the California law was passed over the strong objection of the National Rifle Association, he thinks it's the type of law that gun owners and crime victims can get behind.

Five people, including the shooter, were killed during Thursday's ambush inside a lecture hall. Authorities said the two guns used were purchased legally less then a week ago.

"Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities," Obama said. "That is our duty as Americans."

Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people's guns.

At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

"The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution," Obama said.

So "Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights" even though he supports gun bans, gun regulations, and other idiotic gun control regulation he labels "common sense."

It makes one wonder if the Associated Press had to get paid to run this bullshit, or if they just enjoy their new knee pads that much.

Hillary is right behind him though:

Campaigning in Ohio, Obama's rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton echoed Obama's comments.

"Obviously we have to first and foremost do everything we can to take reasonable steps to keep our children safe," she said. "And while safeguarding and respecting our Second Amendment rights, we have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, gang members and people with mental health problems."

Thank goodness Romney didn't win. This was his line back in May of 2007. As much as McCain's gun stances have irked me in the past, when he says he believes in an individual right to keep and bear arms... he actually means it.

Stimulus Checks May Miss Disabled Vets

Reminder... if you're stumbling onto this page from a websearch recently, this is an OLD POST referring to a PREVIOUS STIMULUS BILL... NOT ANY CURRENT STIMULUS BILL... for the 2009 stimulus bill update see this post: Stimulus Checks and Veterans (UPDATE)




I learned, the hard way unfortunately, that disabled veterans who depend on the VA for their income may be inadvertently cut off from the $300 that they are eligible for through the Bush stimulus "rebate" plan.

From the stimulus information page on the IRS website:

Certain Benefits Count toward Qualifying Income

Normally, certain Social Security, Railroad Retirement benefits and certain veterans’ payments are not subject to income tax. However, the economic stimulus law passed in February contains a special provision allowing Social Security recipients and recipients of certain veterans’ benefits and certain Railroad Retirement benefits to count those benefits toward the qualifying income requirement of $3,000 and thereby qualify for the stimulus payment.

This means a taxpayer who had, for example, $500 in earned income and $2,500 in any combination of the benefits described above can count those benefit payments toward his or her qualifying income to reach the $3,000 earned income requirement, even though the individual would not otherwise owe taxes on such income.

For purposes of meeting the qualifying income requirement, the following benefits need to be reported in any combination on Line 20a of Form 1040 or Line 14a of the Form 1040A.

• Social Security benefits reported on the 2007 Form 1099-SSA, which people would have received in January 2008. People who do not have a Form 1099 may estimate their annual Social Security benefit by taking their monthly benefit, multiplying it by the number of months during the year they received the benefits, and entering the number on Line 20a of Form 1040 or Line 14a of the Form 1040A. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) does not count as qualifying income for the stimulus payment.
  
  
• Railroad Retirement benefits reported on the 2007 Form 1099-RRB, which recipients would have received in January 2008.
  
  
• The sum of veterans’ disability compensation, pension or survivors’ benefits received from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2007. People are allowed to estimate their annual benefit by taking their monthly annual veterans’ benefit, multiplying it by the number of months during the year they received benefits, and entering the number on Line 20a of Form 1040 or Line 14a of the Form 1040A.

People should note that Line 20a of Form 1040 and Line 14a of the Form 1040A are designated for Social Security. To qualify for the economic stimulus payments, these lines should also be used to include any qualifying Railroad Retirement or veterans’ benefits.

Disabled veterans normally do not have to list their compensation on tax returns due to the fact it is not considered income under any of the IRS regulations. If disabled veterans who do not meet any of the other requirements do not list their compensation on this line they may not receive the $300 that they are eligible for with this stimulus plan.

Unfortunately neither the 1040 or 1040A instructions mention this detail for disabled veterans. The 1040EZ instruction don't appear to mention anything about it either.

For those who have already filed there are instructions on how to file an amended return (form here, and instructions here) to add the missing information.

The IRS agent I discussed this issue with told me to follow the 1040X instructions carefully (making sure not to forget the tax year the amended return applies to at the top, for example). If the only change to you're return is to note your veterans disability compensation most of the form can be left blank, but definitely read the instructions to make sure you don't skip necessary portions.

The key portion for them will be Part II which allows for an explanation of changes. The IRS agent recommended something along the lines of:

No change in taxable income, deductions, credits, or tax liability but I learned after I filed that in order to qualify for the stimulus rebate that I needed to list my Veterans Disability Compensation on line 14A of the 1040A in an area normally used for Social Security benefits. My VA Compensation payments for 2007 were [fill in your VA compensation for the year here] for the whole year.

The agent informed me that they did not yet have any set protocols for dealing with questions on this issue and overwhelmingly relied on the information on the IRS stimulus page and his knowledge on filling out amended returns to answer my question.

One thing he did say to check prior to filing an amended return was to call the IRS and check to make sure your original return had "posted" first to avoid having the amended return being processed prior to any potential issues with the original return being checked first. Having both in at the same time unprocessed can cause problems apparently. The IRS contact number is:

Telephone Assistance for Individuals:
Toll-Free, 1-800-829-1040
Hours of Operation: Monday – Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. your local time (Alaska & Hawaii follow Pacific Time).

If you have any specific questions for your situation I'd highly recommend calling them (the hold times do suck, by the way) or talking to your tax professional. Disclaimer: I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about and offering a personal opinion and do not claim nor intend to imply I have any idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to tax regulations, codes, or anything legal in any way shape or form.

One thing I can say though is that the IRS and the feds in general did a lousy job of making sure vets were aware of this change. Never before have they had to fill out this portion of the form for their veterans benefits... and nothing in the instructions mentions any change... and no notice was sent to them. This is just bad form. Our tax dollars at work.

Factcheck: Democrats Distort

Factcheck.org has jumped on the Democrats, from Howard Dean to Hillary and Obama for blatantly distorting the truth in their recent attacks on John McCain:



There is also a text based page covering the same material here completely tearing apart the lies about McCain supporting "endless war" and other such nonsense.

Somewhere, over the Pacific...

Boston Buddy just made the 10,000+ mile move from Boston, MA to Sidney, Australia.



Not quite the other side of the planet... but dern close!

Good luck in the land of Oz! I've already warned the authorities about you, so you're gonna need it!

Oh... this is a bit of an inside joke... but I also took a snapshot facing the other direction as the picture of the earth above. Check it out... it's the mooon!

Good News for McCain

First off, Romney has endorsed McCain, released his delegates and urged them to support McCain for the nomination:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Former Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney announced Thursday that he is backing Sen. John McCain in his bid for the Oval Office.

"I am honored today to give my full support to Sen. McCain's candidacy for the presidency of the United States," Romney said in a joint news conference with Sen. McCain by his side.

...

Romney will "release" his delegates to McCain, meaning he will encourage them to get behind McCain's candidacy, the source said.

Romney had collected 286 delegates before he suspended his campaign two weeks ago.

Those delegates would give McCain 1,013 [sic] total delegates, 78 short of securing the nomination.

Second off some early swing state polling (which yes, yes, I know it means nothing, NOTHING!) but it's a nice snapshot of the current attitude in a race that was, at least up until recently considered by almost everyone as a suicide mission for Republicans:

Florida:
- McCain 44
- Clinton 42

- McCain 41
- Obama 39

Ohio:
- McCain 44
- Clinton 43

- McCain 42
- Obama 40

Pennsylvania:
- Clinton 46
- McCain 40

- Obama 42
- McCain 41

Not a bad place to start the fight from. Should be interesting to see how this one ends up.


-- UPDATE 10:34 AM --

There was a typo in the CNN article quoted above. 1013 should have read 1113. CNN has corrected the original story here, but failed to note the correction on that page.

Probably more interesting is that the McCain campaign's own estimates on delegate count including their information from contacting super delegates and on total pledged delegates whether or not officially tallied yet puts him even further ahead:



The "magic number" aka the majority of delegates is 1191. If McCain had all of Romney's delegates that would put him 1 delegate over having the majority. Even if some of Romney's delegates stray, McCain has this sealed up by Tuesday barring further Huckabooms.

Will Huckabee continue to wait for miracles at that point? Or concede that math won this time? I guess we'll see.

Comic Relief

Washington Caucus Update

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today:

With 96 percent of weekend results in, Esser said McCain had 3,191 precinct delegates (25.6 percent) to Mike Huckabee's 2,898 (23.3 percent) -- a difference of just 293.

The caucus winner still seems to have been prematurely called here. I think Huckabee's reaction was a bit overboard (comparing the Washington GOP's actions to those of the Soviets), but his generally complaint seemed legitimate.

Apparently the GOP caucus results take forever to be tallied in comparison to the primary results in Washington and the party felt it had enough results in to call it. They're denying they had any intentions to stop counting the remaining votes though, and Huckabee's calls for a recount seemed a bit premature under the circumstances. Not to mention an unnecessary distraction.

Fortunately this should all be wrapped up well ahead of the Washington primary on Tuesday the 19th, so the Statewide and final results should be known then.

"While You Were Sleeping"

It's amazing all the stuff you can miss in a 12 hours of drug induced coma:

SWEEPS!!!



No, not the TV stuff... the Potomac Primary!

Could this be our 2008 general elections? Obama is on a serious roll since Super Tuesday, winning every race so far. Outside of a couple Huckips early on, McCain is starting to come ever closer to sealing the deal officially. Outside of some ever shrinking circles, the "Math vs Miracle" debate seems to be falling on the side of math and against Huckabee. There's just not enough delegates left for him to win... and it's becoming difficult see any way he could pull off the overwhelming number of delegates needed to block a McCain majority and force a brokered convention.

At this point even Ron Paul seems to be coming off as the rational one, admitting that the chances of stopping McCain are now, for all intents and purposes, zero. So should Huck drop? Or should he keep his foot in the door and campaign for his prinicples?

Since he's not really attacking McCain he hardly seems to be harming McCain. In fact, he's keeping McCain in the news and keeping coverage of him reaching out to conservatives in the limelight. He could be helping more than anything. If the press assumes uncontested GOP primary races from here on out, the Democrats will be the focus of all the free press, and in doing so will have a free pulpit to all those independents and swing voters out there.

The problem for Huck is that appearances among the party may be that he's being petty, so it may be better for him to concede even though it may not be, at least overall, positive or negative for McCain at this point either way.

Huckaboom 2.0 had my a bit nervous there at first, but the miracle has given way to math. Time to focus on November!

Liberty Coalition

I've heard a great deal of reasons why some conservatives just absolutely cannot bring themselves to vote for McCain, thereby justifying throwing the election to the Democratic nominee whether it is Hillary or Obama. Below is a list of common reasons I hear and my best attempt to address them objectively.

This compilation isn't meant to imply that McCain opponents make all of these arguments, but hopefully I'll be able to address a good portion of them individually. The arguments do however build on each other a bit as one goes down the list as opposed to each necessarily being a stand alone argument. Hopefully others will find it persuasive so that we can do right by our country, our troops, and our principles...



"I can't vote for McCain because he's no different than Hillary/Obama."

"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally -- not a 20 percent traitor." - Ronald Reagan

McCain's lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union: 82.3%

Hillary's rating: 9%
Obama's rating: 8%


McCain's lifetime rating by the Americans for Tax Reform: 82.7%

Hillary's rating: 6.7%
Obama's rating: 7.5%

Even if you took Hillary or Obama at their best compared to McCain's worst rating year ever... McCain is so amazingly ahead on conservatism and fiscal issues in general it is truly no contest. It takes ignoring a great deal of McCain's record and stances to equate these three and attempting to argue that he's worse is just completely unsupportable by facts.

For some this isn't good enough. Which leads us to the next common reason...

"I can't vote for McCain because I want to preserve conservative principles."

"Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff." - Ronald Reagan


Conservatives are currently in this predicament because there was no ideal candidate for them in the race:

• McCain was strong with national defense issues and attracting moderates/independents, but his appeal to them is due to infighting that has estranged him from many other conservatives and Republicans.
• Romney was strong with many fiscal conservatives, but his record and recent conversions also left many conservatives doubtful of whether he had any real convictions at all.
• Huckabee was strong with evangelicals and 2nd Amendment activists, but was weak on almost every other issue.
• Thompson was strong on many conservative issues even though his ACU rating wasn't much higher than McCain's, but his campaign never got enough support from conservatives to really get off the ground for various reasons.
• Rudy was strong in early campaigning and on national defense issues and fiscal conservatism, but weak on evangelical concerns, 2nd Amendment issues, and his campaign strategy went completely to hell.
• Tancredo/Hunter were essentially single issue candidates with little appeal beyond immigration for most people who never got any serious consideration.

The theme here is pretty clear. A lot of the conservatives complaining right now never really had a "true" dog in this race. They had preferences that got knocked out one by one due to their respective weaknesses until they ended up gravitating to the last candidate standing anywhere close to what they wanted... and he was the one who intentionally tried to stand so far away from them just a few years ago.

So is the solution to let the Democrats win and hope for a zombie-Reagan in 2012? I know the idea is compelling to them, but it has nothing to do with why their interests aren't being represented as much as they want right now. The needed to find a candidate that better represented their views and could run an effective campaign. A Democratic win in 2008 changes nothing about their ability to find a stronger candidate later. Either they will or they won't. It's not as if they have a lack of motivation to get a better candidate. They're considered the base for a reason. This is the most active, most vocal, most well organized portion of the party.

They simply did not find the candidate they needed this year. And the odds were stacked against them for it as many who might have otherwise considered a presidential run may have been or may still be looking at 2008 as a suicide mission versus the Democratic Party given the shift in 2006. Not a very good prospect for someone to run now as opposed to later.

Will four years of Hillary or Obama change their desire to get a better candidate? That hardly seems to be the issue. The only real difference will be to what degree the country has to suffer in the meantime, especially our armed forces. And I don't just mean the armed forces in the current conflicts and the honor of those who have fallen or are now veterans of these current conflicts. One must also consider the foreign policy decisions of Carter and Clinton that continue to plague us to this day. Imagine what foreign policy blunders could result in down the road with the world facing so many potential flash points and enemies working against our interests. Many of these situations require a tough stance and constant pressure to ensure they aren't given an inch, because behind the scenes you can be assured they'll take a mile.

What kind of conflicts may we face in the future that could have otherwise been avoided? Is it worth the risk? Keep in mind that the children today may be the ones having to fight in those conflicts. The mistakes of the Carter Administration may result in a nuclear armed Iran soon. Imagine what four years of Hillary or Obama could result in within a generation.

Is it worth the risk? For what gain? Facing the same problem the conservatives face right now... finding a better candidate and ensuring he has the support to get the nomination. The hope for some sort of Reagan scenario may be comforting to them, but it is just that, hope. It's hardly a sound theory based on any definitive proof. It's the looking at some similarities of the situation and ignoring all of the other factors that differentiate the situations, both in foreign and domestic influences coming to a head during the Carter years and the ultimate key, having the better candidate four years later.

If their initial suspicions of an inevitable Democratic victory hold true, then the issue becomes fairly moot anyways. But if they fight along side the moderates and independents and pro-McCain conservatives it will start them off for 2012 from a far less divisive position. One that doesn't have them at odds with the rest of the big tent who make up a larger share of the actual votes to back up the more well organized and core of conservatives... people they'll absolutely want on their side backing their preferred candidate in four years.

Right now a lot of the other folks in the tent are getting a "my way or the highway" impression from the core who otherwise rely on their votes to win elections. Worse the highway sign reads "Hillary Way." From those complaining so much about loyalty to the ideology and/or party this comes off as extremely hypocritical. It's one thing to support a preferred candidate over another in the primary on ideological grounds... it's a whole different ballgame when you're talking about throwing the election Black Sox style to the arch nemesis of their ideology.

For those who consider McCain's betrayals too much too forgive, imagine how such actions will appear to the bulk of the party's supporters, many of whom support McCain, and a great many who support him as a reasonable lesser evil. Do you want large segments of the party looking at you in 2012 as you see McCain now in 2008? Will that help or hinder the core's ability to build support behind their candidate? The answers seem fairly obvious to me.

"I can't vote for McCain because of his immigration views."

This is an issue where passions run deep. It has created a great deal of animosity within the Republican party and a great deal of outrage from independents, Hispanics, and other immigrant communities and their native born descendants. Amazingly enough from all sides of the issue with each group.

Supporters of the reforms cry foul on comments that seem to cross the line from rule of law arguments into being just generally anti-foreigner. Opponents of the reform have cried foul on arguments that make such accusations when there was no such thing uttered. Both sides are plagued by extremely vocal extremists on both sides of the issue. Open border supporters and illegals marching with Mexican flags on US soil enrage the opponents. Hysterical North American Union conspiracy theorists and actual xenophobes have enraged the proponents.

Overall most people on both sides seem to have rationale reasons for why the support or oppose certain ideas for dealing with illegal aliens and border security issues. But the rhetoric from many on both sides, and of particular relevance here, John McCain, has boiled over to being extremely tense with extremists on both sides often turning rational debates on the subject into bitter divides.

So where does that leave the decision to support McCain or throw the election to Hillary or Obama?

Of the three only one has made it a point, time and time again, that border security must come before any reforms can be implemented. Not just on paper, but actually accomplished before any reforms are actually passed. That candidate is John McCain.

Hillary and Obama supported the same reforms, but were far less interested in the border security provisions and have made zero effort to push the border security issue now that the bill has died.

Now some don't trust McCain's shift on this issue. Many feel the border security requirements in the original bill were far to weak or ineffective. But they absolutely were there, and he supported the border security provisions being in there. He has time and time again tried to reassure opponents of the bill that he considers the packaged border security/reform bill to be a dead letter and he will focus his efforts strictly on the border security issues first as the original bill required but left far too much doubt (understandably so) of whether it would actually get done first.

Compared to the Democrats, he's still way ahead on this issue even for those who adamantly disagreed with his reform ideas. With Hillary or Obama and a Democratic congress there is little reason to believe that border security will be anywhere near as high on their list of priorities as McCain and little reason to believe that they'd avoid a packaged bill that doesn't absolutely separate the tasks of border security versus immigration reforms.

Fighting for a McCain presidency while also fighting like hell for Congressional and Senate candidates that agree with them is the best bet for those who want the border secured and to block any reforms that they disagree with. Sitting back with little party cohesion will ensure a Democratic legislature with a president who has no need to assure anyone of anything on border security first. Conservatives will have no leverage to hold their feet to the fire to stick to campaign promises and assurances they did not make.

The choice on this issue isn't the choice many would like. But the best option / lesser evil seems blatantly clear.

"I can't vote for McCain because of Campaign Finance Reform and it's affect on political speech."

The problem with this rationale is that neither Hillary nor Obama oppose CFR. Hillary was one of the Senators who voted it into law as well. More troubling is that their potential nominees to the Court would surely be of the sort who would support this as well as undoing the progress made by the Rehnquist Court to restore some semblance of sanity to judicial restraint. Not only would they do nothing to repeal some of the most offensive restrictions, they would be in a position to ensure that Supreme Court precedent enshrines it as Constitutional.

The irony on this particular issue is that McCain, in spite of his continued support of the bill, is the most likely candidate to take action leading to it being struck down. McCain has made clear that he opposes litmus tests for judicial nominees and he supports strict constructionists in the mold of Thomas, Alito and Roberts... the type of Justices who would be the least likely to uphold some of its provisions.

Some have questioned whether McCain truly supports conservative justices given his involvement in compromising with Democrats to avoid filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees or a Senate shutdown by Democratic filibusters and legal battles if Republicans attempted the "nuclear option." While fair-minded conservatives can certainly disagree on whether this was an unnecessary hindrance or whether it was a successful compromise that allowed far more conservative justices to be voted on and confirmed, this debate seems to ignore the critical issue relevant to this election: McCain's intentions.

His intentions weren't to block conservative justices. He has always supported and voted for conservative justices, even ones that may be more difficult to get through the confirmation process because they wore their conservatism on their sleeve. McCain acted to ensure as many of Bush's conservative nominees got the nod as possible. People can disagree on whether or not it was the best way to get Bush's nominees through... but there is no evidence that he was intentionally trying to obstruct justices based on their conservatism.

McCain's record of supporting every conservative and Republican nomination to the bench is pristine. He even voted to confirm Bork when other Republicans would not.

The irony may be bitter, but McCain is the best choice on this issue as his actions would be the most likely to lead to this act being weakened or nullified by the Court in spite of his support of it. With his judicial nomination record and opposition to litmus tests, it's the only real choice. Not just for CFR which the candidates do not differ much on otherwise, but for judicial concerns altogether.

"I can't vote for McCain because he swears / got angry / yelled / etc."

As much as I've heard descriptions of McCain that he's some sort of loose cannon ready to come unhinged and somehow cause irreparable harm somehow, someway, I have seen little evidence of this. While there are some classic examples of him uttering a curse word, getting worked up on an issue, etc... one of the typical "salt in the wound" issues that goes along with this is that McCain seems to comfortable in doing so with his Republican colleagues as opposed to his political opponents. If anything this seems to suggest he can control any temper issues he has when necessary. The frequency of these moments seems to be much smaller than the usual list of complaints appears to show... in spite of the frequency of the list of moments being repeated.

While irritating to the party leadership and many other conservatives, this doesn't appear to be an issue that will plague his presidency any more than a slipped curse word got through from the Bush Administration. Compared to the Democratic contenders who suggest getting a bit too diplomatic with our sworn enemies, this issue seems to be more in the realm of pet peeve than a deal breaker to me.

For others this issue is used as icing on the cake to proving that McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothing, but as we've already covered the difference between the conservatism and fiscal records, judicial record and jurisprudence, national security, etc between him and his Democratic opponents, this issue is less damning, even if extremely annoying. To me, the most reasonable explanation is that many of these outbursts came when his long time friends and colleagues were frustrating him with equally passionate, though typically more civil, rhetorical barbs and jabs. Likewise with his comments he has earned the ire of many who supported those he was uncivil to. When someone is supposed to be on your side, your ally, such disputes can be far more frustrating and emotional.

On this point I'd say McCain has earned some of the "angry old man" jabs from other party members. But it still doesn't seem to be a reasonable deal breaker issue to throw the election to the Democrats.

"I can't vote for McCain because of his global warming stance (or other stance)."

On the global warming and pollution standards issue, McCain's compromise here is closer to being a continuation of the Bush Administration's policy than being in line with the Gore worshiping hysterics. The Bush Administration has already embraced some of the minimal global warming claims through its environmental policy, though far less openly or blatantly as McCain. Both Bush and McCain leave room for doubt on the human contribution to any of the temperature changes being reported by scientists, but both support some environmental regulation in general. Neither goes as far as the doomsday Kyoto folks. Neither dismisses the economic concerns that must temper any environmental policy as Hillary has and Obama appears extremely inclined to do as well.

Like many issues in which conservatives disagree with McCain, the alternative with the Democratic contenders is as bad or worse. But this still leaves McCain well ahead of them on numerous other issues, including ones near and dear to the party and conservatives generally. It's on these more critical issues where they differ that the impetus for compromise becomes far more apparent. Not compromising on principles, mind you, but compromising on a temporary place holder for the good of the country while conservatives can work towards organizing for 2012 for a more ideal candidate that represents those principles more closely. This also has the immense advantage of keeping the party and conservatives united for the next election instead of creating more animosity over who's to blame for a Democratic win or infighting between the core of conservatives and their organization versus the other conservative and moderate party supporters.

"I can't vote for McCain because he's a Manchurian candidate for the communists / traitor / against US sovereignty / etc."

The conspiracy theories against McCain are extremely difficult for me to be objective about. They strike me as so repugnant that I find it nearly impossible to be civil while discussing them. So I think for this reason I'll merely suggest more research into the rumors, claims, and outright smear campaigns being propagated by less than reputable sources and by those with grudges or by those who are blatant conspiracy theorists. I'd strongly recommend attempting to confirm any of these accusations with reputable sources and original sources prior to subscribing to them or continuing to believe them on rumor or from rumor websites.

Summary

My number one priority for this election is ensuring that we have the best person in charge to deal with the current conflicts and ensuring that the best person is in place for dealing with those nations that are determined to act against our interests around the world with the appropriate policies. While some have suggested that such issues aren't as large of a concern if we have a Carter 2.0, I must strongly disagree. Our forces are in harms way, both in the current conflicts but also in Korea and other areas where naive policies could lead to dramatic repercussions for our military now, or for those who will be serving and dealing with the messes created later.

On the other issues I strongly believe that one can still adamantly disagree with McCain on many issues, vote pragmatically in the interests of both the nation and party unity, while still taking a principled stand for conservatism in ensuring that party unity carries over to the next election cycle. Thus ensuring the"big tent" is ready and willing to unite behind a more ideal conservative candidate in the next election.

Easier said than done, but I believe, for the reasons laid out above, that the interests of all (except the Democrats) would be best served by such a strategy. Instead of conservatives holding their nose to vote, perhaps they can take a bit of joy by taking down their arch rivals while actively working to fight for their principles as a springboard for the 2010 and 2012 elections. To create a coalition to bring moderates and conservatives together for a small-government Congress and President within four years.

The GOP was founded by a coalition of abolitionists, unionists, Whigs, etc and together they ensured that this nation did not perish from this Earth. I suggest a new coalition to ensure that the principles of limited government and securing the blessings of liberty do not perish from this decade.

An Ode To Ron Paul

"With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get." - Ron Paul

Who's Really Splitting?

As seen on the blog lines:

"But it was eminently predictable that Senator McCain’s nomination would split the party in this fashion..."

McCain has been winning because the party is already split. The split was not caused by him winning. It's not like the conservatives who adamantly despise McCain started doing so just because he's winning... they've been clearly voting that belief in the primaries.

It seems that many are suggesting that those who are so adamantly against McCain that they'd be unmotivated to stop a Democratic win make up roughly 10% of conservatives (at least that seemed to be the implication of this writer's 80-90% difference). Is that 10% the "base" while the other 80-90% are somehow not the base?

More striking to me is that many of the people demanding party loyalty are the ones suggesting that they and others betray the wishes of the party if it nominates McCain.

There seems to be a disconnect between the generally accepted reasons why McCain is winning and what the data actually shows.

A look at the States where McCain won shows an average Republican support of 42%... with the closest runner up at 30% (Romney), and the other so-called RINO coming in at 18% (Huckabee).

It also shows that when McCain wins it is because McCain and Romney split the conservative vote evenly at 35% each... with Huckabee coming in with 20%.



Some have implied that only the "very conservative" voters should count but that would only count 27% of all the voters in these States. Contrast that with 76% of those voters being Republican. They don't even make up a majority of the Republican voters. And even among those "very conservative" voters, more were voting for so-called RINOs than the so-called "true conservative."

It's true that McCain needs to work to solidify the coalition of conservatives in order to win in November, but those same conservatives rely far more heavily on others to win elections any other time. It doesn't help party cohesion to have many of them treating the bulk of conservatives and Republicans as "useful idiots" to ensure that their minority views are always represented by the party's nominees.

It's also true that McCain's past comments and actions has created quite a bit of unforgivable baggage that they may just be unwilling to carry. But if and when the party nominates McCain and they decide to split, it won't be McCain or his supporters splitting the party. The split was obviously already there.

Given that McCain stuck with the party, though with some disagreements on policy, even after this same group was largely responsible for the never ending smear campaigns against both him and his family... making accusations from everything from treason to trying to whip up racist backlashes over his adopted daughter... McCain has shown, in my opinion, far more party loyalty than those that would sit back and let the opposing party win rather than respect their own party's choice in the primaries. If they continue this nonsense their pleas for party loyalty in the future for their own candidates will fall on deaf ears.

Truly a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

More on this from a former national security adviser for President Reagan:

"Surely Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter can agree that these challenges are terribly demanding and cannot be left to luck or divine providence. Finally, there is the cost of their extremist rhetoric to the Republican Party. As President Reagan once told me, 'Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff.'" (emphasis added)

Indeed.

More McCain Hysteria

People are making hysterical claims about McCain's plan to allow veterans the option to use local hospitals for some of their basic health needs instead of always having to drive to the nearest VA hospital (an hour and a half round trip drive for me). His plan would free up VA resources that are currently overwhelmed and still keep the VA system intact for the special needs of veterans.

Sounds reasonable right? What could be considered dastardly about that?

Unfortunately it is being painted as the first step to privatizing all veterans health care and closing the doors of VA hospitals forever! Why are they claiming this? Because they can. McCain has supported no such thing. Even more unfortunate is this hysterical rumor is coming from a fairly trusted source on VA issues, an author and website that I cite frequently, Larry Scott at VA Watchdog.org:

McCAIN PROMISE WOULD DISMANTLE VA AND PRIVATIZE
VETERANS' HEALTHCARE -- "I'm going to get every one
of our veterans a plastic card to take to their doctor
or healthcare provider to get the care they need."


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Presidential Candidate

forward commentary by Larry Scott


Up to now, Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have steered away from controversy when it comes to veterans' issues.

That all changed when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised healthcare cards to all veterans to use where they wish. McCain said: "I'm going to get every one of our veterans a plastic card to take to their doctor or healthcare provider to get the care they need."

We only have to look at a little bit of history to see where this would go.

If McCain's promise becomes a reality we would see the doors to VA hospitals and clinics closed...and, once closed, they would never be reopened, just like the military hospitals.

As if there wasn't enough nonsensical hysterical bullshit out there trying to scare people away from John McCain. Now we have people claiming he'd screw over his own veteran kids and portraying him as some sort of anti-veteran nutjob because they found a way to spin a program that actually would help veterans who rely on VA healthcare like me.

Just revolting.

Care Package Idea

At least something has come out of checking the media coverage of the primaries. An interesting idea for care packages to the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan: bore snakes!

Bore snakes are great little tools for cleaning rifles. Anyone familiar with M-16s in the military or AR-15s for civilians knows the dern things need regular cleaning to operate effectively. Bore snakes are a handy and effective tool for cleaning the long barrel in a much shorter amount of time... and they do a great job.

So next time your stuffing a care package it'd be a handy add-in that could give them more time for writing letters and encourage more regular cleanings to ensure their weapons operate when they need to.

Saw the idea on Fox while checking to see if they had any updates on the Washington Primary results. A group called Project Bore Snake has been taking donations to ship them out, but the idea sounded pretty good for general care packages as well.

...

Unfortunately neither of the cable networks had any updates on the Washington caucus results yet though. Being a McCain supporter I'd rather avoid the cable networks' endless ranting...

C'mon Fox... tell us how you really feel:



John McCain's a Democrat? Right, got it... moving on...

(h/t: CnL)

The Curse

Specifically the Democratic Party's electability curse. Who the party voters think is the most electable often conflicts with who general election voters appear willing to elect.



Today a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll confirms that this trend continues as Democrats polled claim that Hillary has the best chances to beat John McCain in the general election. This idea of Hillary having the best electability against whoever the Republican nominee may be has persisted and stands in stark contrast to how Independents and Republicans view the situation:



Unfortunately their perception appears to be off from that of likely general election voters who have consistently polled Obama to be the stronger of the two against a McCain candidacy (as well as other candidates). From Real Clear Politics:



Now, it's no secret I'm a McCain fan, but it's still baffling that Democrats are once again looking poised to doom themselves to another unelectable "electable" candidate. I suppose for my own interests it's good that most of my readers come from States that have already voted.

HuckBo: First Blood!

Huckabee takes the first post-Super Tuesday win as Kansas is projected as the winner of the Caucus there. McCain continues his lousy track record with caucuses as opposed to primaries.

More updates to come...


-- UPDATE 7:25 PM --

Obama wins the Nebraska caucus... an interesting parallel is that Hillary has also struggled with the caucus States.

Louisiana is the big primary State today... and it'll be interest to see how it pans out for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

So far a fairly interesting (if not worrisome for a McCain supporter) night of primary elections.

More updates to come...


-- UPDATE 7:42 PM --

Obama has also taken Washington, in another caucus victory. Louisiana polls close soon though... still more updates to come...


-- UPDATE 10:35 PM --

Louisiana has gone to Obama... Huckabee is slightly in the lead still at this point but still hasn't been called. In Washington McCain is slightly ahead but counting has stopped for the night so we won't know who eventually pulled it off until morning. Right now, all eyes on Louisiana in this one.


-- UPDATE 11:41 PM --

Huckabee pulls off Louisiana... but unfortunately for him, without a majority so the delegates remain up in the air. Louisiana requires a majority to get the delegates pledged to the candidate. Still makes for an impressive weekend for Huckabee nonetheless. I was a bit concerned when he started doing too good on Super Tuesday... McCain is going to have to treat the rest of this primary seriously or he'll end up having to broker for delegates to win.


-- UPDATE 7:14 PM --

Well the Washington State GOP is reporting that McCain won, and the Seattle Times is reporting as much today:

The state Republican Party said Sen. John McCain narrowly beat his GOP rivals, but results showed a surprising lack of consensus about whom party members want to be their nominee.

McCain, whom many are calling the party's presumptive nominee, had 26 percent of precinct delegates, compared with 24 percent for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and 21 percent for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who dropped out of the race last week, had 17 percent.

McCain has generally struggled with caucus States and there are quite a few of them in the remaining States. With the primaries he's been fairly strong, but with drop in GOP turnout given the McCain presumptive win and the Huckboom 2.0 his inevitable win going into the convention appears to be in some doubt now.

The primary adventure continues. What a ride!

WALAKS!

Walaks? WA, LA, and KS. Two caucuses and a primary in Louisiana.

Unfortunately the guys over at Real Clear Politics don't seem to be doing any more polling averages State by State after Super Tuesday.

They still have some more recent national poll averages up though:



But the big question is what effect Romney's suspension of campaigning will have on McCain and Huck's numbers. Will it boost Huck to give him a shot at bringing about a brokered convention? Or will it be split enough in McCain's favor that it brings a reality check to the Huckster? Bets seem to be leaning towards McCain's favor. But this primary has been full of surprises.

On a brighter side the NY Times is reporting that Paul has conceded... at least in rhetoric:

Paul Concedes Race, Sort Of
By Ariel Alexovich

In a message to supporters sent just before 11 p.m. Friday night, Representative Ron Paul, a long-shot G.O.P. candidate from Texas, basically conceded that he’s not going to win the party’s nomination.

That said, he’s scaling back his campaign — but not entirely.

He said:

With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter.

Mr. Paul clearly stated that he will not run as a third-party candidate. Right now, his priorities are serving the residents in his Texas congressional district and winning re-election.

Like many protest candidates, though, he's still going to keep the campaign running until the end it seems. Sort of a lame duck pulpit of sorts. It makes me wonder how much of the big fundraising will actually get spent... if it's not spent, where does it go? His congressional campaign? Beats me. I don't feel sorry for his supporters who got duped into thinking he was viable... they were generally too rude and obnoxious (and continuing to be so by spreading the conspiracy theories and hate-filled propaganda against McCain now).




Good riddance!

Legion Tries to Scam Vets

This is pretty disheartening news about the State of veterans organizations today. (Hat tip to VA Watchdog.org):

American Legion Trying to Scam Vets?
U.S. Postal Inspectors Investigate Whether American Legion Letter Was a Mistake Or a Scam
By JOSEPH RHEE
Feb. 8, 2008

U.S. postal inspectors have been asked to investigate whether the American Legion tried to trick veterans into signing up for membership in the Legion.
Related Stories

In a mailing last year to 800,000 former members, the American Legion said their "benefits as a veteran of the United States Armed Forces have lapsed" and that the only way to "reinstate these important benefits" was to pay $20 to reinstate their American Legion membership.

Under U.S. law, veterans benefits do not lapse over time, and the American Legion now acknowledges the letter, signed by Legion National Adjutant Robert Spanogle, was "a serious mistake."

...

American Legion spokesperson Joe March told the Blotter on ABCNews.com that the language was the fault of an outside contractor who neglected to make clear that the lapsed benefits in question were actually American Legion membership benefits. March said an "electronic editing mistake" by the contractor omitted the "American Legion" reference.

...

Maj. Hanafin, however, said he doesn't buy the American Legion's explanation that the first letter was a mistake. He points to specific language in the letter that states the benefits were given "in accordance with a special act of Congress."

I know the American Legion was hurting for membership rolls, but criminey... whoever signed off on this needs a boot to the ass.

Fuck You, You Racist Piece of Shit!

Yeah, I said it.

I've gotten a great deal of flack on various blogs and political chat channels over my support of McCain. I've been called everything under the sun for my support of John McCain, even now that the primary race has been pretty well wrapped up.

And what the issues come down to for the hysterics is that losing a war is a secondary issue to making sure those damn brown people aren't stealin' our jobs!

I'm a reasonable guy. I can discuss immigration without resorting to nonsensical and hysterical nonsense. But I've been blasted repeatedly by people over McCain's immigration stance because I support limited government that tries to ensure the free trade/free market principles of supply and demand are allowed to work, not hindered. While at the same time I want stronger border security.

For this I've been called everything up to and including a traitor who deserves execution.

Not because they want to stop illegal immigration... no no. If it was just that we'd having something in common. It's because the facts of our economy, according to every great economist and the statistics available show that we're dependent on foreign labor... both skilled and unskilled. I have yet to have one person show any evidence to the contrary. Claim I hate America because I believe we're dependent on foreign labor, yes... I've gotten plenty of that. Prove that statistics and the economic realities are otherwise? No.

I realize some of you anti-illegal immigration folks are truly interested in rule of law issues and aren't just xenophobic fucktards. But unfortunately you aren't the vocal part of the immigration debate. You are being drowned out by people who absolutely are xenophobic. By people who absolutely are racists. By people who when pressed reveal that it isn't just illegal labor that concerns them but any significant foreign labor.

And the arguments center on the same xenophobic and nativist bullshit that has existed in the foreign labor issues over the last century and a half. It's the same crap the unionists and socialists were spewing to garner support back in the day... now being used by anti-socialist conservatives.

To each of them, I say again, "Fuck you, you racist piece of shit!"

I'm sick of you.

My only consolation is that the exit polls show that even among the "round 'em up and deport 'em" crowd, it isn't their primary issue, and still not enough for those primary issue immigration issue voters to vote primarily for the candidate who is currently courting the Tancredo whackjobs who compare dialing '1' for English to ethnic cleansing.

So kiss my ass.

You're irrelevant. Ha!



[end of rant]

The Jobs We Won't Do

I saw yet another flawed analysis of unemployment data being used again to push "round 'em up and deport 'em" agendas this morning:

For everyone concerned about who will fill the Jobs left unfilled if we deport all 12 million illegals here is some good math for you.

We have an unemployment rate of 4.9%

We have a population of 303.1 million.

That gives us 14.8 million unemployed Americans.

With these numbers in mind maybe we should have a 6 month transition period that would involve the training of our 14.8 million unemployed citizens to do the jobs that "Americans Just Wont Do"...

Sorry, but your unemployment figure is off. Not the rate, but the way you calculated the total unemployed. The unemployment rate isn't for all Americans, it's for Americans who are working and who are trying to find work. It doesn't include anyone under the age of 16, nor does it include students, retirees, disabled, etc not looking for work.

If you'll look at the unemployment data on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website you'll see that the 4.9% rate is due to the roughly 7.6 million Americans who were looking for a job last month but didn't have one yet.

Further you can go through the data and see who is making up the unemployed. A great number of them are people merely in between jobs, and many in between skilled higher paying employment, not just desperate for any and every kind of unskilled employment.

Further you can go through the data and look at the relative geographic proximity from the State data and compare with the estimates of illegals working in those areas and start to figure out that many of the unemployed would be extremely uninterested in becoming migrant workers for low paying jobs within their own nation.

When you get done you might realize that of the 7.6 million unemployed Americans it may be a high estimate that 1-2 million would actually be able and willing to fill in for the 12 million jobs currently being filled by illegals.

That's a pretty big problem as there is no quick and easy solution to it.

It's a supply and demand problem. And fighting supply and demand with too much government regulation results in black markets that are nearly impossible to regulate... as you can see with our current situation. With enough enforcement it may be possible to fight the supply and demand, but you will hurt the economy in the process as the reasons for the demand don't just go away.

5% unemployment rates used to be considered "full employment." A close examination of the data reveals why that's not an entirely unreasonable way to look at it. It also damages the "they're stealin' our jobs" hysteria arguments.

Sorry to burst your bubble. But you need to find a far more difficult answer. I sincerely wish you luck... especially considering the conflicting interests involved. The problem is that Americans won't do the jobs... for the most part they can't. There aren't enough of them, and it's just not feasible for many of the rest to do the kind of work that would need to be filled at the locations where they'd need to be filled.

Happy Birthday IP!

Illini Pundit, we heard you're even older now!

So we made you a cake!



But the stripper smashed it up while trying to desperately escape from the oven.

On the bright side it made a relatively decent cobbler. Oh well, I'll buy a beer next time instead.

McCain Wins Who?

How has McCain been winning all these States? It's just those liberals, moderates and independents if you listen to some people. Of course liberals, moderates and independents make up a small portion of the people who come out to GOP primaries, even open primaries. If you listen to folks, it's been Romney winning the conservative vote every time. But what does the data really show?

Here are the averages of the exit poll data of McCain's primary wins in NH, SC, FL, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MO, NY, NJ, and OK.



Interesting enough, when McCain wins, it's because he tends to win the largest share of each and every group... from liberals to conservatives, from independents to Republicans.

And who has been splitting the conservative vote? All three of the front runners were. Huckabee, Romney, and McCain.

We now return you to reality, already in progress:

Romney 'Suspends'

His speech bowing out seemed to be his most authentic moment so far in the campaign (transcript here):

Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.” You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

It was a good message to end on. And as soon as I get a video link, I'll post it here. For a moment I think we saw the real Romney that reporters and others have been talking about behind the scenes.

All eyes on Huckabee... but I think there's a good chance he's going to test the Romney free waters in the upcoming primaries.

California GOP Results

Well all of the district level counts are in, available here.

California's GOP delegates are awarded by 3 delegates per Congressional District win and 11 Statewide delegates (and 3 unpledged party delegates).

So how did Romney's 2nd place win pay off there?

• Congressional Districts won by Romney: 4, or 12 delegates.

• Congressional Districts won by McCain: 49, or 147 delegates.

With the 11 statewide delegates this puts McCain at 158 delegates to Romney's 12 for the State. To put that in perspective, McCain won more delegates than that in Romney's home State of Massachusetts.

It should boost his total delegate count to roughly 720 shy of any other delegates awaiting assignment.

This just furthers the problem with Romney being unable to have any hope for the primary win beyond a brokered convention. And it could cost a fortune to ensure that happens.

Ouch!

Rush: Huck Doesn't Care

Today Rush told his listeners that Huckabee doesn't really care about evangelical issues... if he did, he'd be backing Romney.

...

Because the guy who opposed all of their pet issues all of a couple years ago and is now pandering like a used car salesman is who they should trust. Riiiight.



(NOT the original image. This is my take on the original found here.)

He also praised, along with other listeners, a woman who implied McCain was a traitor, a Benedict Arnold.

Additionally he's still repeating the now thoroughly debunked mantra that "a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain." As I pointed out earlier, it was Romney who ended up being the spoiler for Huckabee. And Huckabee has zero motivation to hand over the defense of evangelical stances to a known and blatant flip-flopping liar. Rush isn't just off his rocker, he smashed it into firewood and burned it because it was part of a McCain conspiracy to destroy the party! Tune in tomorrow to hear Rush further work to destroy the party and blame McCain for the lack of support from conservatives.

Just batty.

Can Mitt or Huck still win?

Technically, yes. But it'd almost have to be by figuring out a way to win enough delegates in the upcoming primaries to ensure the vote is decided at the convention by denying McCain a majority going into it.

Mitt and Huck are currently sitting at 268 and 169 delegates respectively. If my math is right, and it seems to be if wikipedia's tally is correct too, there are only 988 delegates left in the remaining States.

If either Mitt or Huck won them all, Mitt could get the needed majority, Huck could not. But to win them all would require an impossible feat. So neither is a realistic scenario. The loose delegates still awaiting assignment from the Super Tuesday States appears to be overwhelmingly wrapped up by McCain. The bulk are in California and and Romney appears competitive in about four (3 delegates each) of the Congressional districts. McCain is looking set to take the roughly hundred or so others.

It would however only require Mitt and/or Huck winning roughly half of the upcoming delegates to deny McCain a majority. It might cost a fortune to do so. A fortune only one of them has and may be very unwilling to blow on a long shot convention vote strategy.

More likely is that Romney will drop out and Huckabee will stay on, at least briefly, to see how things turn out without Romney acting as a spoiler for him. Oh the irony! If it becomes pretty clear that McCain is going to run away with the nomination, he'll probably drop then.

That's my guess.

Holy Huck!

Well Huckabee certainly surprised all the pundits... surprised the heck out of me too... with his showing on Super Tuesday. Everybody kind laughed off his comments about Romney being the spoiler for him, not the other way around as Romney and many of his supporters have claimed. In the end, Huckabee was spot on.

In the end there was not single example of Romney coming in second place to McCain where Huck could be believed to be a spoiler. McCain was far enough ahead in such races that it would have taken either more votes than Huckabee actually got to bridge the gap. The one exception was Deleware where it would have been possible for Romney to win if nearly all of Huck's voters migrated to Romney... but such a scenario was also unrealistic considering that Huck's supporters have pointed strongly towards McCain as a second choice in polls.

Oddly enough, there were at least two states where Huckabee came in close enough behind McCain that Romney acted as the spoiler... affirming Huckabee's claims.

The night's tally:

Golds: 9 for McCain, 7 for Romney, and 5 for Huckabee.

Each candidate won their home State tonight. McCain also won the large States like New York, Illinois, and California and others. Romney won many smaller States include the Mormon stronghold of Utah and but even among his wins there were a number that divided delegates up, unlike the many winner-take-all States won by the others. Huckabee pretty well swept the South today.


Silvers: 9 for McCain, 8 for Romney, 3 for Huckabee, and 1 for Paul

McCain definitely benefited the most, delegate wise, here as he picked up a great deal of proportional vote delegates. Romney benefited with California with his second place finish there but was generally so far behind in proportional States to be little help or coming in second in winner-take-all States. Huckabee got a little nudge here, but not much. Paul's one second place finish in Montana yielded no delegates there.


Bronzes: 2 for McCain, 6 for Romney, 10 for Huckabee, and 3 for Paul.

The third place finishes have and/or could yield a few extra delegates for candidates other than McCain who only placed third in winner-take-all States.


Big Winners: McCain and Huckabee. One is the unquestionable front runner now, the other has proven that if it was a two man race, he's the second man.

Big Losers: Romney and Paul. Romney did far worse than he needed to in order to prove viability and his excuses of Huck spoiling the vote for him turned out to be bass ackwards.

Paul did fairly well in a few States but still no wins and few delegates to show for his second and third place spots.

I doubt Paul will drop out, he'll milk his pulpit for all its worth. Romney on the other hand has to be realizing he is getting no return on his investment.


Democratic Race Still Open:

Meanwhile Obama and Hillary are going to keep battling it out to see who can pull off the nomination. It's still a fairly tight race between both of them. Obama won more States, Hillary won more big States. It's anybody's game for them still. Obama's speeches continue to make Hillary look like a bad actress in comparison.

It should be interesting to see where Democrats end up leaning with these two.

Strategy

Great move by McCain supporters in West Virginia... a Huck Block!

(CNN) -- Republican Mike Huckabee scored the first Super Tuesday victory, winning all 18 delegates at stake in West Virginia.

The former Arkansas governor won with the support of 52 percent of the state's GOP convention delegates on the second round of balloting. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in second with 47 percent of the vote, and Sen. John McCain was backed by 1 percent of the delegates.

Romney was ahead in the first round of voting in Charleston but failed to get the majority needed to win.

It appeared as though supporters of Arizona Sen. John McCain, who placed a distant third on the first ballot, moved over to Huckabee, helping him to carry the day.

Romney shouldn't have gone out of his way to tick off all the other candidates. Now he has to face the "I hate Romney" club:

"The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns. While sharp words have been exchanged between practically every Republican candidate at one point or another on the campaign trail, the aversion to Romney seems to go beyond mere policy disagreements. It's also a suspicion of what they see is his hypocrisy and essential phoniness — what one former staffer for Fred Thompson called Romney's "wholesale reinvention."

...

"What Romney has done," says a Huckabee adviser, "he's attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in." He's gone after McCain on campaign finance reform (which he once supported), Huckabee on tax increases (Huckabee countered that Romney's raised "fees" amounted to the same thing), and nearly all the candidates on immigration.

Breaking Reagan's 11th Commandment has consequences.

Vote!

Super Tuesday!

So far so good for McCain, nationally and here in Illinois according to Real Clear Politics:



Obama and Hillary are nearly in a dead heat nationally but he is way ahead in his home state of Illinois here.

Today will probably be far more decisive for the GOP given the many winner-take-all States while the Democrats continue to fight by congressional districts. Full Democratic and Republican Polls here and here.

Looking good for McCain short of a Romney surprise resurgence that nobody is seeing yet. Looking pretty even on the Democratic side though Hillary has a slight edge.

Grudge Report?

Someone pointed out an odd phenomenon on Drudge Report's main page today:




The attack on McCain stood out more than the one against Hillary who seems to have liked Romney's "buy insurance or the government will fine you" MA plan:




But then something interesting happened. Either Matt Drudge was having a seizure or he was throwing a fit about McCain... witness the headlines over a period of about 60 seconds:



Then...



Then...




And finally he made up his mind on how he'd like to portray McCain negatively. It stayed on this for a few minutes so I'm assuming he's done... at least for now.


Interesting article on this subject here:

The Republicans have lucked out. They appear poised to nominate a guy who can actually win the presidential election in November - a possibility few Republicans had seemed willing to entertain, given the heavy baggage of George W. Bush.

And yet, party conservatives seem apoplectic about John McCain's surprising rise. Shrugging off his electability, they are fixated on his ideological impurity. For all their professed fealty to Ronald Reagan - a name invoked so often it has been shortened to Runnarigin - they are willfully violating the Runnarigin Rule, which holds that "the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally."

The purity enforcers don't realize how good they have it. Barring a near-miraculous late surge by Mitt Romney, the party will wind up tapping a hawkish career conservative who has pull with independent swing voters. Nobody else can do that, especially not this year. Nobody else has the heroic life story. Nobody else has the chops to beat Hillary Rodham Clinton - who, Obamamania notwithstanding, is still the most likely autumn finalist for the Dems.

McCain is the scourge of the conservative base, the butt of incessant insults. Rush Limbaugh warns that McCain as nominee would "destroy the Republican Party." Hugh Hewitt, another talk-radio luminary, says that a McCain victory would signal "the surrender of the party of Reagan." Rick Santorum warns that McCain would be "very, very dangerous." Tom DeLay complains McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of," quite a charge from a former House leader under indictment for alleged money-laundering.

...

As a result - and this is what surely galls the critics - McCain has scrambled to the top of the heap without help from the right-leaning true believers. They have not vetted him, and still he ascends. His early primary victories were powered by the votes of independents and crossover Democrats. And last Tuesday in Florida, while other candidates were splitting the hard-core conservatives, McCain was the overwhelming choice of moderate Republicans, Hispanic Republicans, Republicans who want to keep abortion legal, Republicans who favor a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and Republicans who dislike the Bush administration.

But if McCain's critics think pragmatically, they will realize that the results thus far demonstrate why McCain could be formidable in November. Put simply, elections are won in the middle of the electorate. McCain has clout in the middle, where independent swing voters predominate. He is, in fact, more popular among independents than Hillary, as polls have long indicated.

Pragmatism doesn't appear to be on the menu today... perhaps after Super Tuesday? I guess we'll just have to see.

WSJ on Romney: What convictions?

The Wall Street Journal ripped on Romney's convictions this week in a fairly scathing critique:

To hear the candidate himself tell it, Mr. Romney believes above all in "data." As he told us on a visit, his management style includes "wallowing" in data about a problem, analyzing that data like the business consultant he once was, and then using it to devise a solution. A major theme of his candidacy is that he'll bring that business model to a "broken" Washington, apply it to Congress and the bureaucracy, and thus triumph over gridlock and the status quo.

To which we'd say: Good luck with that. Washington's problem isn't a lack of data, or a failure to calibrate the incentives as in the business world. Congress and the multiple layers of government respond exactly as you'd expect given the incentives for self-preservation and turf protection that always exist in political institutions. The only way to overcome them is with leadership on behalf of good ideas backed by public support. The fact that someone as bright as Mr. Romney doesn't recognize this Beltway reality risks a Presidency that would get rolled quicker than you can say Jimmy Carter.

All the more so because we haven't been able to discern from his campaign, or his record in Massachusetts, what his core political principles are. Mr. Romney spent his life as a moderate Republican, and he governed the Bay State that way after his election in 2002. While running this year, however, he has reinvented himself as a conservative from radio talk show-casting, especially on immigration.

The problem is not that Mr. Romney is willing to reconsider his former thinking. Nor is it so much that his apparent convictions always seem in sync with the audience to which he is speaking at the moment. (Think $20 billion in corporate welfare for Michigan auto makers.) Plenty of politicians attune their positions to new constituencies. The larger danger is that Mr. Romney's conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy.

Governor Romney experimented with his consultant-centric approach in the Massachusetts laboratory, and the result was the "universal" health-care program the state adopted in 2006. As he tells it, the experts crunched the data. As he doesn't tell it, his initiative became a petri dish for the latest liberal health-care theories.

Insurance in Massachusetts is among the most expensive in the nation because of multiple mandates, such as premium price controls and rules dictating that coverage be offered to all comers regardless of health. Mr. Romney's cardinal flaw was that he did not attempt to deregulate and allow the insurance market to function as it should.

...

John McCain's difficulties in selling himself to GOP voters reflect his many liberal lurches over the years -- from taxes to free speech, prescription drugs and global warming cap and trade. Republicans have a pretty good sense of where he might betray them. Yet few doubt that on other issues -- national security, spending -- Mr. McCain will stick to his principles no matter the opinion polls. If Mr. Romney loses to Senator McCain, the cause will be his failure to persuade voters that he has any convictions at all.

Ouch.

VA Travel Pay

VA Watchdog.org was pointing out that the VA has upgraded the travel compensation pay for disabled veterans who qualify. Unfortunately the deductible is going up as well per law, so if you're 54 miles or closer according to the VA there is still no compensation even for those who otherwise qualify for travel compensation.

I made a quick 'n dirty excel chart showing the old versus new rates and compared for gas costs (assuming $3 per gallon and a car averaging 30mpg).




One important thing to point out here is that the mileage for gas costs is based on actual miles whereas the mileage assigned by the VA is often under actual mileage. For example, many people here in Champaign have been assigned a VA mileage of 66 miles in spite of the shortest round trip distance from the closest Champaign exit to the Danville VA hospital being 73 miles.

Unfortunately this leaves many disabled veterans in the Champaign area still paying more to get to their required hospital visits than they're compensated for. The VA does not typically reimburse veterans for health care treatment outside of the VA system unless there is a needed service that is not available at the VA hospital.

There is a monthly limit on the deductible so if you're there a great deal, 4 or more times a month, then you may start coming out ahead. Otherwise not so much.

This is still an improvement over the earlier rates, but the deductible still throws it off so that disabled veterans aren't fully compensated.