McCain wins Florida...
If we're resigned to a liberal in the White House, let's please have it be a Democrat liberal... and I seriously just can't stomach Hillary.
Dan Riehl has similar thoughts.
The Ultimate Jew chimes in...
The Ultimate Jew chimes in...
...Given his record, it’s entirely possible that a President McCain could get a lot done with a Democratic Congress. The problem is that his “achievements” could become the stuff of conservative nightmares. Any Republican more comfortable taking questions from Tim Russert than Sean Hannity is hardly well-positioned to resist leftward pressures from the Washington establishment.
Conservatives must be aware that, liberated from the constraints imposed on him by a campaign, a President McCain would lack any incentive to continue even the grudging outreach he’s offered them so far. What’s more, McCain surely would know, given the gravity of the issue, that he could count on Republican support for a vigorous prosecution of the war on terror – along with a few Democrats who would, no doubt, gladly help him out in exchange for his support on an important domestic issue.
Given his admirable record in the war on terror, even a President McCain is infinitely preferable to any Democrat alternative. But any Republicans who support McCain in the primaries should understand that they risk driving conservatism to the sidelines at home.
Here are some other related links:
Remind me again which party’s presidential nomination John McCain is running for?All McCain posts - Michelle Malkin
... Quite aside from age, there is all too much evidence already that John McCain is not the kind of man who has given in-depth thought to many of the serious issues on which he shoots from the hip, which some people equate with "straight talk."'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms - David Limbaugh
The media have dubbed him a "maverick," which is another way of spinning the fact that he is headstrong and unreliable.
Senator McCain's teaming up with Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration, and with equally left-wing Senator Russ Feingold to violate the First Amendment in the name of "campaign finance reform," are classic examples of a loose cannon.
Senator McCain is not a bad man. He has some admirable qualities. But there are plenty of good people who would be dangerous in a job for which they are not suited.
Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said that some people "may do the worst of things without being the worst of men." The White House is not the place for that.
Update 1/29/08: I heard this today and it was awesome... I'm thankful that Bryan clipped it. Rush Limbaugh was asked to shut up about McCain today, so he did:
... If this were a perfect world, 53-year-old Debbie Lee of Surprise, Ariz., would be able to stand before a bank of microphones under the klieg lights of a national televised debate by all the leading Democratic candidates.Apparently, yes.
The mother of fallen soldier Marc Alan Lee, the first Navy seal who was killed fighting the terrorists in Fallujah over a year ago, would have the opportunity to speak to Sens. Obama, Clinton, Edwards and yes, even the mental midget Dennis Kucinich.
"I have just returned from Iraq after spending two weeks in the war zone. I have seen myself where my son died and the stunning changes that have resulted in Iraqis who are now reporting insurgent activities, stopping the maiming and killing of innocent civilians and American troops.
"Please tell me why you won't acknowledge that my son's spilled blood has made a difference in securing our country?"
I think that we all know the answer to that question.
Democratic presidential candidates realize that if they congratulate our troops for their successful efforts in Iraq, the virulent, hate-filled ranks of their liberal, blame-America-first base will revolt against them.
And at the end of the day, politics and power are far more important to the Democratic nominees for president than is the blood of our soldiers in the name of freedom and security for all Americans.
Is this the hollow platform upon which the leaders of the Democrat party really wish to stand?
The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.
Update: And here's the latest ad running now in South Carolina:
Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.Ouch!
It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.
Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.
The Clintons live to campaign. It's what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight. The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I'm skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?
But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.
In 2007, the federal government's spending rose to an astounding $2.8 trillion-- the equivalent of $22,000 per household. Growth in federal government spending, however, rarely translates into better services for the American people. Solutions for many public policy problems are best found in the private sector, and then at the State and local level--not in Washington, DC. Indeed, the federal government loses billions every year due to ineffective programs, poor management, waste, and fraud. And, the problem is getting worse. Within the next five years, federal spending is expected to reach more than $3.2 trillion, or about 20 percent of our economy; more than half of this amount is mandatory spending for entitlements. Increasing government spending is not the answer to our country's problems. It is time to get it under control with better solutions and better management of our federal government.Click here for the rest... great stuff!
... Just like that, the Congress and the president banned incandescent lightbulbs. Now, what this is, folks, is death by a thousand little cuts. This is how liberty dies: drip, drip, drip, until eventually we have the Grand Canyon that's been created. "The federal law that bans the incandescent lightbulb in favor of the earth-friendly alternatives..." The Wall Street Journal had a commentary by a guy named Brian Carney.Whatever the globe is doing regarding temperature, we're not controlling it. I blame the sun... and Al Gore.
I'll tell you what makes me mad about this. The government is taking away the need or drive for companies to produce products that are so good that people want to buy them -- you know, capitalism? What instead now is going on, is the government telling us what products we have to use, what products we have to buy, and what products we can't because they're not going to be available. Not even a peep! Nobody said a word. (New Castrati impression) "We're saving the planet, Mr. Limbaugh! I'm sure you don't care about it, but we're saving the planet. These lightbulbs are destroying the planet with global warming." It's ignorance, absolute ignorance and stupidity! How long have we been using the incandescent lightbulb? When did Edison invent the incandescent lightbulb, in the 1800s, right? We've been using the incandescent lightbulb over a hundred years. Will somebody tell me how much the temperature went up in the world because of incandescent lightbulbs? Zilch, zero, nada! In fact, I have from our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, the latest globally averaged satellite temperatures, and I hate to tell you that the globally average temperature of the planet has not warmed in six years, and it is still well below 1998. ...
On topic, here's Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church talking about the future of men in the Christian church: