How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?

Are we really that far away from this?

Quote of the day...

"...then voters need to understand that the supposed “new politics” of Obama smells very similar to that of the same old lies and empty rhetoric we have heard from the Beltway for decades. And without that “new politics”, Obama is nothing more than an empty suit with a pleasant voice. "

The ice is back...

Yup, and apparently thicker than ever. And let me guess... all of you worshiping at the feet of Al Gore will now say that it's getting colder because of global warming, right? Or is it now "climate change" and man is still to blame for the cold?

News flash shocker... maybe THE SUN has something to do with it!

Here's the latest on the cooling globe from yesterday... Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age:

... Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

...

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

This stuff just makes me want to go fire up my SUV and let it run all day long in the parking lot. Bite me Al, you narcissistic blowhard. Sheesh.

Update 2/27: More on the widespread global cooling.

Rush chimes in on the above link in the update:

You have Obama and his followers, and you're not going to talk his followers out of him with standard political jargon or criticism because they're not with him because of politics. He's not running a political campaign. He's leading a movement out there. By the same token, manmade global warming is a total hoax. It has no basis in fact, and yet it has acolytes out the wazoo. We have people going out and living their lives and changing their lives to account for this hoax and this manmade global warming that's destroying the planet, that they have been led to believe they are responsible for in part, and so they gotta do things to absolve themselves of their sin. So, they're putting in these screwy little spaghetti lightbulbs, they're driving strange cars, they're using something other than toilet paper in the bathroom, whatever number of things. No matter what you tell 'em, they go out and watch Gore's movie. You can point out every factual error in Gore's movie. "No. It's bad. It's bad. That movie is the truth."

When people become attached to a movement, a person or whatever on the basis of faith, you got problems trying to separate 'em, because faith is what? Faith is loyalty. It is support of the unknown or something that cannot be proved. It can't be proven, it can't be disproven, as far as the faithful are concerned. Obama has a bunch of faithful, and so does the manmade global warming hoax.

The Audacity of Obama

Just words...

I thought I'd post a roundup of recent Obama items that I found interesting. I know I'm missing some things, so look for the post to grow in the next few days. Let me know in the comments if you have something worth adding.

This columm from Charles Krauthammer last week nails it:

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns - boat, shoe, clock - by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

A platitude salesman indeed. But you know the veneer is wearing thin when the Washington Post points it out.

I haven't read Robert Samuelson before, but Rush read his must-read piece yesterday aptly titled The Obama Delusion:

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

...

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media - preoccupied with the political "horse race" - have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

The last week has certainly been a different one for the Obama campaign. He's now the clear front-runner. McCain and Hillary are on the attack. The platitudes are becoming more transparent, and Michelle Obama certainly hasn't helped.

Karl Rove goes into more detail with Obama's new vulnerability:

... Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, (video part I, part II) he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

...

He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left. ...

We're being Obamboozled! Here's a video worth watching from Debbie Schlussel:

And here's Michelle Malkin's take on Michelle Obama:

...I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it’s what happens when an elite Democrat politician’s wife says what a significant portion of the party’s base really believes to be the truth: That America is more a source of shame than pride. ...

And here is a reaction from an Obama supporter... how's that for hope and pride!

Update 2/25 - Bill Kristol writes today that it's all about him: (funny SNL video of the last debate to the right)

...Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

If global warming gets any worse...

...we'll all freeze to death:

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Click the global warming label below for more recent posts on the subject of global warming cooling.

Looking for Conservative Leadership in Congress?

Start with Jim DeMint. The junior senator from South Carolina has stepped up as a true conservative hero. I've had a number of posts recently that focussed on the great work that Sen. DeMint is doing. Here's another one with some of his comments from CPAC last week.

Senator DeMint answers whether or not the GOP is still lost:

A year ago we were coming off a stinging defeat at the polls. There was a strong debate within the Party about why we lost so badly. Some argued that the electoral rebuke was a direct result of the war in Iraq, which at the time was not going well. Many who made this argument felt that there were no other significant factors in our loss. In other words, they felt that absent the war in Iraq, the Republican Party would have been just fine and therefore we should change nothing about our Party and just hope for good news in Iraq.

Others, like those of us on this panel, argued that there was something much bigger going on. We argued that the Party had forsaken the principles on which it was founded. We looked around and we saw the seeds of our own destruction all around us.

Skyrocketing federal spending, unprecedented growth in the size of government, a failure to address the looming entitlement crisis and the shameless proliferation of congressional earmarks were all hallmarks of Republican rule in Washington. It was no wonder that we lost.

One reason I think we are still lost is that those of us who saw these warning signs ahead of time have still not convinced a majority of our colleagues to see things our way. That said, we are making some progress.

Many of us here have paid special attention to the congressional earmarking process this year because we believe that it has been a root cause of our downfall. After all, if Republicans cannot be responsible with the little things like earmarks, how are we going to address the big problems facing the nation?

...

But it isn’t just on the fiscal front that we have fallen short. Conservatives believe that the Republican Party succeeds as a coalition. We believe in the three-legged stool of limited government, national defense and traditional American values. We need to get back to that third leg of the stool.

Since the 1970s evangelicals and faith-based voters have cast their lot with the Republican Party. These voters, of which I am one, have put their trust in the Republican Party to do everything in its power to end the legalized killing of the unborn. They have trusted us to defend the sanctity of marriage. And, just as important, they have trusted us to preserve the basic family unit, because they understand that strong families make strong nations.

Without a proper emphasis on the role of the family in our society, we are missing a huge part of the puzzle. It is families that instill character in our young ones. It is families that provide stability and structure as children grow into active citizens.

Now, many voters are looking around and feeling a cultural slide. They are feeling again under attack from forces that they cannot control. Whether it be the elites in academia who preach absolute moral equivalence or the mainstreamers in Hollywood pedaling a degrading product, folks are feeling as if they are under assault. Conservatives need to do a better job of leading in this regard.

...

I still have an unshakeable belief that at their core, the American people are conservative. The problem in Washington, and in our Party in particular, is that we have stopped listening. As conservatives, I believe it is important that we remain optimistic about the future of the country and our Party.

Remember, President Lincoln understood that he could win the Civil War while losing every battle. He and Grant understood that in the end it was a game of numbers. Not only was their cause Just and True, it was backed by numbers.

Our cause today is Just and True and we have the numbers to make it happen. We just need to stay focused on our principles and remain persistent. Our beliefs are sufficient to lead this country and our Party as we go forward.

Preach on my brother!

Bonus video: Newt at CPAC - A Conservative Declaration of Independence

Bush finally commits to securing the southern border...

... of Mexico!!!


Unbelievable. You just can't make this stuff up.

Speaking of unbelievable... how about a Che flag hanging in Obama's new campaign office in Houston?

Update 2/12: Rush is on the story today...

Melanie Phillips on Rowan Williams: Dhimmi - or just dim?

I'd say possibly both.

It's a must-read article from the woman who wrote Londonistan. She concludes:

... Dr Williams says he has been misunderstood. Tellingly, his website statement makes no defence at all of this devastating renunciation of the doctrine of equality before the law. This omission suggests that at least someone at Lambeth Palace understands what Dr Williams actually said only too well.

The lecture and radio interview were bad enough, heaven knows. But this statement on his website raises yet further concerns. How can the Archbishop of Canterbury put out such a seriously misleading and, in parts, demonstrably false statement? It moves this affair on from questions about judgment — which are serious enough — to questions about integrity. Either Dr Williams really does not understand what he himself said — in which case he is a fool; or he understands exactly what he said and is trying to pretend that he didn’t say it — in which case he is a knave.

Either way, he has done great harm to his church and is a danger to his country (although through this furore he has also, unwittingly and ironically, set back the agenda of Islamisation by stealth which had been making such headway; hence the very carefully modulated support for him by such Islamist strategists as the Muslim Council of Britain). He should stand down and the courageous and sharp Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali — a man whose life is now in danger for having spoken the truth about Islam in a Britain whose religious and cultural identity he actually defends, but about whom Dr Williams has said not one word in support — should take his place.

Now that really would be a statement in defence of Britain and western civilisation.

Read it all.

For more of what's going on in the Episcopal Church, check out Stand Firm.

Update: Bryan from HotAir provides this clip of Dr. Williams' comments from the AP:

Susan Easton adds this in her column titled Archbishop of Canterbury Gone Bonkers:

... For those who might not be up to speed on Sharia law, it is not like The Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. It is not just Holy Law; it is wholly Holy secular law too. It is the all-inclusive law as imposed by a theocratic state. It governs everything from banking to marriage. And it carries some pretty heavy penalties, from cutting off the hands of thieves to stoning women caught in adultery, even if the adultery stems from a gang rape. It also looks the other way when fathers, brothers, or uncles kill family females who dare to date outside of Islam. These are known as “honor killings.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury supports his partially pro-Sharia law position by citing the inherent inequity which ensues when Catholic adoption agencies discriminate against gay couples. Of course, there are no gay people in Iran according to Ahmadinejad so that isn’t the best illustration the Archbishop might have chosen to make his point. In fact, instances of sharia law being carried out within British Muslim communities have been reported. A young man who knifed someone was judged by a Sharia court and let out on the streets when his family compensated his victim financially. ...

Mike Pence challenges John McCain at CPAC

Mike Pence is one of the true conservative leaders in the House. He spoke at CPAC last week and has posted his speech up at Human Events. Here's a snippet of the challenge: (video here)

You need enthusiasm. Foot stomping, flag-waving, crawl-over-broken-glass-to-vote enthusiasm.

The kind we had for Reagan.

Senator McCain, as much as it would please you to have that kind of enthusiasm from conservatives, it would please conservatives even more to have reason to give it. We long to once again feel that authentic spirit of hope and optimism for our county.
And I have to say, when you spoke yesterday, there were times that I sensed it was possible.

Your commitment to our troops and winning the war on terror was, of course, never at issue, but your unequivocal pledges on other conservative points are what hearten us most.

You promised a clear conservative approach to government:

• To make the tax cuts permanent
• To fight big government spending
• To veto any bill with earmarks and roll back entitlement programs
• To secure our borders first
• To appoint judges who will interpret the law and not make it
• To stand without apology for the sanctity of life

And you told us that you are not in the habit of making promises you don’t intend to keep.

These are the specifics that conservatives need to hear and keep hearing.

But now it’s time for deeds. You can begin keeping those promises today.

Whether this party comes together to support you as the nominee depends on your actions. So I offer you this challenge:

If you will continue to run on conservative issues and continue to build a solid conservative team and ticket, we can and will support you and work our hearts out to elect you as the 44th President of the United States.

You’ve claimed the Reagan mantle. Show us you know how to use it.

Senator McCain, if you continue to embrace the right, the right will embrace you.

Right on. I'm not holding my breath though. J-Mac has some serious work to do and he's not the type to try that hard when facing right.

If you're interested to read McCain's speech at CPAC... here it is.

Update: Mark Steyn cuts through the tough talk:

... For a certain percentage of voters, McCain is tonally a conservative, and that trumps the fact that a lot of his policies are profoundly unconservative. He won New Hampshire because if you stuck him in plaid he'd be a passable Beltway impersonation of the crusty, cranky, ornery Granite Stater. The facts are secondary that, on campaign finance, illegal immigration, Big Pharma and global warming, the notorious "maverick's" mavericity (maverickiness? maverectomy?) always boils down to something indistinguishable from the Democrat position. ...

Here's the video of Steyn Mark speaking at CPAC if you're interested... he's great.

Update #2: Jed Babbin agrees:

If CPAC were a NASCAR race, Mike Pence would have lapped the rest of the field. It would cost John McCain little to act on Pence’s advice. And it could win him the White House if he does.

The 'lesser of three evils' arguement...

Danny Vice shared some good and thoughtful points in a comment on one of my recent posts. I thought it was worth sharing up here on the main board.

Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here.

This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals - although he has earned the angst of true conservatives.

But how is handing all three branches of our government over to far right liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?

There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanantly as well as our country with them.

Anti McCain commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.

Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years.

This would give liberals what they will regard as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left. It will be a flamingly liberal mandate we can't play games with.

My daughters will come of age in the next 4 to 8 years, and I'd rather have 50% of McCains ear than 0% of a destruction bent liberal's ear.

Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they may throw the entire country into a liberal spin that can take a decade(s) to pull back out of.

There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues? We need some sort of conservative edge on every core issue we can get.

Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck....

But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government.

We do not have the same crop of liberals we had before the Bush2 presidency. They are bent and twisted in a way that makes Clinton look almost conservative (which is why she's sinking in the polls.

I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here, that we can't afford to fall asleep on.

Give it some thought, friends.

Principle vs. pragmatism. Listen to Ann Coulter for the other side of the arguement. We'll be talking about this a lot for the next 8 months, I'm sure.

John Bolton, speaking at CPAC, agrees with Danny:

Some real 'straight-talk'...

...from the fantastic S.C. Senator Jim DeMint on the pending "political" stimulus package: (thanks Jay)


He makes McCain look more like a manure salesman with a mouth full of samples, eh?

'I have a plan to destroy America'

I had never read this before today. Michelle posted it this morning and I thought it was worth sharing in it's entirety here.

Richard Lamm, former Democrat Governor of CO, gave this speech at a conference sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington in 2004:

I have a plan to destroy America
by Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra – ”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” – this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please – if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed – please, please – don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” – Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Snopes has more context here that includes a summary of the reaction from the crowd after the speech was delivered. Truth sometimes hurts.

Al Gore on ice...

Shocker... global temperatures closely track solar cycles. In other words, it's the sun, stupid:

... Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

...

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

I'm with Bryan that maybe we should "stop suffering from collective delusions of grandeur and realize that nature outsizes us in ways we don’t yet comprehend."

A message from a Republican staffer on the Hill...

As Michelle says... where they know John McCain the best:

John McCain is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. That is unfortunate, and I am sad to say that I cannot support him – as is the case with many people I know – for many of the reasons explored repeatedly on NRO and other places. As a Hill staffer, those of you who share my view and I know what is at stake – at least as much as anyone… from the confirmation of judges to the War on Terror and beyond. But, as a Hill staffer, many of us find him to be a petty, often vindictive man who treats people – from Senators to junior female staffers – disrespectfully and, frankly, without the manners appropriate for a Senator, much less a President.

His votes and stances are a matter of record and have been fully explored in many places. But we, as Hill staffers, have seen his personal vitriol up close and personally. Whether it has been personal confrontations with Senators or his cussing out of and demeaning comments toward staffers – whether it was his arrogance and dismissal of concerned conservatives displayed during the “Gang of 14” or his or his staff’s constant, repeated – often vindictive and very personal – undermining of conservative principles in the immigration debate – John McCain has proven time and time again that his worthiness to lead our Party, much less our nation, is more than questionable.

I believe it matters who you choose to follow. The “lesser-of-two-evils” argument is always compelling, but I simply have come to the conclusion that John McCain, for all his patriotism, is not the kind of man I want to follow and that I want to represent me, my country and my Party. ...

Read the rest if you need help staying positive and focused.

Michelle is on the subject in her own words:

... Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media.

Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he’s on the cusp of the presidency.

If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven’t made a career of trashing the base. Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California’s fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom group for their endorsements. ...

I'm looking forward to listening to Rush today, and I agree with his brother that critics of McCain's critics should chill.

Glenn Beck on why he can't vote for McCain...

Unlike Glenn, I don't think I can vote for McCain unless I become an alcholic:


AllahPundit has some of Juan McCain's CPAC speech here if you missed it. Figures that he would have stacked the room with as many supporters as they could find...weak. Bryan has video of McCain's reception, and here's Laura Ingraham introducing Romney...and slapping McCain while she's at it.

Michelle has lots of McCain coverage here.

Why does God's saving grace allow so many to live as lukewarm Christians?

Mark Driscoll hosts an "Ask Anything" session at Mars Hill Church in Seattle:


Here's a larger part of the sermon on grace.

A closer look at McCain's ACU Ratings...

I've now heard John McCain on numerous occasions tout his lifetime 82.3 rating from the American Conservative Union when confronted with questions regarding his issues with the conservative base. Not surprisingly, there's more to the story.

Randall Hoven takes a closer look at those ratings and how they fare relative to others in Congress:

Senator John McCain's lifetime rating of 82.3% from the American Conservative Union is often cited as proof that he is conservative. Here is a closer look at that 82.3 rating.

First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for example, scored 64 and 75, respectively, in 2006.

Generally, McCain has voted less conservatively in more recent years. His average for 1990-97 was 88, but was only 74 for 1998-2006. Below are his yearly ratings since 1990.

Year / ACU Rating

2006 - 65
2005 - 80
2004 - 72
2003 - 80
2002 - 72
2001 - 68
2000 - 81
1999 - 77
1998 - 68
1997 - 80
1996 - 95
1995 - 91
1994 - 96
1993 - 83
1992 - 85
1991 - 86
1990 - 87

...

What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).

I'm with Mr. Reagan in feeling that John McCain doesn't like me much.

Also, Thomas Sowell on McCain's straight talk lies.

The GOP May Regret Raising McCain.