Top Ten Reasons to Vote for McCain/Palin

Mona Charen:

10.) John McCain is much, much funnier than Barack Obama. But then, almost everyone is.

9.) John McCain is a passionate patriot who has always been, and will always be, guided by what he thinks is best for America. He can trace his ancestry back to an officer on Gen. George Washington's staff and his family has served the nation nobly in war and peace ever since. McCain believes in winning wars.

8.) McCain's intimate familiarity with military matters also makes him less biddable by the armed services. He was able, when most others (most notably his opponent) were not, to see that a change of strategy in Iraq -- not a retreat -- was needed. He brings an informed skepticism to military procurement requests as well.

7.) As he told Rick Warren, McCain believes that there is evil in the world and that it must be confronted. While Mrs. Obama and many others seem to think that our enemies will purr like kittens once we inaugurate a black man with an Islamic middle name, that is dangerous fantasy. When asked for an example of evil, McCain mentioned al-Qaida putting explosive vests on two mentally impaired girls and blowing them up by remote control in an Iraqi marketplace. Obama, whose turn of mind is different, cautioned that the problem is sometimes us: " a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

6.) McCain may not be a Ph.D. economist, but he understands that raising taxes and adopting protectionist trade policies will deepen and prolong this recession. Nor would he permit Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to push through the "card check" law -- a union-backed measure that would reverse 73 years of labor law in this country by scuttling the secret ballot in union elections. Even George McGovern has denounced this job-killing, freedom-smothering law that Obama supports. Greater unionization will translate into lost productivity, inflationary pressure, and fewer jobs.

5.) John McCain will try to protect the unborn. Barack Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate ever to win a presidential nomination. Obama has promised to back the Freedom of Choice Act as his first presidential act, which would invalidate all restrictions on abortion at any stage of gestation -- and even in cases where babies are born alive after an attempted abortion.

4.) McCain will employ diplomacy, not worship it. Obama is deluded about the power of "talks." In 2007, he proposed, regarding Iran's nuclear program: "if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior."

3.) John McCain has said that his models for good judicial picks are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Senator Obama will pick Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich (just kidding, but his choices won't be far off).

2.) McCain's health care proposal will improve the world's best health care delivery system. He proposes to reform the most distorting aspect of our current system (the tax break for employers) and give the tax break to individuals instead. It is McCain's proposal, not Obama's, that will give individuals the choice to stay with the plan they have or take the tax credit and shop around (in a market enlarged by permitting interstate insurance). Obama's plan, by contrast, is a key first step to achieving his oft-repeated preference for a single-payer system like Canada's. By forcing employers to provide certain (as yet unspecified) benefits or pay a tax ("play or pay"), Obama's plan will encourage employers to dump more and more people into a government-run health insurance system like Medicare. Word to the wise: In Canada, they are seeking to reduce wait times for care. One province reported waits of 26 weeks for hip replacements, and others are trying to ensure (without success) that cancer patients are treated within 4 weeks of diagnosis.

1.) The financial crisis and looming recession, combined with President Bush's low approval ratings, have set the stage for this election to be a pivot point in American history. If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats control large majorities in the House and Senate, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate will move the country decisively in the direction of dying Europe -- low productivity, high joblessness, low birth rates, high taxes, and limp foreign policies. The triumvirate will do this at a time when a vibrant America is more necessary than ever -- with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, Pakistan teetering, al-Qaida regrouping, China and Russia telegraphing hostility, and Iraq just barely emerging into the sunshine. This election has become about far more than John McCain versus Barack Obama; it has become about whether the United States will remain the champion of freedom -- economic and political -- or whether we will join the queue of formerly great nations now struggling to pay for all the social welfare "benefits" their aging and lazy populations demand.

And if you need some more help, read the always-insightful Charles Krauthammer's latest:

...This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.

The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.

You may also want to read a fantastic Digest at the Patriot Post... The Audacity of Deception, by Mark Alexander.

Unless, of course, you don't want to worry about paying your mortgage anymore. In that case, vote for Obama:

A Random Rant from "Zo"

Posting has been on hold for some time, but this seemed too good not to share!

This guy is now officially one of my conservative heroes:


While you're at it, check out The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama.

...and for a little comedy, Palin breaks the tie in the dance-off:


And Fred Thompson chimes in too:

Mac Johnson talks straight...

Since you're reading this blog, you're probably a political junkie like me and are well-aware of the recent snubbing that McCain received from the NY Times. As usual, Mac Johnson gets straight to the point in his latest effort:

To: Senator John McCain
Evil Republican Standard Bearer
Washington, D.C.

From: Pinch Ahmadinejad Sulzberger
Editor-in-Chief-for-Life, New York Times
New York, NY

Re: Submission (yours)

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for your recent unsolicited editorial submission to the New York Times. While we appreciate your desire to have your piece published in America’s newspaper of record, we regret that we cannot use it at this time.

We understand that you have had many thoughts published in the New York Times in the past, and that you have enjoyed fawning coverage by both our editors and reporters for years. However, it has recently come to our attention that you are, in fact, a Republican. We therefore cannot publish any more of your work until after you have lost the upcoming Presidential election. We encourage you to submit bitter critiques of conservative figures after that time.

We hope that you do not take this rejection personally, as you have been very useful to us in the past, and -- like all good manipulable politicians -- you care deeply about how you are described in our venerable and uppity pages. But you must understand that our past praise of you was conducted only with the hope of damaging other leading Republican figures with whom you disagreed. Now that you are the leading Republican figure, our only hope is to damage you, the Anti-Barack. May you cease to threaten the coming 1000-year peace of the Dalai Obama’s reign. (Hock, Patooie!)

Oo, that reminds me, please (for old Time’s sake) post the following classified employment advertisement in the Senate break room. We suddenly have a position available.

Wanted: Republican or near-Republican Senator to serve as “iconoclastic maverick” in the eyes of the World’s Most Important Newspaper. Must be willing to criticize own leaders, comrades, underlings and especially the Party’s base. Must love pets and illegal aliens. Veteran status a plus. Only non-smokers, please.

Again, thank you for all your many past services, sucker.

Peace out,

Pinch

P.S. We would, of course, be willing to reconsider your article if you are willing to submit a revised “second draft” of the work. Please change “victory” to “American withdrawal and apology” wherever it appears, and offer to serve (if asked) in the upcoming Obama administration. Also, please try to work in a reference to speculators contributing to Global Warming. Thanks.

P.P.S. The newsroom says “Hi.”

Perfect. The straight-talk express just got hoisted by it's own petard.

Dueling fools

I'm sorry... I just don't think I can vote for this guy. How can he accept Letterman's premice that we're deserving of hatred around the world? I may be with Ann Coulter on this one. Hillary may actually be better. God save us from Obama though.


Hey John, global warming/climate change is a hoax. You look like an idiot answering Letterman's inane comment about how we're the bad guys with an inane comment of your own about how we're going to join in the international effort to stop global warming.

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:

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.

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.

McCain wins Florida...

For what it's worth, if McCain is now the presumptive Republican nominee I'm leaning towards voting for Obama in the VA primary. He's black, has a deep voice and is a good speaker you know. He's also for change and hope. I'm feeling better already!

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...

[I]n a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress, conservatives risk becoming irrelevant

Carol Platt Liebau:

...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:

McCain’s billionaire national finance co-chair Jerry Perenchio - Michelle Malkin

Remind me again which party’s presidential nomination John McCain is running for?

All McCain posts - Michelle Malkin

'Straight Talk' Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth - Ann Coulter

Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Sixty Votes Coalition PAC, says he won't vote for McCain against Hillary - Wes Vernon

McCain's Age - Thomas Sowell

... 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."

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.

'Maverick' and 'Conservative' Aren't Synonyms - David Limbaugh

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:


And here's a new ad: McCain = Hillary

Christmas Ads...

Huck kicked 'em off with the now-famous "floating cross" that was really just a well-positioned and well-lit bookcase:


Very strong, but we now expect nothing less from Mike. Don't know what the big deal about the cross in the background is. Some people are surprised to find that Christmas has something to do with... Christ. It's a well-done ad. He's clearly got a good marketing team doing the video. Very strong.

Now let's go to Rudy with a little less Christmas (although that sweater is about as Christmas as you can get), and a little more ass-kick...


Sticking with the strength. Not bad. Could he look any more odd in that sweater though?

McCain skips Christmas altogether and promises it won't be easy:

Update... the McCain Christmas ad is here:


(sigh) Sorry John, but it's (still) over.

Silky Edwards goes for what will possibily go down as the all-time worst Christmas ad/message:


Wasn't that awful? On message, just pathetic though.

Obama invites the whole family... what, no O?


Happy Happy!

Now if this ad from Chillary doesn't terrify you, nothing will:


That is unbelievable. Liberalism Socialism right there for all to see... giving us big government gifts we don't want, but yet are forced to pay for. Isn't she wonderful horrifying?

Mitt? Fred?

Update: Fred adds his holiday ad to the mix... my favorite:


Well done Fred. That was great!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Update: Nathan Tabor writes a column titled Culture, Character and Christmas Ads where he concludes:

Now, it would be extrapolating a bit much from these ads to determine on their basis alone who is and is not fit for higher office. However, in the midst of the scripted world of presidential campaigns, it is often the little moments which betray flashes of a candidate’s character or innermost thoughts.

When it comes to selecting one from among ourselves for the office of President of the United States, other qualities are subordinate to the content of the candidate’s character. It is character which allows men and women in high office to face difficult decisions without buckling, and where the future of our nation is concerned, nothing less than the best will do.

Right on.

Considering Duncan Hunter...

Jay from STACLU wonders Why No Push For Duncan Hunter?: (Rush too)

[T]he point I’m trying to get at is the unfair treatment by the MSM towards Duncan Hunter. I’ve also been curious as to why so many conservatives are backing liberals like Rudy Giulliani and questionable characters like Mitt Romney. Why is so little attention being paid towards a solid conservative like Duncan Hunter?

I agree.

Here is where he stands. Please consider Duncan Hunter for President.

(Video to the right is Hunter's appeal to conservatives)

Update: Here is a strong endorsement of Hunter from Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post:

The consensus among the chattering class is that this presidential cycle features no clear heir to the Reagan mantle. Yet of the declared candidates, conservatives outnumber the media-dubbed triumvirate of Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Most notable among them is Duncan Hunter, the California representative who hails from The Gipper's lucky city of San Diego.

...

Every characteristic touted as a distinguisher for another candidate is one Hunter also demonstrates. He combines the military service and acumen of McCain with the border-security stances of Tom Tancredo, he's been a consistent defender of human life and traditional families in law and he has a firm grasp of the principles of constitutional law. He has as much or more experience as a legislator than most of his primary contenders.

A true Patriot, Hunter proclaims, "America is a great nation because America is a good nation. God still loves this nation. We are still a people of character and strength and kindness. And so with faith in God, with confidence in the goodness of the American people, let's win this race for the United States presidency."

Read about all of the Presidential candidates at the Patriot Post.

Ann Coulter on Hunter:

Why the Kennedy-McCain-Bush Immigration Reform Bill deserved to die...

Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs speak for me:

Also, Michelle Malkin asks who believes Chertoff anyway in her latest vent. She also writes about the diminished credibility of the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity on her blog. Great stuff.

AllahPundit chimes in on Chertoff too.

Star Parker: Immigration fiasco shows crisis in leadership

Allan Wall: Why the Amnesty Bill’s Defeat is an Opportunity for Mexico

ACU: See Who Voted For Amnesty

CMI: Libs Long for ‘Fairness’ Daze

Also, Glenn on the unfairness doctrine:



The solution is so obvious: Build a moat.

"I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

Jim DeMint on immigration reform:

... First, national security must be our number one priority. This requires improvements in border security and workplace enforcement.

Second, immigration must be a net gain for our country, not a net loss. This requires attracting those with the skills and enterprise, creating a responsible temporary guest worker program, and putting responsible limits on the burdens immigrants place on American taxpayers.

Third, we must not grant amnesty. Illegal immigrants cannot be given legal permanent residency or citizenship without first returning to their home country and getting right with the law.

Fourth, we must strengthen assimilation, which has always been the strength of the America. The traditional American melting pot immigration process is not what it once was. We must again teach immigrants what it truly means to be an American citizen, and that includes speaking our common language. ...

... Our freedom is at stake here, because our way of life is based on the rule of law. Granting amnesty flouts that fundamental American principle and threatens the underpinnings of everything we hold dear.

At the same time, we must remember that there are compassionate ways to address the millions of illegal immigrants living in our country without granting amnesty. We can give people a reasonable amount of time to return to their home countries and get right with the law.

Any immigration reform legislation that does not address these principles is not a serious attempt at reform. Legislation that does not strengthen border security, serve American interests, uphold the rule of law, and improve American assimilation puts politics over principle. It is by these standards that Americans will judge Congress on this issue. And it is upon these principles that the strength of our nation rest.

Read it all here.

HotAir coverage with record comments here.

Details revealed by Jedd Babbin here.

Tom Tancredo: It's "a slap in the face" to working Americans.

Romney is on the right side.

This may seal it for Billary in '08... I'm afraid conservatives are going to stay home again in protest over this.

The dynamic duo of Ted Kennedy & John McCain:


More jokers... Matthews and Chertoff:


Kathryn Jean Lopez discusses the Right Revolt:

... The base, of course, will eventually calm down — a bit. The question is, how much? Was this the last straw? If conservative media is any indication, recovery will be slow. Laura Ingraham began her show Friday announcing “I'm trying not to be demoralized.” But after playing tape of Ted Kennedy “waxing triumphant” Thursday, the mood was reminiscent of the morning after Election Day 2005 all over again. And now you can kiss the Senate goodbye, too, if this bill goes through, she said.

It's going to be a long, hot summer on the Right thanks to la Casa Blanca.

Yes, it will.

'Is 2008 The Year Conservatives Abandon The GOP?'

by Chuck Baldwin:

It is no hyperbole to say that conservatives throughout America are extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the national Republican Party. This discouragement is only deepened as they peruse the field of prominent candidates being trotted out as "frontrunners."

It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."

The Republican Party’s unwillingness to advance a genuine conservative has left millions of grassroots Republicans on the verge of leaving the GOP. For example, a poll at the recent CPAC meeting found the "overwhelming majority of conservatives displeased with the leadership of the Republican Party, and most conservatives scowl at the thought of having to vote for Rudoph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney."

In fact, the displeasure of grassroots conservatives with the GOP manifested itself in the creation of the Conservative Exodus Project (CEP), which was formed immediately following the recent CPAC meeting. According to organizers, CEP "is a vehicle for conservatives to leave the GOP if a real conservative presidential candidate is not chosen in 2008." Members pledge either to not vote, or to vote third party (e.g. Constitution Party).

CEP adherents use a fivefold litmus test to reveal a "real conservative." 1) He must oppose the "third-world invasion of the United States and reject amnesty and any path to citizenship for illegals." 2) He must "oppose free trade, the support of which has become an ideological suicide pact." 3) He must be a "moral candidate, critical of secularism, who embodies the virtues of the Christian Western tradition." 4) He must oppose the "illegal neocon war in Iraq." 5) He must "wish to see big government reduced in size-in all three branches-and for many offices and functions to be returned to the states, where they Constitutionally belong."

Proponents of the CEP make the following commitment: "Unless the above criteria are met, we pledge to stay home or vote third-party in 2008."

To which I say, Hallelujah! Not to the staying home part, but to the voting third-party part.

It is past time for conservatives to admit that the national Republican Party has crossed the point of no return and has no intention of nominating a genuine conservative for president. The GOP has become nothing more than a big-government, no-borders, war party. If true conservatives are going to have a voice in Washington politics, it will have to come through an independent party.

That is not to say that there are not genuine conservatives in the GOP presidential race. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas embodies everything the CEP is looking for. Beyond that, if he should miraculously win the nomination, he would, no doubt, receive broad support in the general election. He would solidify the conservative base of the GOP and would be very popular among independents, libertarians, and even conservative Democrats. ...

... The problem is, the GOP leadership, including the money-machine, refuses to support the independent-minded Ron Paul. They want another puppet to carry out the marching orders of their CFR cronies. However, if rank and file Republicans, and if Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and other leaders of the Religious Right, would support Ron Paul, the globalist elitists within the GOP could be defeated.

Absent a Ron Paul nomination, true conservatives will have nowhere to go next year, except to a third party. In fact, it is my prayer that if Paul does not obtain the Republican nomination, he would lead the exodus to the Constitution Party.

It is time for conservatives to do more than hold their noses and vote for the "lesser of two evils." It is time for them to vote their principles and their conscience. It is time to only support genuine conservatives, even if that means such candidates can only be found in a third party.

It’s too late for business-as-usual. We need a revolution! And thanks to the wisdom, sagacity, and foresight of America’s Founding Fathers, we have a system in place whereby the American people can change their government anytime they choose to do so. I pray 2008 will be the year they choose to do so.

To learn more about the Conservative Exodus Project, go to http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/:

We would like to stress these five points.

(1) We oppose the third-world invasion of the United States, and reject amnesty and any path to citizenship for illegals. We support deportation, attrition, and massive reductions in legal immigration, especially from the third world.

(2) We oppose free trade, the support of which has become an ideological suicide pact. Free trade is both destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. Historically, conservatives have opposed free trade, and they should, but many in the GOP have been "neoconned" on this issue.

(3) We support a moral candidate, critical of secularism, who embodies the virtues of the Christian Western tradition.

(4) We oppose the illegal neocon war in Iraq. The transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Jacobin, not conservative.

(5) We wish to see big government reduced in size - in all three branches - and for many offices and functions to be returned to the states, where they Constitutionally belong.

To learn more about the Constitution Party, go to http://www.constitutionparty.com

I'm thinking more and more... Tom Tancredo for President.

A gloomy prognosis for the GOP from Frank Luntz... (updated)

I didn't know much about him before, but I watched Luntz in an interview recently on Book TV. Watch it here if you have some time.

Bob Novak chimes in with his latest titled "The GOP's Cassandra":

... Like Cassandra of ancient Troy, Luntz's prophecies of impending disaster have been both accurate and disregarded. Republicans never have been that comfortable hearing critics in closed conferences. He is not invited to such meetings today. "They do not want to hear the truth," Luntz told me. While truth-telling is celebrated by Republican reformers who include presidential front-runner John McCain, it is a decidedly minority view in the GOP.

Luntz's truth is summarized in a 10-page "addendum," inspired by the 2006 election fiasco, to his new book, "Words that Work" (about political use of language). He delayed publication and lost Christmas sales in order to deliver a wakeup call to his party.

"The Republican Party that lost those historic elections was a tired, cranky shell of the articulate reformist, forward-thinking movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change," Luntz wrote. He went on to say that the Republicans of 2006 "were an ethical morass, more interested in protecting their jobs than protecting the people they served. The 1994 Republicans came to 'revolutionize' Washington. Washington won." ...

If the Republicans continue to flounder, the Libertarian Party may have an opportunity.

Mac Johnson's latest called "Libertarians on Drugs" points to a serious problem though:

... This debate would be just an intellectual exercise except for the fact that many of the intellectual lights of the libertarian movement waste considerable breath and ink decrying the prohibition of drugs, and that one of the nonstarters of the libertarian party growing into a real movement is people’s correct perception that libertarian control of drug laws will result in drive-thru drug-marts popping up at the state line. As much as many small government fans would like to see a viable third party arise, it cannot be one that thinks that free will and reason can govern the use of mind-altering addictive drugs.

On some issues, libertarians make perfect sense. But libertarians on drugs are simply irrational. Biochemistry trumps free will every time.

Constitution Party anyone?

Update: From Mark Alexander - Wanted: Another Reagan...

Like Ronald Reagan's foes on both sides of the Berlin Wall, these Republican leaders seem all too willing, all too often, to expand the state at the expense of liberty. With candidates aplenty and the 2008 election just around the corner, let's hope and pray that a true conservative -- a Reagan conservative -- will soon emerge.

Update: Ann Coulter fires a different kind of warning shot in her latest...

If you won't defend your own champions, conservatives, then don't sit back and wonder why so few people want to be your champions.

Tony Snow doesn't... damn.

'Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets'... (updated)

When Ollie North talks about what to do in Iraq, I listen:

For months, advisers to President George W. Bush have been trying to convince the commander in chief that more U.S. troops in Iraq will improve prospects for victory. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), both recently returned from Iraq (and a courageous surprise stopover in Ramadi, capital of bloody Al Anbar Province) also support adding more American troops. Unfortunately, they are wrong.

Here's why.

Update: Ollie - "So he didn't take my advice."

Newt, on 2007 being a year for 'getting something done for a change'...

Newt was on Meet the Press this past Sunday. Here's a snippet:

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, "This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down"?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have -- you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We've already limited the 1st Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That's California state law. It's stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech.

---

[A] Supreme Court justice once said...
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

---

So we've had a 30-year period of saying it's OK to infringe free speech as long as it's about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that's morally wrong? I think that's suicidal. I'm using the word deliberately. A country -- a Supreme Court justice once said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." This country has every right to defend itself, and you saw the same thing recently on this U.S. Airlines provocation, where you had six people go way out of their way to cause trouble, and then claim they were infringed upon. And I think, frankly, the President should invite that U.S. Airlines crew to the White House and thank them, because we ought to set a standard that if you're provocative about killing people, we're not going to show you any mercy.

Amen.

Gingrich/Santorum in '08!

Here's his latest "Winning the Future" article called 2007: A Year of Solutions and Dialogue. 2008: A Year of Ambition and Debate:

... There's one more critical element I plan to bring to our year of solutions and dialogue: the values at the heart of the American tradition.

Four hundred years ago next May, a people arrived in North American believing their rights come from God, and that with hard work, a belief in the future and a willingness to work together, they could create a better world for their children and grandchildren.

If we have that same courage to combine American culture -- free-market principles, the work ethic and the values of American civilization that have allowed us to prosper for 400 years -- with all the opportunities afforded by dramatically accelerating scientific and technological change, I believe we can have American solutions for virtually every challenge we're faced with. I hope you'll join me.

I'm there!

Kerry is soooo very...

...unlikable:

... Among those placing ahead of Kerry were about a dozen potential 2008 White House rivals, including Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"This is bad, bad news for Kerry," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, which conducted the survey.

"Americans know who he is, and have pretty much decided they don't like him," said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004 White House race to U.S. President George W. Bush, to rate the Massachusetts Democrat. ...

Poor John.

Related from NewsMax:
Poll: Giuliani, McCain, Obama Are Hot for White House
Conservatives Launch Anti-Hillary Web Site
Al Gore: McCain 'Capable Guy' for 2008