iPandora

McCain is exactly what a GOP that treats the natural moral law as negotiable deserves. The natural law is the philosophical core of conservatism. Any party that abandons or downplays it becomes just another species of liberalism. Most “conservative” positions today are little more than the liberal positions of yesteryear, from Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to No Child Left Behind — a PC conservatism that Mitt Romney and McCain perfectly embody.

The American Spectator

From Hugh Hewitt:

Because he is a very good man,  a great conservative and an extraordinary patriot he is standing aside to allow Senator McCain’s national campaign to commence.  There were excellent reasons for Romney to stay in the hunt, including the opportunity to score some impressive victories in places like Ohio, which might have served Romney well in any future campaign.

Romney’s decision to “stand aside,” and especially the reasons he gave just now in his CPAC speech underscore the qualities I found so compelling in him, and confirm for me my decision to support him made many months ago.   Had the conservative movement more quickly recognized these qualities, the coming together around Romney that has occurred in the last few weeks would have assured him the nomination and, I think, the White House.  But it didn’t, and now the task is to assure that Senator McCain succeeds President Bush for the very reasons Mitt Romney outlined today.

I’m sad to see him leave, but he has chosen the right thing.

Thomas Sowell writes on GOPUSA regarding McCain:

We have been hearing for years that Senator John McCain gives “straight talk” and his bus has been endlessly referred to as the “straight talk express.” But endless repetition does not make something true.

The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker.

There are short, blunt lies — and he told a big one on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Even the Washington Post, which supports McCain, said that the Senator “has distorted the meaning” of what Governor Romney said, that Romney “has never proposed setting ‘a date for withdrawal.’”

Read on for more of McCain’s Straight Lies…

Mark Levin says conservatives must rally now if we are to get what we want…

…and what America needs.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.

On National Review Online.

Obama and Clinton being children:
There’s a bold line between idealism and fantasy,
neither of them have grown enough to know the difference.

With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.

McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)

McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.

It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.

Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?

Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.

Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:

Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.

(From the American Thinker)

Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…

I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.

…and endorses Romney.

Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.

And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:

After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.

I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.

I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.

And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.

I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.

Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.

Riehl ponders:

Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain – an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?

We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:

“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”

(From Copious Dissent)

My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.

This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.

Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:

• He can win
• He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
• He believes America’s best days are ahead of it

And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?

So where did McCain differ from the ACU?  The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration.  There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.

In the race for the Republican nomination, there’s something for everyone.

There’s a liberal who’s principled and experienced but still liberal.

There’s a populist who tickles ears and yet is Christian, courageous, and popular.

There’s a fiscal conservative with serious experience and a very public track-record who wore a dress (once, on camera), supports homosexual marriage, and is not in favor of criminalizing mothers who have abortions (a slight but significant difference from actually being pro-choice).

There’s some dude with two first names and some good ideas, but with serious inconsistency, and serious stupidity concerning international affairs and national security harking back to pre-WWII Republican isolationism.

There’s a conservative business leader and governor with a funny first name and movie-star looks who’s been consistent, if not amazing.

And there’s a movie star without the looks who’s been amazing, if not consistent. If only he acted like he wanted to win.

There are others, but they are also-ran’s or sometimer’s and not worth consideration at this stage in the game.

I don’t much care for the liberal, the populist, the fiscal, or Mr. Two Names. Though I could stomach the fiscal, were he to, by some stretch of imagination, win the nomination. The others I abhor for various reasons.

The liberal is neither a man of honor nor a man of principle. He has convenient and far-sighted-sounding reasons for his liberal attachments and accomplishments, but his willingness to sell the farm, ideologically speaking, is not the measure of a man. Personally, I admire and honor his courage in his past. But I fear to many years within the beltway, and those who have spent those years with him not recommending him in the droves we’d expect, are very indicative of a lack of character and ability.

The populist is just that. He uses his sincere (and I do not doubt, genuine) Christianity to excuse and/or support and champion decidedly non-Christian policies. God did not institute a welfare state (for individuals or corporations) in Theocratic Israel. Instead He instituted laws and policies which protected individuals from each other’s harm and sin. Claiming that “green” science is correct in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary does not lead me to believe he is either “wise as a serpent” or “harmless as a dove”. In fact, I would submit the populist is the inverse: He is wise as a dove and harmless as a serpent (taken ironically, of course).

Mr. Two Name needs no rebuttal as he is his own best revealing mirror. Dismissed out of hand is the best response to the majority of his supporters.

I’d like the movie star to catch a fire, but his lack of consistency heretofore is troubling, and I believe, more accurately indicative of who he’d be in office that what he’d be if he did catch a fire.

The man I voted for in my last election (for some time at least) in California is the leader. A realization I came to after considering what he does when there’s not supposed to be a camera around.

Here are a few articles from across the web which seem to me to be particularly salient and and appropriate to the candidates in this race.

•  The Trouble With McCain
  Jay Cost, Wall Street Journal

  Thirty-four Republicans have endorsed Mr. Romney, while just 24 have endorsed Mr. McCain. Furthermore, Mr. Romney’s supporters are more in line with conservative opinion. Their average 2006 ACU rating was 84.1, and 26 of them come from states Bush won in 2004. Meanwhile, the average 2006 ACU rating for Mr. McCain’s supporters is 70.7, and just 12 of them come from Bush states. In light of Mr. McCain’s résumé, this is consequential. He should have locked up most members of the Republican caucus, but he has not.

• Hillary And MLK
  John McWhorter, Wall Street Journal

  …[T]here she was on “Meet the Press” Sunday, having to defend herself for simply saying that while King laid the groundwork (which she acknowledged), another part of the civil rights revolution was Lyndon B. Johnson’s masterful stewardship of the relevant legislation through Congress. She was arguing that she is more experienced in getting laws passed in Washington than is Barack Obama — which is true.

• Barak Obama And Israel
  Ed Lasky, American Thinker

  One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama’s career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism.

• Where They Stand
  Pete Du Pont, Wall Street Journal

  …[T]he political ups and downs of the candidates and the electricity of the campaign–”I am promising change!”–matter much less than the substantive policies the next president would implement regarding the five most important challenges facing our country.

With many thanks to Ms. Green, here’re a few bits of meat for y’all to chew on:

• Michael T. Eckhart, president of American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a hot head and really ought to keep up the good work of exposing his own side for the windbags they are.
• His email got to the wrong (right?) people.
• And now he’s on Youtube:

• Marlo “full of crap” responds.
• People keep saying Eckhart “apologized” but there are only two articles on his blog, and they’re from September of ’06.
• Meanwhile, back where it matters, over 400 prominent scientists rebuke the Global Warming Alarmists and Propagandists, stating that, were it not for threats against their careers and livelihoods, there would be significantly more of them standing up against the claims of global warming.
  • I say they all should start their own school and weather station and policy think tank together and start throwing cool mud all over Gore and his sycophants.
• 2007 is now “The Year Of Global Cooling“
• …and RickKalgaard, quoting Martin Wolf, asks “Is Algore a ‘Red-Green’ or a ‘Green-Green’“?

Meanwhile, Bush is kicking tail and taking names. I don’t like some of what he’s pushed lately, but I see that I can continue to trust him as a man of his word: saying what he’ll do and doing what he says.

This strength has made him the winner by a wide margin in the battles between the White House and the Congress. Democrats just can’t lead when their leadership means whining and crying and flying in defeat. Passing useless resolutions and pointless pontification do not a leader make.

And Mitt is an honorable man.

Novak gushes, but I agree:

More and more this year, among the other pro-life candidates, I have been attracted by Mitt Romney’s good and cheerful disposition, level-headedness, and unruffable temperament (if there is such an adjective). You may think this is silly, but to me he both looks like and acts like a president. He would be easy to watch on the morning and nighttime news for the next eight years. His quiet and steady voice would be easy to take. He has the habits of an executive, not a legislator – action, not just talk. And I admire the way he honors his wife and his family – including his own mother and father.

Keep reading.

Read the story on the far side of this link. Mitt Romney is acting Presidential, very Presidential.

I’m leaning towards Huckabee in my vote in the nomination, but I’m less than happy with his lack of fiscal responsibility and faith in government programs.

Guiliani is a strong man who is honest and truthful, but his social and moral views are very different from my own and I cannot support many of his policies.

Thompson will not be a factor, unless lethargy is a quality.

Paul can keep spinning his little wheels as long as he stops once the primary voting is over and his nuts see just how few of themselves there really were.

McCain is a politician, not a man. He gets ideas in his head and nothing shakes them loose, especially when they are incorrect. Think Campaign Finance Reform, the worst thing to happen to American Politics since the invention of the lie.

The others are also-ran’s. Egotistical or misguided or just unable to recognize they are at the margin of the margin. And incapable of pulling beyond single-digit support, counting their own families.

Social conservative Christian leaders meetings are being trumpeted by the media. The talking heads crowing that the current crop of Republican presidential contenders are not conservative enough on certain issues and that movers and shakers such as Dr. James Dobson are planning on voting for a third party or not at all if the eventual chosen nominee of either of the two main parties does not support traditional family values such as opposing abortion and support marriage for one man and one woman exclusively.

I agree with these leaders that we desperately need strong leadership, morals and values in our President, without them we really do not have a chance as America. It has been rightly noted that the next President may very well nominate several more Justices to the Supreme Court, and with the current balance of ideology in the Court, the next Justices will direct the Court firmly in either direction.

Things we know for sure:

Hillary will appoint Ginsburg’s and similar justices. Men and women whose moral compass is screwed wrong. This is not a question or a chance, it is a known and acknowledged fact. She is not ashamed to say it. These Justices will direct the court towards the globalization of our legal authority, the affirming and legalization of abortion, the normalization of homosexual “marriage”, and the legal protection of terrorists and the aiders, abettors, and sympathizers, among other things. The Justices will practice judicial activism and will deny the will of the people and their elected representatives and the original intent of the constitution. They will hasten the destruction of America in immorality, wickedness, and the blood of our children.

The front runners of the Republican race, Guiliani and Romney, would appoint justices similar to Scalia and Thomas, who believe in the rule of law and the strong original intent of the Constitution. As such, the will of the people and their elected representatives when codified in law, is the law to them and they would not change it or define it into oblivion. They would deny the constitutionality of Roe V Wade, they would uphold the rights and protections of American citizens and the entire world by denying the supposed “rights” of enemy combatants and terrorists. They would uphold the will of the people in their laws and constitutional amendments protecting marriage between one man and one woman.

I have serious disagreements with the social ideas of Guiliani and qualms about the religious view of Romney, but when the option is Hillary, I will throw my whole weight of support behind them for our Country’s sake.

Of the two, I support Romney right now. He has changed his mind on social issues, but in the right direction.

So what of Thompson, McCain, and the others? Thompson has not done much since he announced his candidacy, wowing few and wooing fewer. He is not consistent in cutting spending or on social issues. I’d support him just as heartily if he were to be the nominee, but I will not support him in the primary. McCain is not good for America. His highest aim is his own preeminence and he can only be trusted to to what is expedient for himself. A selfish man is not a man to whom one gives authority.

Huckabee is trying too hard to be all thing to all people, the funny man, the cool man, the smart man, the right man. He is all things to all, and nothing true. This is sad. I had hoped he’d be a good man for the job, but he would be polling and focus-grouping as much as the last President from Arkansas. And with a name like Huckabee, how can he be elected?

As for Paul, to (mis)quote a bastion of English (French?) literature: “I fart in (his) general direction”. There is neither honor, honesty, nor leadership potential in that man. He tickles the ears of his listeners with good ideas mixed with bad. With false libertarianism and fake posture. His listeners and adherents are as enthusiastic as they are deluded and I pity them, and have little patience for them.

Do I wish there were a strong Christian man with history and depth, with values and strength? Yes. It is a sad commentary on the state of the lazy and bloated, idle Christianity which defines our Country that we do not have a strong man leading the way, an obvious and unimpeachable choice, a shoo in who no one can say wrong about because He is right and good.

We do not have such a man, and to search elsewhere for one is to run the risk of finding ourselves lost in history as those who forsook the good hoping to find the impossible.

There’s soooo much good stuff out there, I couldn’t focus on anything specific to serve up to y’all. So here goes another thrilling episode of Todays Interesting Stuff:

First, a three articles on the War and President Bush:

• Rasmussen Reports: Bush’s job approval is up, particularly regarding the war.
• Washington Post: William Kristol on Why Bush Will Be A Winner, it really does boil down to the war.
• Bullwinkle Blog: What Democrats Said Before The Iraq War. They recognized then the need for intervention in that hellhole. They also recognized (and this is where they maintain their mental consistency) that people wanted them to fight this war. Now that they see powerful people against the war, the Soros’ and the jobless unwashed masses who spend their days protesting anything which speaks against their carefully nurtured bubble or a world, they have kept true to their aims for power and have unleashed their vitriol against those who stand between us and the abomination of (radical Islamic) desolation.

Next, a culture shock moment in Gary, Indiana

A good friend came to visit me a few weeks ago, we traveled down to Lousiville KY to visit some other friends and then on the way back we stopped in Gary, Indiana. This town is a sad testament to Union protectionism gone awry, government social programs working the way they usually do, and the indomitable human spirit being crushed under the weight of it’s own self-worth. We had to stop by this town because Professor Harold Hill, the Music Man, attended Conservatory here, graduating in the class of ’05 (though it was revealed the conservatory did not open until ’06). There is definite history here, but most of it has been forgotten. The culture shock came as my friend and I were looking for trinkets of baubles, touristy sorts of things she could get for her boyfriend. Initially we looked downtown, but in that depressed town the populace does not have either the money or the inclination to support anything touristy or sell anything touristy. My friend and I walked into a grocery store, and immediately the eyes of the entire store were upon us. We smiled affably at all, put on our clueless tourist faces and began to scour the aisles for trinkets and baubles. There were none to be found. We were the only two white people within 10 blocks at least. It wasn’t just one neighborhood either, but nearly the entire city. And it’s not inherently wrong or bad that there is a city so different from most other American cities, do not misread me. What struck me was the distrust I felt directed towards myself and my friend, the obviously depressed situation of a significant majority of these people. The friendly clerk at the gas station expressed her own commentary on this sad corner of America, “it sucks” she said, and she lives there.

Feeling Way Too White, from Emily Hauser and the Christian Science Monitor, talks of another Chicago suburb even closer to home for me. It really is the way she says it is.

And finally, the presidential race, particularly among the Republicans, introduces a classic American religion to the political big-shot race

Mormon, Governor, Republican Mitt Romney is running, and running well so far, for the Republican nod to head this greatest nation on God’s green earth. The Mormon bit has not been brought up very often, but I’d assume mostly that is a result of the media hoping against hope that there are big glaring billboard-sized issues they can attack in the as-yet-unnamed Republican nominee for President. A Mormon will have a target the size of a blimp over their heads, and better yet if they’re Republican.

But politics aside, the Mormon faith is an intriguing study, and from my perspective as a born-again Christian, entirely false. The worst bit being the differences between what their holy books teach and what the average Mormon is taught.

Two particularly salient discussions on the topic of Mormonism, one specifically from the political perspective and one specifically from the theological perspective, bring together great minds in a worthwhile discussion.

Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible, is a transcript of a discussion hosted by the Pew Forum.

Are Mormons Christian? Is a debate hosted by BeliefNet between Dr Al Mohler, Dean of Southern Seminary and outspoken commentator on the Christian role in current affairs, and Orson Scott Card, Mormon, Democrat, Science fiction author (one of my favorite), and all around intelligent guy. I highly respect both of these men, Card because I’ve read nearly everything he’s ever published, and Mohler because I have good friends who attend his school and I’ve heard enough about him from people I trust. Note: This debate is rather hard to read, you have to start from the END of the page and read each preceding article in turn to follow the ideas.