On Palin: A Bag of Mixed Emotions...

Intellectually, I recognize that John McCain could have done very well with either Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney.

Palin brought in an avenue to reel in disaffected Hillary supporters. She puts a very articulate and reasonable face on the issue of domestic energy production. She is a reformer and maverick - which fits into McCain's career and image very well. She also has impeccable pro-life credentials (I don't think a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's child).

She lacks experience, though, and on the economy in general, she is not as strong as Romney. But the pluses far outweigh the minuses.

Romney had the economic credentials - in spades. He also had no real skeletons, had been vetted, and would have not only locked down some uncomfortably close Mountain West States (Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico), but he had a very good chance of flipping Michigan. The way this election is shaping up - McCain winning Michigan means game over for Obama.

There were downsides. He and McCain didn't exactly get along in the primary. The other, though, leaves me with a bag of mixed emotions.

To wit, Mitt Romney was shot down for the Presidential nomination by anti-Mormon bigotry among evangelicals - a bigotry that was played to by Mike Huckabee. It was a bigotry that a lot of leading conservatives did not denounce. Why they did not do so is a mystery. Afraid of losing support? Was it a reluctance to make a charge that has all too often been used by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with little merit? Who knows? But the fact they didn't take on Huckabee has led me to seriously reconsider my alliance with conservatism.

Worse, it also colors my views on a very dedicated wife, mother, and public servant. As much as Sarah Palin is a good nominee, and knowing intellectually that it is very likely that she was selected on the merits, a part of me will always wonder whether she got the slot entirely on the merits (which make it just about a coin toss), or because McCain blinked vis-a-vis Huckabee and other anti-Mormon bigots. I’m probably being very unfair to Governor Palin, but that question just is not going away any time soon.

A Fourth War in Europe?

America has fought three wars in Europe in the 20th Century - World Wars I and II, and the Cold War.

However, this article from The New Republic could explain the genesis of America's Fourth European War.

Key paragraph:

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely. Sands's book contains an interview with an investigating magistrate in a European nation, which he describes as a NATO nation with a solidly pro-American orientation which supported U.S. engagement in Iraq with its own soldiers. The magistrate makes clear that he is already assembling a case, and is focused on American policymakers. I read these remarks and they seemed very familiar to me. In the past two years, I have spoken with two investigating magistrates in two different European nations, both pro-Iraq war NATO allies. Both were assembling war crimes charges against a small group of Bush administration officials. "You can rest assured that no charges will be brought before January 20, 2009," one told me. And after that? "It depends. We don't expect extradition. But if one of the targets lands on our territory or on the territory of one of our cooperating jurisdictions, then we'll be prepared to act."

I cannot imagine the United States sitting still in such an event, even in an Obama administration. Obama would be pushed into doing something, if for no other reason than his inaction would be seen as political retribution - and of a decidedly more cowardly form than actually doing the trials himself.

It would mean the destruction of the NATO alliance. I don't think Europe really wants to go there.

Signs of a witch-hunt continue...

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial that should frighten any American who is concerned about the direction this country is headed.

Should Obama be elected, it is becoming increasingly likely that in order to sell retreat in the global war on terror, he will proceed to turn those who carried out a reasonably successful policy into criminals. He has to. There will be no other way to sell a return to the failed policy of treating terrorists like your garden-variety thugs.

He won't come out and say it...

...but Barack Obama seems to be admitting that perhaps things are not as rosy in his Presidential campaign.

Why? He's trying to sell people on winning the Presidency without Ohio and Florida.

That's a total of 47 electoral votes.

If Obama's having to go to a Plan B in two of the critical swing states of the last two Presidential elections, then he's got a problem.

A solid double...

John McCain's speech last night was a solid double. Reading the transcript, McCain's strategy is very simple: Draw contrasts - and see if Obama starts squealing like a stuck pig.

I have my disagreements with John McCain, but I have no doubt he truly wants what is best for this country. Ultimately, that will be why he gets my vote.

Why Obama can't unify America...

Barack Obama has been painted as someone who can unify the country. However, reading a report from Eve Fairbanks on The Stump, one must have doubts about his ability to do so. Adding his latest priest problem, one can arguably wonder if it's just lip service.

Now, I know I complained about the Huckabee campaign's exploitation of anti-Mormon bias. But comparing Obama's church to Romney's church is like comparing apples and carrots.

You see, as Lowell Brown at Article 6 Blog points out, comments like those of Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright just don't happen over Mormon pulpits. And this is despite the fact that unlike African-Americans, Mormons were the subject of an extermination order. In my years of attending church, I only recall hearing my church leaders make one statement on an issue of the day - and that was to oppose the establishment of a state lottery in Virginia. Not even gay marriage drew that sort of comment - at least as far as I can recall.

And this is why Obama will not be able to unify. Because, fundamentally, to unify the country, he has to believe it's worth his effort. And to have sat in a church where "God damn America" was preached for twenty years, to have surrounded himself with people who believe that "America is the greatest sin against God" speaks volumes about how he views this country. It is fundamentally divisive.

Obama will only give us a more divided America. He may not have meant to, but his poor judgment of the character of those he chose to surround himself with twenty years ago will have that consequence.

Age of Google 101 for Daily Kos...

Don't think that by deleting a post, it will go away.

Google caches can always come back to bite you. As this Redstate blog notes.

The cover-up is always worse than the crime...

"Christmas in Cambodia" every day!

That's what Barack Obama seems to be giving us these days. While some are outraged, I think the best medicine here is laughter.

Yes, I do think it's hitting the level of comedy. Besides, Obama's expecting an angry attack. Laughing at him will throw him off kilter, and might provoke a more... useful response.

Unpatriotic Conservatives, 2008 style...

In 2003, David Frum wrote a brilliant takedown of anti-war conservatives. It pulled very few punches, and laid out a compelling case that they were clearly .

Today, though, there is a new batch of unpatriotic conservatives who are perfectly willing to sell out our troops by sitting out 2008 - perfectly willing to let Obama win, despite the deleterious effects he will have on the country. If there are better words than unpatriotic and selfish, I'd like to hear them.

Quite frankly, they are going about immigration all wrong. We do have some problems, particularly with gangs and drugs. But how do we deal with that aspect of border security when we waste our time raiding meat-packing plants and construction sites? We don't. But it provides plenty of bloody shirts for people like Michelle Malkin to wave in the immigration debate.

But when they will, through their inaction, elect someone who is likely to surrender in the war on terror, someone who is stupid enough to meet with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and someone who will likely appoint Supreme Court justices who will be more inclined to engage in judicial putsches on issues like gay marriage, it's time to call them out.

What is truly the most important issue facing America, immigration, or the war on terror? I think most Americans would argue the latter. Holding our troops hostage over immigration is despicable, and it will not win friends.

Iraq Progress...

Powerline has a very good post on the Iraqi campaign of the war on terror.

There are big issues that clearly warrant supporting McCain over Obama. AJ-Strata lays it out. The country needs to win the global war on terror farmorethan we need to placate conservatives on immigration.

Doomsday Strategy

AJ-Strata discusses Hillary's latest comments, and is well worth the read.

That said, it's a very interesting strategy... one that could very well sink Obama in 2008.

Think about it: Come June 3, Hillary is likely to emerge with a slight lead in the overall popular vote. She will have won a large number of the major primaries. And, of course, there are two large delegate-rich states which she won, but which will probably not have a single delegate.

Once the delegates are denied, Hillary will refuse to endorse Obama. She and her supporters will very publicly sit on their hands. She will simply state that she cannot support the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida. Obama, of course, will have to find some way to mollify her - and in doing that is going to reinforce the perception that he's a bit of a wimp.

Eventually, when the damage is done, Hillary will graciously (yeah, right) stand aside for Obama and watch him lose. She will then run in 2012 on an "I told you so" campaign.

Conservatives out of touch...

OK, what would you consider to be the most pressing issue facing America this week?

War on Terror? Energy? The economy? Nope, none of those are the pressing issue of the week, according to Michelle Malkin. No the big issue of the week is Beyonce's new clothing line.

Good fucking grief.

If you wonder why conservatives have image problems, this is an example right here.

They obsess over the trivial - and woe unto those who suggest that there is a bigger picture or more important things to deal with. And they wonder why I prefer to think of myself as a Donald Bellisario Republican as opposed to a conservative?

Why the Congressional GOP is lagging McCain...

AJ-Strata has an excellent post on why the Congressional GOP is lagging McCain.

The tone the right has taken on immigration has been shrill, declaring those who did not toe a hard line traitors repeatedly, as well as enemies of the Republic (Paul J. Cella is one of the more easily found ones, but you can see similar sentiments in some comments on threads at Free Republic). As I posted elsewhere, such comments have been counter-productive, to put it mildly, and arguably, destructive to the Republican coalition. Some of the comments, quite frankly, would only have been resolvable via the Code Duello.

The hard-liners on immigration have been akin to the people crying about global warming - with practically no proof for their dire predictions, and their response, is much like those of the global warming believers to critics, as described by Michael Crichton.

Some of this rhetoric borders on the fringes as well. In the age of Google, it is easy to find. It's why the "dirty pool" MacRanger describes can stick, as well, even when the specifics are false. Just glance at the immigration threads at FreeRepublic.com, or comments at Townhall (particularly those directed at supporters of President Bush on immigration, like Linda Chavez or Ruben Navarrette), and you can see just why the dirty pool works. The lies are believable.

Contrary to what Mac wants to believe, the MS-1 loss, as well as Hastert's seat, indicates that conservatives have lost touch with America in some respects. I can't speak for anyone else, but who wants to vote for someone who views them as a traitor over a disagreement - much less work with them?

Perhaps MacRanger can answer that question. Because the Congressional GOP needs to either answer that question - or they need to mend fences with the moderates they have been working so hard to alienate.

Obama promises witch-hunt...

Read it and weep.

I think we now see Barack Obama's version of restoring America's image.

The man is playing with fire.

Not the GOP's problem...

This commentary by JB Williams shows why I can't stand conservatives these days.

Why? Because he seems to ignore the fact that conservatives have done their fair share of bridge-burning in the past few years.

In recent years, some conservatives have taken a position that anyone who is not 100% with them to be enemies. This has been particularly true on immigration, where accusations of treason and the "anti-American" label are common. then there are cases where those who dare depart from the latest wisdom of talk radio and the conservative intelligentsia get called "party hacks" who "sold their souls" as well.

So what is to be done by those who receive such fire?

Me, I'm inclined to respond with some serious return fire. As far as I am concerned, it makes no sense to try to please people who view me as a traitor or party hack. You want to call me that, don't expect me to work with you.

Conservatives need to stop blaming others for their failure to close the sale with Republican primary voters - that is who elected the delegates that will make John McCain the GOP nominee.

William J. Murray tries to pull the woll over people's eyes...

William J. Murray's response to the outcry over his anti-Mitt ad is yet another example of the volume of disingenuous comments made by the anti-Mitt social conservatives.

He's trying to claim that Mitt Romney being Mormon had nothing to do with that open letter.

Race42008 listed some comments made about Mormons by signatories to that letter:

Matt Barber, Policy Director, Concerned Women for America quoted here as helping a reformed homosexual who converted to Mormonism find “scripturally-sound” evangelical churches to attend.

Ted Baehr, Author of Culture Wise Family, on the September 11th film: “What [the character of] Brigham Young does in the movie is talk about…that you have to have blood atonement… This is going to be an issue [for Romney]. ”

Janet Folger, President Faith2Action, See here: “Romney, as a Mormon, doesn’t believe Jesus was God’s only Son (Lucifer, they claim, was his ‘brother’). Nor does he believe in the virgin birth. Instead, Mormons believe God the Father had physical sex with Mary. The word blasphemy comes to mind. A bit more than a mere ‘denominational difference,’ don’t you think?”

Gary Glenn, President AFA, Michigan, played the “religion card” in his GOTV efforts for Huckabee

James Hartline, Founder and Publisher, California Christian News: “San Diego Republican Party Hits New Low - Invites Cult Member As Christmas Party Guest Of Honor” - “Mormon politics is more about promoting the economic interests of the Mormon Church and its wealthy members rather than any pseudo Biblical beliefs.”

Linda Harvey, President Mission America: “He used his Republican and Mormon identity to push through radical policies on gay marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual school programs that Ted Kennedy always dreamed about.” - link

Gregg Jackson: Writes here in an article entitled: “Is this the end of Evangelicalism in America?”: “A cornerstone of the Mormon Church, Grudem writes, is the classic heresy of Saint Paul’s day – angel worship. In his book, Grudem insists that an orthodox Christian must practice the theology he reads. So why would he step forward to become part of the Mitt Romney propaganda blitz trying to mislead evangelicals into doing what would shock most evangelicals in American history: elect a Mormon for president? “

Peter LaBarbera: “The sponsor of a homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” bill in Utah is hailing the support of two Mormon-owned media organs, signaling the neutrality of the powerful and socially conservative church on an issue that is seen by many family advocates as the first step in the wider ‘gay’ agenda.”

So, Mr. Murray, who do I believe, you or what I'm reading with my own eyes? Seeing as you have borne false witness about Romney, I'll stick with my own eyes.

Anti-Mormon motivations? UPDATED

Race42008 has some more info on some of the backers of the ad opposing Mitt Romney as McCain's running mate.

Read their track records. Then ask for yourself if the objection is really about social liberalism, or if it's because he is Mormon.

Because I know what this looks and sounds like to me. So, do I believe the protests of people like commenter FreedomFighter in a previous post on that ad, or do I believe my own eyes?

UPDATE: More discussion at Townhall.

UPDATE 2: Redstate commenters blow off concerns about the ad.

Weyrich proves untrustworthy...

Memo to Mitt Romney: The next time you run for President, do not trust Paul Weyrich.

The reason: The ad that Weyrich signed on to. (Article 6 Blog has some info here.)

What changed between the time Romney ran for office and even suspended his campaign, and the present day, when he is one of those mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential nominee? I can think of only two things: 1. Romney dropped out and ultimately endorsed McCain, citing the needs of the country and the GOP and 2. Mike Huckabee's complaints that conservative leaders didn't back him.

So now, Weyrich seems to be caving in to complaints from Mike Huckabee. In one sense, you cannot blame him for the second factor - his bread is buttered by these people.

That said, there things that must be said openly: Weyrich's flip-flop makes him untrustworthy. He's not someone who will have your back. He seems to be an individual whose personality is that of a Soviet-era zampolit.

It should also be noted some major Huckabee supporters were behind the ad. I guess they're saying Mormons need not apply for VP as well.

Dobson projects...

James Dobson seems to think that John McCain has somehow divided the GOP.

In that, he is being grossly dishonest. Dobson needs to cast his eyes a bit closer to home. Specifically, he needs to deal with the fact that in dividing the GOP, he and his followers, particularly those who have demanded hard-line "no compromise" positions have been just as divisive, if not more so, than people like McCain.

Dobson, for instance, endorsed a candidate who made very liberal use of the politics of religious identity. He also seemed to be utterly unwilling to throw his support behind Mitt Romney when his support could have been very helpful, instead waiting until after Romney was out to make an endorsement. At the same time, when Huckabee's playing to anti-Mormon bigotry went on, he failed to say one word in opposition - probably to avoid upsetting his wife (which probably explains why he wouldn't endorse Romney in the first place).

Now, explain to this Mormon why the fuck I should trust James Dobson, or back someone he is inclined to support.

Of course, I will get the usual claims from Dobson backers that he was acting on principle, that Romney was not "really" a conservative, or some other bullshit explanation. But the problem is that Romney was the best shot to see those principles enacted in 2008.

So, this November, I'm pulling for McCain to win. Dobson will now have to kiss McCain's ass if he wants anything, and Republicans will be able to re-define certain relationships. Yeah, it's spite on my part. But I think I have some good reasons to feel that.

Pelosi muscled...

AJ Strata reports that Nancy Pelosi has caved on the super-delegates.

One of two things happened: Most likely, the DCCC told her they could not hold the House if the donors pulled their funds. Or, she has just decided to flip-flop.

Hillary Clinton is a very good political brawler. She clearly won this round.