McCain's Big Surprise

I'm embarrassed to say I was very angry last Friday.  I heard on the radio that Mitt Romney was out and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was in and started talking out loud, to no one in particular. 

I said Sarah Palin may be a great conservative but, unlike Romney, she obviously did not feel ready and confident in herself enough this year to compete in the GOP primary and that it was “madness” to pick someone who has very little experience - neutering our criticism of Obama’s inexperience.

As you may know, I am a big Romney fan, like millions of others, and I’ve written a lot of articles why Romney would have been a great V.P.  In addition, I felt that Romney put himself out there, in JFK’s arena, endured national press scrutiny, raised millions from California to Texas, engaged in 20 Presidential Debates and McCain passes him over for Palin??

I was very disappointed and threatened, no one in particular, not to vote for McCain this fall.  I was going to take down my McCain signs and peel the bumper stickers off my car.

Then I heard McCain and Palin speak at his rally in Ohio.

It became clearer with every word that McCain, with one decision, advanced conservatism and, most importantly, our country.

Once again, McCain put “Country First”:

• Surely, Obama-Biden can't claim McCain-Palin is more of the same :-).
• I agree with the first female V.P, Geraldine Ferraro, that, if elected, Vice-President Palin will help validate every parent’s promise to their little girls that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up.
• Nominating a woman who became pregnant with a down-syndrome baby, and kept the baby anyway, advances the pro-life movement like nothing else. Palin’s story will inspire millions to keep their babies.
• Voting for the GOP in 2008 will elect the first female Vice-President in history and discredit, once again, the popular folklore that the GOP is an all white-male club (most on the left overlook the fact Bush chose Dr. Rice, a black woman, to represent America to the world).
• Obama’s nomination threatened to put a Marxist/Socialist in the Oval Office. Americans in general, and conservatives in particular, needed McCain to win this one. Picking Palin is a stroke of genius that makes the GOP ticket attractive to women, especially disaffected Hillary voters, and McCain-Palin should be as successful as the surge in Iraq.
• Choosing Palin says, loud and clear, that a vote for the GOP is a vote to send two lifetime reformers to Washington to change the status quo.
• Palin’s nomination puts Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less on the ballot.

This Romney fan is still hurting but, strangely, very hopeful about the future.

I will keep my McCain signs in front of my house and my McCain bumper stickers on my car. I will work hard to elect McCain over the next two months, the task being made easier, especially in Vermont, with a strong woman on the ticket. I have a hunch the Palin selection will inspire my teenage daughter to help too.

Well done Senator McCain.  Congratulations Governor Palin.

McCain introduces Sarah Palin to the 2008 Presidential Campaign

- Photo by Mark Lyons-EPA

Vermont officials not pursuing child rape suspect.

"Child-rape suspect charged" The Burlington Free Press: "Vermont officials have said they were not actively pursuing Harper even though they knew he was out of registry compliance".

This is great. Our state officials do not look for child rape suspects out of registry compliance.

McCain's League of Democracies

Way back in May 2007, Senator McCain addressed the Hoover Institution on U.S. Foreign Policy at Stanford University in Stanford, California. In it the Senator outlined his League of Democracies proposal.

You can read the entire speech @
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/43e821a2-ad70-495a-83b2-098638e67aeb.htm

"This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other
international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one
organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss
problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of
the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's
democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and
begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision."

McCain’s League of Democracies brings together the legitimate governments on the planet to solve serious problems - solutions that China and Russia usually block at the UN.

This is a bold solution that I believe will do nothing less than spread democracy around the world.

Will Dr. Condi Rice be it's first president??

Human Events Exclude Romney

Human Events (HE) recently had a review of the leading V.P. candidates @ http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=MVP101.

Although HE has disappointed me in the past (they endorsed Thompson for President even though Thompson was one of a handful of GOP Senators to vote against Clinton's impeachment), I admire Ann Coulter, she works there, so I thought I'd take a look at their report.   They cover ten folks and no Mitt Romney.  Huh????

Well, I bolted off an email to John Gizzi, the Political Editor at HUMAN EVENTS and I share it below:

John,

I can’t say I was surprised you did not include Romney in your McCain Veepstakes Report but it was disappointing nonetheless. Perhaps you might reconsider? Did you know that Townhall.com is doing a poll and Romney is leading by twenty points ahead of Palin and Hutchison (tied @ 2nd)?.

While picking VP should not be a popularity contest, shouldn’t Human Events include one of our most popular Republicans, and the man who came in 2^nd during the 2008 GOP Primary, on your short list??

I know you’ve think Huckabee came in 2^nd but that’s odd considering 1) Romney graciously left the race when it was obvious McCain would win, 2) Huckabee, inexplicably, ungraciously, stayed in the race and 3) Romney would have cleaned Huckabee’s clock in delegates, states and votes had he stayed in.

Think of it this way, the game was over after Super Tuesday. The lights in the gym were dimmed to encourage folks to go home, the best players left to prepare for the next game, most fans were gone and Huckabee's still running up and down the court, in the dark, posing for the few remaining reporters, shooting baskets and claiming the baskets he happened to make still counted toward the final score. Yeah, right.

So, please reconsider your decision to keep Romney out of the VP narrative. You could issue a special “Romney Report” outlining all the reasons Romney should also be considered.

My top ten reasons Romney should be VP:

1. Most of us who support Romney do so because we think he’s a decent man, a great husband and father and the best Presidential candidate to come along in 24 years.

2. Unlike all the Veeps in your report, Romney looked in the mirror years ago and felt confident enough to run for President. All of your folks looked in the mirror, lowered their sights and ran for Governor of LA, MN, MS and SC. Romney put himself out there, in JFK’s arena, competed in debates, endured national press scrutiny and won the hearts and minds of millions around the country – they didn’t. Pawlenty, Palin, Jindal – they all should be applauded for advancing conservatism but they did not feel confident to run for President – Romney did.

3. Romney raised over $100 million across the country from California to Utah to Texas - they haven’t. Romney has had great success managing large companies, the International Olympics and Governor of the 13th largest state - the other candidates have been Governor, that’s it. Romney has experience running a strong, organized national campaign - at most, they have experience running a one-state campaign.  Romney has tens of millions of supporters - they don’t. Romney can help deliver IA, MI, MN, ME, CO, NV, UT & probably NH - they deliver one state each.

4. Romney’s great success in the private sector makes him the perfect VP to help McCain help America win the global economy. Romney’s a private-sector superstar who successfully counters Obama’s populism with free market solutions to people’s everyday problems. Having both a Harvard MBA & Law degree doesn’t hurt either.

5. I’ve heard rumors, propagated by Huckabee et al, that Evangelicals may bolt if McCain picks a Mormon. I’m shocked folks are still listening to the Huckster given his really, really bad sense of humor when making jokes about Obama being shot at.  Make no mistake, Huckabee has a problem with Romney’s religion and has soured many evangelicals on Romney but not all of them.  Bottom-line, the base of the GOP are patriots that are comfortable with anyone of any color of any gender who attends any church. Those that aren’t comfortable with the Church their party’s V.P. nominee attends should evolve or find another party.

6. McCain was having trouble raising money until Romney sponsored a fund raiser for McCain in Salt Lake City and another with President Bush at Romney’s home in Deer Valley, UT.  Romney has raised lots of money and has lots of money – that could be useful when the Soros-backed-MoveOn.org crowd start to cause trouble.

7. As far as the electoral college, Romney will help McCain exactly where he needs help the most: Michigan (Obama now +4.3) and Colorado (Obama now +1.2) - two of the four states Karl Rove says are key (McCain's already ahead in the other two - VA & OH).  Romney beat McCain in the GOP primary 59% to 19% in CO and 39% to 30% in MI, where Romney’s father was governor.

8. In FL, 600,000 voted for Romney - those votes could be crucial in a general election.  Bush won FL by less than 1000 votes in 2000.

9. McCain lost big time to Romney in 5 of 10 states with less than 5% margin of victory for Bush in 2004: IA, NV, MI, MN & CO.

10. Net, net - Romney on the ticket may add 47 to 61 electors.  Bush beat Kerry by only 34 electors.

    So, John – does that sway you at all? Might the great national conservative weekly have room in the tent for a leader that could do so much for the GOP ticket?

    Take care…Matt

I don't have much hope Mr. Gizzi will add Mitt to their short list but I believe you have to express yourself, you have to put your view out there, regardless of whether you have a guarantee it changes anything.  Hey, you never know.

VP Buzz: McCain's Maverick Pick

Today, I heard Mike Huckabee on Rush Limbaugh's program desperately trying to make the case against Romney for V.P..  Make no mistake, Huckabee has a problem with Romney's religion and, I believe, has soured many evangelicals on Romney (Boston Globe on Huckabee's tactics) but not all of them. 

According to Vanderbilt University political scientist, John Geer, a poll taken during the GOP primary found that 57% of conservative Evangelicals have a bias against Mormons and 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.

It appears to me that this election has revealed two remaining prejudices in primary voters' hearts.  The Democrats clearly have a chunk of "white working class" voters (mostly in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania) and Hispanic voters who found Obama's race to be a problem for them - in other words, they're racists.  The Republicans clearly have a chunk of Evangelical voters who found Romney's religion to be a problem - in other words, they're bigots. 

I'll let Obama-Biden address their party's racism, but McCain needs to find a way to bring 57% of conservative Evangelicals into the 21st century.

What better way than to choose Romney to be the Vice-President?

McCain seems to relish taking principled positions that anger his party.  It's yet another opportunity to demonstrate to an electorate that seems unhappy with the Republican brand that he's an independent thinker who puts country ahead of party.  Romney is solidly pro-life so McCain, and Romney, just have to convince Evanglicals what they probably already know - that opposing Romney based on his religion is, well, not What Jesus Would Do and un-American to boot! 

Opposition by some conservatives makes Romney the perfect choice for a maverick like John McCain. 

Once you convince them it's OK to support Romney (Huckabee can help with that - if he really wants the GOP to win this fall) then voting for McCain-Romney becomes an opportunity for personal growth, much like pulling the lever for the first African-American President if you're a racist Democrat. 

In any event, the country will be better off that McCain took a chance on picking a very-qualified Mormon to be Vice-President than if he accommodated the bigoted demands of some Evangelicals to pick a "real Christian" (read:  non-Mormon) like Tim Pawlenty.  Picking Pawlenty does not challenge our party to address one of our last remaining prejudices - religious bigotry - picking Romney does. 

Having Romney serve as Vice-President in a McCain Administration sends a message loud and clear, for at least four years, that one of our founding father's wishes, that there not be a religious test for high office, has come true.

Hey Glenn - Be Fair, Not Balanced, Just Fair.

I admire Glenn Beck but he has a way of disqualifying the positive that Republicans bring to the country.  I share some feedback I gave Mr. Beck yesterday below:

You're my favorite guy on TV but I must tell you that I’m tired of you lumping Republicans in with the Democrats and McCain with Obama. 

After all the Democrat's irrational hatred of Bush, that Bush hates black people, that Bush lied about the war. 

After all the harassment of conservative students, conservatives in Hollywood and conservatives when they give speeches. 

After Democrats supported the Fairness Doctrine, open borders, fought against passing Jessica’s Law, opposed drilling to lower gas prices and repeatedly attempted to dishonor our fallen soldier’s sacrifice by pulling out of Iraq in defeat. 

After Obama wants judges that ignore the constitution, wants to nationalize healthcare and god knows what else, wants to raise the minimum wage and abandon the secret ballot for union voting. 

After all that, you do this moral equivalency thing between Democrats and Republicans between McCain and Obama and honestly can’t bring yourself to vote for McCain???  Talk about perfect is enemy of the good and throwing the baby out with the bath water! 

It’s like when I used to tell my kids, “Hey, you guys need to do a better job getting ready for school” and my daughter said “but Dad – I’m always on time.”  She was right – she was and my son wasn’t and criticizing them both was unfair and discouraged my daughter from making the effort to be on time. 

Don’t discourage most Republicans who are trying to keep us free and safe and prevent socialism in America by saying things like “you can’t trust any of them” and “is there really any difference between them, really”. 

Glenn – be fair, not balanced, just fair.

Iraq Victory Hurts Obama

"US & Iraqi Negotiators Agree on 2011 Withdrawal" says the Washington Post:

"U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spent nearly three hours here discussing key undecided issues. The accord must be completed and approved by both governments before a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year."

 

THIS IS WHAT VICTORY IN IRAQ LOOKS LIKE...GET USED TO IT!

The liberation of Iraq began March 22, 2003. The President said it "could be longer than some have predicted" and that one of our goals was to "help Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country”. By May, our military accomplished their mission of removing one of the worst dictatorships in human history. However, as Bush said at the time, "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time".

We can now say, five years later, Iraq has made that transition and our troops can start coming home.

Our troops and our diplomats have worked very hard to help the Iraqis stand on their own. We struggled to react to the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, but the Petraeus’ counter-insurgency, courageously supported by Senator John McCain, has been a great success. Now we can begin a scheduled withdrawal of our troops, subject to change if conditions worsen.

Democrats are losing the Iraq war as an issue.

They could celebrate a significant American victory in the war on terror. Instead, they're pretending it didn't happen. Obama’s out on the campaign trail promising to end the war if you vote for him. Before the vote in November, it will become clear to American voters that regardless of whether you vote for McCain or Obama, our troops are coming home because we’ve achieved victory.

What did you think victory would look like?

Did you think there’d be a ceremony where Al Qaeda formally surrenders by signing a treaty? This is a different kind of war against an enemy who does not recognize the conventions of war. No, the end of this war will be marked by what happened yesterday – U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces by the end of 2011.

This is possible now because we have achieved our goal of a united, stable and free democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

This is a good thing. Be happy!

Females @ Iraq Police Academy

This just in from the Multi-National-Forces-Iraq newsletter:

"Kirkuk Police Academy Training Females in Northeastern Iraq."

Here's a little snippet of a very inspiring story about Iraqi women putting themselves at risk to make things better for Iraq:

For Nowal, 30, a trainee who has never held a job and lives with her brother - also a member of the Kirkuk police force - the experience so far has her realizing she has a lot of work ahead of her.

“I am very tired,” she said of the first day of training. However, she is determined to “serve my country.”

In lieu of the recent increase in female suicide bombers, these women are undaunted by the dangers of the field they have chosen. When asked what they would do if they were to spot one at a check-point, as a group they did not hesitate to answer:

“Man or women, if you come through our check point we will stop you.”

“Terrorists are not welcome in the province of Kirkuk,” Intesar, 29, said. “They are not Iraqis - they are not Muslim. It is not our way.”

Isn't that amazing?  Isn't that newsworthy?

I rarely watch the (spin) media anyway, but what I have seen never has stories about heroines like Nowal and Intesar.  That's because it doesn't fit their narrative that we were wrong to invade Iraq, that McCain's surge failed and Obama's plan for a quick U.S. withdrawal is the only way we can salvage our international reputation. 

This story about Iraqi women attending a police academy fits the real "narrative":  That replacing Saddam with a free and democratic Iraq was the right and noble thing to do, that we struggled to react to the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, that the Petraeus' surge, courageously supported by John McCain, has been a great success and has inspired at least 37 women in Northern Iraq to attend a police academy.

What's on TV instead of Iraqi success stories?

The Olympics, of course, but, sometimes, I'll check out what my wife is watching and over the last several weeks I have seen, in great detail, and from every angle, non-stop coverage of Casey Anthony and her lost daughter Caylee. 

The whole nation would love to see this little girl back safe (click here to help) and her mother brought to justice if she's done anything wrong. 

However, last time I checked, Americans believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  So, say it with me:

Casey is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.   

When that changes, we can spend a few newscycles on Casey but until then...can we spend a few minutes learning about other newsworthy stories such as the one about thirty-seven females training at the Kirkuk Police Academy in Iraq???

You can read the full story @ the MNF-Iraq web site.

Here's the deal.  American soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq.  America is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. 

What happens in Iraq matters. 

The media will certainly let you know about anything bad happening in Iraq.

Why not spend a few minutes each week reading about the good things happening in Iraq? You can sign up for their weekly newsletter @ http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1.

Thanks...

Debunk the "Booming Clinton Economy" Myth

Last night, I hosted a "McCain Nation" event - a house party, of sorts, for conservatives.  Living in the state with more Obama supporters per person than any other (Vermont), I appreciate any occasion to meet and greet people who don't want feel warm and fuzzy about impeaching President Bush.

During the evening, we participated in a conference call, with over 15,000 McCain activists, hosted by Cindy McCain, Charlie Black (McCain's Chief Campaign Adviser), and "special guest" Rudy Giuliani.   Cindy McCain urged women to support John McCain and said a few words about how inspired she was by women in Rwanda on a recent trip there. 

Then Charlie Black spoke about campaign strategy.  They allowed a few questions, so I called in.  Incredibly, I was the fourth caller and said this:

Thank you, Cindy McCain, for your comments about the women of Rwanda.  After all they've been through, they certainly deserve all the support we can give them (see Justice 4 Rwanda). 

At their upcoming convention, Democrats will make lots of speeches pointing to the "booming Clinton economy of the 1990s" as proof that Democrats can be trusted with the economy.

The problem is the booming 1990s economy began March 1991, 22 months before Clinton took office. 

Like Obama, Clinton promised "Change" during his 1992 campaign for President.  However, later, after the country saw what kind of change Clinton had in mind, voters overwhelmingly rejected Clinton's policies by electing, for the 1st time in 40 years, a Republican majority in Congress that kept taxes and spending down and forced Clinton to balance the federal budget.

So the credit for the "booming 1990s economy" really belongs to Bush 41 and the '94 Republicans. 

So, my question is this:  Will the McCain Campaign debunk the myth of the "booming Clinton economy" so Obama and the Democrats can't take credit for it anymore?

Charlie Black agreed with my analysis.  I was thrilled!  Perhaps he was just flattering a supporter, in front of 15,000 other supporters, but it was thrilling to offer a senior McCain advisor, directly, my advice for taking away the economy, as an issue, from the Democrats in the General Election.  (I wonder if Mitt Romney was listening - our choice for McCain's VP!)

Anyway, Mr. Black went on to say that the '94 Republicans quickly entered into a balanced budget agreement, with the then-weakened Clinton, to fulfill their promises in the Contract with America, and that that agreement laid the groundwork for historic budget surpluses in the late 1990s.  He also said that he had recently heard Obama's surrogates on TV talking about how great the Clinton years were for the economy and the country.   

Clinton didn't create 22 million jobs - the booming economy that he inherited from Bush 41 and Reagan did.

I hope and pray that I've planted a seed that will encourage McCain campaign strategists to come up with an ad, or a major speech, that will debunk the booming-Clinton-economy myth and put the 1990s in proper perspective.  Many feel a President doesn't have much influence anyway on a $13 trillion dollar economy.  I'm sure Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, Cisco and other great American companies feel they had a bigger influence on 1990s economy. 

Nevertheless, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and hundreds of other Democrat leaders, pundits and supporters in the media often boast how "magnificent Clinton was on the economy", how "Clinton created 22 million new jobs", that the economy is a glorious part of his legacy and that evil Bush came along and ruined all the good work the Democrats had done in the '90s.

These are all lies that need to be confronted & corrected. 

So, to the extent that any political leader can take credit for increasing the U.S. GDP and the resulting job growth, it is the pro-growth policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that kept the 1990-91 recession shallow & short - in effect extending the booming Reagan economy into the 1990s.  Credit the 1994 Republicans for forcing Clinton to keep taxes and spending low and balancing the federal budget - all things that tend to help an economy.  One must also give some credit to Ross Perot for making federal budget deficits a big focus of the 1992 and 1994 campaigns.  Whatever you think of Ross Perot, he made it "sexy" again to demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials.   

In any event, the credit does not belong to the Clintons.

Democrats, if they're to be honest, must use the Carter economy for guidance on what an Obama economy might look like.   Like Carter, Obama will, if elected, have both houses of Congress led by Democrats.  Like Carter, Obama's energy plan is to make our own oil companies the enemy, to seize their "excess" windfall profits, to implement new taxes on oil & gas (aren't they expensive enough already?) - everything except what's needed most:  lifting the ban on offshore (OCS) and ANWR drilling effective immediately.

Like Carter, Obama's economy will be a disaster.

Beck & O'Reilly Help Obama.

Ever hear the phrase, "The perfect is the enemy of the good" or that's "throwing the baby out with the bath water."?  Well, that's happening a lot lately with Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.  Because the GOP and McCain are not perfect, they get thrown out with the bath water that is today's Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Soros Democratic Party.  That may be balanced but it's not fair.

For example, recently Glenn Beck said, regarding her new energy video, Paris Hilton "makes more sense than those other two guys".  His probably kidding about Paris, but it's getting harder to tell these days.  This is only the latest example of how Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly strive so hard to be balanced, by bashing both candidates, that their criticism is unfair.

Lumping McCain's energy plan with Obama's lets the Illinois Senator off the hook.  Obama actually said America can save just as much oil as offshore drilling will produce by tuning our cars and properly inflating our tires.  What??  That's a complete lie.  Barack is lying. 

In addition, we need more oil and coal to meet our energy needs until the alternative energy sources come online.  Obama will tax oil and coal and that will force companies to produce less - just the opposite of what we need - and cripple the American economy.  It's madness.

By saying McCain is just as bad as Obama lets Obama off the hook for lying about drilling and destroying our economy with his energy plan.  The only way to hold Obama responsible is to say, loud and clear, his plan is much worse than McCain's.  Beck & O'Reilly can say they think parts of McCain's plan is wrong but, to be fair, they must also say, "but it's still much better than Obama's plan". 

To say both McCain and Obama make no sense gives Obama a pass.  Don't do that...hold Obama accountable.

That is the most important function of a free press is to hold our politicians accountable for their words and actions.  Most everyone else, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olberman, Larry King, Chris Matthews, Suzanne Malveaux, Katie Couric and Brian Williams spin the news to Obama's benefit and to make McCain look bad.  It would be great to have someone spinning news to benefit McCain but Republicans, to their credit, can't do that.  They want fair and balanced coverage even if most everything else is biased against them. 

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly provide the best commentary and analysis on TV today.  I'm not asking that they spin things for McCain, although that would "balance" what happens everywhere else, I'm only asking that they provide fair coverage and, given the state of the Democratic Party these days...that will end up making the GOP look good - or at least better than the Dems.  

That's OK, that's accurate, that's fair and it holds the Dems accountable until they get their act together. 

VP Buzz: Romney's GOP Votes

In my opinion, Romney makes the best choice for McCain VP for the simple reason that Romney would make the best President. 

But that's just my opinion.  Since we're talking about the GOP's nominee, perhaps it would be useful to look at how Romney did in the GOP primary.

There are six states Real Clear Politics says are "battleground states".  These are Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio and Florida.  Over 4.5 million GOP votes were cast in those states.  Four states voted prior to Romney's gracious exit on February 7th.

The two after the CPAC speech, Ohio and Virginia, probably would have split between Romney and McCain had Romney stayed in.  Nevertheless, lets just look at the actual vote totals.

So, how did Romney do?  Here's the final Washington Post numbers:

Colorado - Feb 5 (competitive):

Mitt Romney	33,288	59%
John McCain	10,621	19%
Mike Huckabee	7,266	13%
Ron Paul	4,670	8%

Virginia Feb 12 (non-competitive):

John McCain	244,135	50%
Mike Huckabee	198,247	41%
Ron Paul	22,066	5%
Mitt Romney	17,532	4%

Missouri Feb 5 (competitive):

John McCain	194,304	33%
Mike Huckabee	185,627	32%
Mitt Romney	172,564	29%
Ron Paul	26,445	4%

Michigan - Feb 5 (competitive):

Mitt Romney	337,847	39%
John McCain	257,521	30%
Mike Huckabee	139,699	16%
Ron Paul	54,434	6%

Ohio - Feb 12 (non-competitive):

John McCain	636,256	60%
Mike Huckabee	325,581	31%
Ron Paul	49,027	5%
Mitt Romney	34,978	3%

Florida - Jan 29 (competitive):

John McCain	693,508	36%
Mitt Romney	598,188	31%
Rudy Giuliani	281,781	15%
Mike Huckabee	259,735	13%

Total for CO, VA, MO, MI, OH & FL:

John McCain	2,036,345	45%
Mitt Romney	1,193,397	26%
Rudy Giuliani	1,116,155	24%
Mike Huckabee	156,642	3%

So, even though he was not running in two of the races, Romney still ended up with almost 1.2 million votes for those six states, second only to McCain.  Romney won two of the contests, CO & MI, and narrowly lost FL, three states considered critical to McCain's general election strategy.

As I've mentioned in another article, VP Buzz:  McCain needs Romney, McCain lost big time to Romney in 5 of 10 states with less than 5% margin of victory for Bush in ‘04: IA, NV, MI, MN & CO.  Net, net - Romney on the ticket may add 47 to 61 electors.  Bush beat Kerry by only 34 electors.

Of course, none of the other potential suitors, Jindal, Pawlenty, Palin, Crist or Cantor, felt strong enough, as candidates, to run in the 2008 primary.  They are each doing great things for the GOP and the country in their current roles.  However, we have no idea what they bring to the table, except their own states. 

I still say, Romney 4 VP = Win 4 McCain.

Clooney Hosts Obama Fundraiser in Geneva

I'm a member of several Obama groups, just to keep an eye on things, and I just received this eyeful yesterday: 

Subject: A Reception with George Clooney in Switzerland for Senator Barack Obama

Dear Friends,

We are very excited to announce that Academy Award winning Actor George Clooney will be headlining an event for the campaign. The event will be Tuesday, September 2nd in Geneva, Switzerland and we really need your help to make this special event a success.

The evening will be broken down into two parts - a reception for $1,000 where Mr. Clooney will speak and take questions followed by an exclusive dinner at the home of NFC member Charles Adams for $10,000 per person. The dinner is limited to 75 people so if you are interested in attending, please fax in the attached invite as soon as possible. Or if know of anyone you think may be interested in attending, please forward this email.

If you do send this to friends and colleagues abroad, only American Citizens with US Passport numbers can contribute to the campaign.
Thank you so much!!!

Cookie Parker
National Finance Committee, Obama for America
National Chair, Women’s Leadership Initiative
Democratic National Platform Committee, DNC

So, let me get this straight.  A member of Obama's National Finance Committee (which nation?), Mr. Charles Adams, owns a home in Geneva, Switzerland, and plans to host a $10,000 per plate dinner with George Clooney as the headliner during the GOP convention.

This is wrong on so many levels, I'm speechless and need a couple days to digest.  Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts.

Romney Shows Sense of Humor

WASHINGTON (CNN) —

At Wednesday night’s Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in Washington, D.C., former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave his “Top 10 Reasons for Dropping Out of the Race":

1. There weren't as many Osmonds as I thought.
2. I got tired of corkscrew landings under sniper fire.
3. As a lifelong hunter, I didn't want to miss the start of the varmint season.
4. There wasn’t room for two Christian leaders.
5. I was upset that no one had bothered to search my passport files.
6. I needed an excuse to get fat, grow a beard and win the Nobel prize.
7. I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
8. I wanted to finally take off that dark suit and tie, and kick back in a light-colored suit and tie.
9. Once my wife Ann realized I couldn't win, my fundraising dried up.
10. There was a miscalculation in our theory: "As Utah goes, so goes the nation.”

 

Technorati Tags: Romney,Gore,Huckabee

Hey Glenn - Choose McCain.

I heard Glenn Beck disparage McCain this morning, again, understandably, and thought I'd let him know I've had a change of heart in the last couple weeks.

Here's my email:

Glenn,

I heard you say this morning that McCain may not be much better than Barack. I understand your anger and disgust about McCain. I’m a big Romney supporter (see vermonters4mitt.WordPress.com) and saw how McCain sucker punched Romney down in Florida to win that primary and the nomination. I was mad as anybody.

However, we’re in the general now and the choice is no longer between McCain and Romney (the best presidential candidate in 20 years), the choice is between McCain and Obama (the worst candidate in 20 yrs - imagine Jimmy Carter with Soros funding).

So the choice is:

McCain vs. Obama

• A war vet vs. a community organizer
• Winning in Iraq vs. pulling out in defeat (meaning our soldiers died in vain).
• Offshore drilling to lower gas prices & save our economy vs. hoping alternatives work out someday and destroying the economy to “teach us to conserve more”.
• A Supreme Court that affirms the right to bear arms vs. a court that bans handguns.
• A President that will keep radio waves free vs. a President that will usher in the “Fairness Doctrine”
• A President with 50 years of Navy/Congress experience to draw on in an international crisis vs. a President with 4 years of Congressional experience – 2 years spent campaigning for President.
• A President that has never asked for earmarks and will never sign a bill with earmarks vs. a President that will use the earmark process for four years to make the country “more fair”.
• A direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $5,000 for truly portable health insurance vs. a “new public plan” that will offer coverage to all 47 million uninsured, including 12 million illegals.

Still think there’s little difference?

Just last weekend, I decided to follow Mitt’s lead and start supporting McCain overtly. I thought I would feel dirty but it feels good. I’m in the game. I’ve taken a side.

We’re never given a perfect or even a good choice for President. The point is it’s a choice between two people not a choice between a perfect option and an imperfect one.

In 2008, the choice is between a very flawed war hero named McCain against a very liberal Soros-backed empty-suit named Obama.

I’m choosing McCain.

Join me. It’ll be fun.

Thanks…Matt

Hey Obama - Lift the Ban!

I just read that Obama may be OK with drilling after all, "under certain conditions".  I'll believe that after he actually votes for it.  Until then, it's just the latest example of Barack trying to appeal to the largest possible audience.

There's no there there, is there?.

The story is at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/01/obama-may-back-off-opposition-to-offshore-drilling.  Here's a quote from that story to highlight the irony of Obama's latest "adjustment" to a policy position:

His staunch opposition to offshore drilling has not polled well but he has stood by the issue and has used it as a symbol to highlight that he does not base every decision on what is politically popular.

I submitted this comment in response to the article:

On Friday, the Obama-led Democratic Party went on vacation without passing a comprehensive energy bill that includes lifting the ban on offshore drilling.

For months, Obama has mocked efforts to lift the ban as a “scheme by oil companies”. Now that his lead over McCain has evaporated to dead even and polls show over 60% of Americans want offshore drilling, Barack indicates he would be OK with it.

Better late than never, I guess, but why won’t Obama ask Pelosi and Reid to keep Congress in session until it gets done? Isn’t he their leader? Doesn’t he care about families hurting from the high price of gas and everything else??

Sacrificing all that America offers the world, holding fast to extreme environmentalism when American families are suffering, seems to me a huge mistake.

Comment by Look2theWest - August 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM .

So, let's hear it Obama.  If your Democrat party really wants to lift the ban on offshore drilling, have them get their butts back to D.C.!  If you really want to help American families, that are struggling this summer and worried about this winter, then stop flying around on your air-conditioned private jet, get your Democratic friends to allow a vote on lifting the ban and ...vote for it!

It's urgent and it's important. 

You can read more of my thoughts on a comprehensive energy plan @ http://look2thewest.blogspot.com/2008/08/quick-read-energy-plan.html.

A Quick-Read Energy Plan

Originally posted on June 27, 2008.  This is my sixth revision.

Incredulously, Congress adjourned Friday for a five week recess without passing an energy bill that addresses the current crisis.  I urge the President to call them back into an emergency session to pass a comprehensive plan.

John McCain's plan is called the Lexington Project.  My plan's a little different, but the basic idea is the same:  Aggressive domestic oil & natural gas drilling followed by intense efforts to increase nuclear, wind, solar & hydrogen power.

Because America does great things with the energy it uses, it's important to U.S. and the world to reduce energy costs as much as possible as fast as possible. 

My plan will do that and jump-start alternative sources, replace foreign oil sources with domestic and improve energy efficiency:

1. Sell 1% of the SPR, per month, until oil is < $100 barrel.
2. Spend the SPR money, about $1 billion / month, to jump-start alternatives like Picken's wind project, solar and hydro. 
3. Make a 9pm EST Primetime announcement that the U.S. will begin drilling in the OCS and ANWR effective immediately.  Announce that it will be a national priority to help oil companies get rigs out to those sites as fast as possible and that, if necessary, the military will assist, shipping lanes will be interrupted, etc., in other words, rally the nation!  It's important & urgent to save our economy...Let's act like it!
4. Offer $100 billion for the first person or company to invent an inexpensive  way to retrofit existing cars to get > 100 mpg.  It's great if auto makers offer new cars that get high mpg but for every new car sold there are thousands already on the road. 
5. Build the largest nuke plant in the world in the Nevada desert, right next to the Yucca Mountain Repository, and plug into the national grid.  Why risk transporting the nuke waste any farther than necessary?
6. Identify the 10 worst users of energy, efficiency-wise, make them famous and use carrots and sticks to make sure the list is completely different next year.
7. Abandon all efforts at biofuels - that was a really stupid idea.  Not only is producing food energy-intensive but we need all the food we produce to feed people, not cars.  USE FOOD FOR PEOPLE.
8. Remove regulatory burdens preventing new oil & gas refineries from being built and existing ones from being expanded. 

So why do we need an energy plan?  Is there a crisis?  Some prominent Democratic leaders, including Barack Obama, would like you to believe high energy prices are punishment for 5% of the world's population using 25% of the world's oil or bitter medicine necessary to force us to finally do the right thing:  conserve. 

This explains their lack of action. 

Others, including myself, have a different take on things:

America does great things with the energy it consumes!

The U.S. economy produces over $13 trillion of goods and services  - more than Japan, Germany, China & the U.K. combined!  We create most of the world's great inventions.  We produce most of the world's food - food is energy-intensive.  We use lots of energy to help maintain a fantastic military that helps keep the world safe.  Our incredible economy creates lots of wealth, a big chunk of which is donated to help feed and clothe the rest of the world. 

We also produce most of the world's medicines, music, movies and manufactured goods.  Does that surprise you?  You may have been misled into thinking the U.S. has lost all it's manufacturing to China.  Actually, in real dollars, American manufacturers produced $1.53 trillion worth of goods in 2005—up from $900 billion in 1992.  Let me repeat, we manufacture 70% more goods than we did in 1992 in real dollars - that takes energy, lots of it. 

So, why shouldn't we use the most energy?   We create the most goods and services (and inventions, music, film, food, medicines, aircraft, etc..)  In addition, we're extremely efficient using our energy.  By 1999, we were able to produce the same goods and services we did in 1972, using 74% less energy.  In other words, Mr. Obama, we already conserve, have been for years, we just call it being "efficient", and we do it to save our companies and families money. 

We should celebrate our economy and what we produce, not feel guilty about much energy we use to produce it!

This plan has huge benefits for the United States:

1. Selling SPR oil and opening up the OCS and ANWR sends a huge message to world oil markets that the U.S. is finally serious about using all it's available resources to meet it's energy needs.  Although the OCS/ANWR oil will not be delivered immediately, speculators trade on trends and the trend for oil prices will finally start heading down. 
2. Exactly how much will prices drop?  Oddly enough, a Democrat in Congress may have answered that question.  Peter Welch (D-VT),  sponsored H.R. 6022 to stop adding oil to the SPR.  He says that, not purchasing 70,000 barrels per day, "may reduce gas prices 5 to 24 cents per gallon".  Every Senate Democrat voted for it, including Obama and Hillary, and Bush signed it.  So, Democrats have agreed, on record, how much the price of gas will drop (21 cents) when the supply of oil increases by 100,000 barrels.  Remarkable!
3. Using Congressmen Welch's math, just selling SPR oil should save 49 cents / gal.  Do you know anyone that wants to save 49 cents a gallon?  EVERYONE!  As far as OCS/ANWR, we looked at the 2006 OCS Assessment and the 1987 ANWR report, and they'll yield 2 to 4 million barrels per day.  Using Rep. Welch's math, oil from OCS/ANWR may push the price of gas to below $1 per gallon.   It may not be that much, but the more U.S. oil we produce, the lower the worldwide price, the more the world loves U.S. - it's economic science.   
4. This should drop not just the price of oil, but nearly all U.S. consumer prices.  A solid plan until lower price kick in should help calm consumer fears about the future of the U.S. economy.  Right now, the only thing standing in the way of providing the American people cheap energy again is the Democratic leadership in Congress, you know, the ones with a 9% approval rating, an approval rating so low the term "historic" is getting old.  The usual suspects refusing to drill include Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and, of course, their Presidential nominee, Barack Obama.  Increasingly, voters are getting more and more angry.  
5. The SPR has about 700 million barrels of oil so 1% equals 7 million bbls.  At $142 per bbl, selling 1% per month of the SPR  will net about $1 billion dollars per month for investment in alternative energy .  Oil, gas, coal, natural gas and nuclear will meet our near term needs (next 30 years) while we transition to alternative energy (wind, solar, hydro).
6. Aggressive domestic drilling replaces foreign oil with domestic and that prevents hundreds of billions of US dollars from going to countries hostile to our interests, lowers our trade deficit, improves our economy and creates hundreds of thousands of US jobs
7. The more oil produced in the U.S. the more control we have over how it is produced.  For example, U.S. deep sea drilling standards minimize damage to the environment if there's an accident.  Right now, we have no control over how a well drilled off the coast of Nigeria is regulated.
8. Abandoning bio fuels will reduce pressure on food prices and help get food to those who need it most - the hungry.
9. This plan generates billions of dollars for alternative energy research without any money from the federal budget - this helps keep our deficit down, interest rates down and the dollar up - all good for U.S. consumers.
10. One nice side benefit of increased domestic production is that all our allies, Europe, Japan, Australia, South America, Afghanistan, will also benefit from lower worldwide oil prices after we increase US output.  They will be grateful that we have finally taken pressure off not just gas price but prices overall and avoided a worldwide recession, if not depression.

Our leaders, and our voters, have a choice.  Empower America (pun intended) with my plan or continue to gamble that alternative energy, OPEC lawsuits, humiliating US oil companies executives (who control less than 6% of the world's oil reserves) and even more conservation will pay off soon.  Barack and the Dems have no plan to address our growing near-term energy needs and, given the pain that $5 gas will cause us, that's remarkable. Sacrificing all that America offers the world, holding fast to extreme environmentalism when American families are suffering, seems to me to be a mistake of monumental proportions. 

VP Buzz: Romney's Strong New Leadership

There's been a lot of rumors that McCain might decide soon about V.P. so I thought I'd reprint my arguments for Mitt Romney and against Jindal, Crist, Palin, Pawlenty & Huckabee.  For a lot of reasons, the VP choice for McCain is critical and I trust McCain will give Romney serious consideration.

McCain has some weaknesses that Romney fixes as VP:

• McCain's having trouble raising money - Romney raised lots of money (more than McCain) and has lots of money.
• McCain's weak on the economy - Romney's fantastic.  Romney's a private-sector superstar who successfully counters Obama's populism with free market solutions to people's everyday problems.
• McCain lost big time to Romney in 5 of 10 states with less than 5% margin of victory for Bush in '04: IA, NV, MI, MN & CO
• McCain’s been in Congress (lowest approval ratings ever) for 30 yrs. Romney’s been successful outside the belt-way his whole life.  
• In FL, 600,000 voted for Romney - those votes could be crucial in a general election.  Bush won FL by less than 1000 votes in 2000.
• Net, net - Romney on the ticket may add 47 to 61 electors.  Bush beat Kerry by only 34 electors.

Romney for VP over Jindal, Crist, Palin & Pawlenty because:

• Romney has the judgment, character and experience to be a better President now - the others are a few years away.
• Romney raised over $100 million across the country from California to Utah to Texas - they haven't.
• Romney has had great success managing large companies, the International Olympics and Governor of the 13th largest state - the other candidates have been Governor, that's it.
• Romney has experience running a strong, organized national campaign - they have experience running a one-state campaign. 
• Romney has tens of millions of supporters - they don't.
• Romney can help deliver IA, MI, MN, ME, CO, NV, UT & probably NH - they deliver one state each
• Romney’s great success in the private sector makes him the perfect VP to help McCain help America win the global economy (having both a Harvard MBA & Law degree doesn't hurt either). 

Romney for VP over Huckabee because:

• If a chair dropped during one of his speeches, Romney would never say anything as stupid as:   "That was Barack Obama...somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor".
• Had Romney been selfish enough to stay in the race, Romney would have won three times the votes & delegates Huckabee got.
• The few states Huckabee brings to the ticket will be GOP anyway.
• Although Romney graciously left early, he raised 6 times more money.  
• Huckabee plays Clinton-style politics - such as running an ad saying he’s the "Christian leader" in evangelical Iowa and pulling the ad in NH - did Huckabee convert over New Jersey?

The only knocks on Romney are that he’s another "flip flopping Northeast liberal" and he lacks foreign policy experience. 

The “flip flop” charge is misleading.  Romney is actually very conservative, born and raised in Michigan, but moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard.  During a very successful business career, Mitt and his wife Ann raised their kids and put down roots.  Later, he ran for office and had to make compromises to get elected, and govern, in the bluest of blue states. 

Would his critics prefer that Romney had uprooted his family and moved to Arizona, so he could run as a conservative?  Or that he had stayed in Mass, not compromised and not get elected?  Thankfully, Mitt pulled that liberal state a little to the right and Mass, and America, is better off for it. 

Let’s celebrate blue-state conservatives, not chastise them when they run for national office.

Regarding Foreign Policy experience, most of our greatest Presidents, and most of the other V.P. candidates, lack foreign policy experience.  At least Romney has some experience with foreign leaders during his global business career and as International Olympics CEO.  The alternative is to get a VP candidate out of the US Senate, now experiencing record low approval ratings.

Mitt 4 VP = Win 4 McCain!