Newsweek: WOW!!!

Niall Ferguson has written a piece that absolutely, in great and painful detail, eviscerates Obama's presidency, pointing out Obama's failures in every aspect of the office.  

And it's the cover story.  

Is this the same Newsweek that said "Obama is God"?? (Or at least Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said it back in 2009.)

Raining McCain

I'm...confused. This throws the presidential election into turmoil.

Liberals Want You To Forget This

From Mitt Romney's concession speech at the CPAC conference Thursday, Feb 7:

[Israel's President] Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. “First,” he said, “I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.”

The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America.

The Liberal Endorsement

The New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective primary races.

The New York Times is one of the most -- if not the most -- Liberal newspapers in the country. There is no way they will pick John McCain in the general election in November. So why do they pick him at all?

One possibility is that they believe McCain will be the easiest to defeat in November. Despite his recent wins in primaries (and a possible blowout today, "Super Tuesday,") McCain lacks support from a huge number of Conservative Republicans. [Sidenote: the Conservative vote has been split between Mike Huckabee, who has zero chance of winning, and Mitt Romney, who is running a close second to McCain in most races. It's the "Perot effect," the one that won Bill Clinton the election in 1992.]

With feeble support from Conservatives, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will be destroyed in November. The crushing victory for the Democrat will give Liberals the "mandate" chant again.

The New York Times knows all of this. Their stated reason for supporting McCain is that he is the most Liberal of the Republican candidates. With McCain's abridgement of free speech (McCain-Feingold,) his support of amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy,) and his embracement of the "governemnt should handle manmade global warming" concept (McCain-Lieberman,) McCain has shown that he is not only willing to compromise, but eager to appeal to Liberal sentiments.

A New York Times endorsement sends a pretty clear message.

Wouldn't It Be Funny If....

Newt: A GOP Dark Horse?

"Who...could conservatives end up backing? Well, who recently has come out with a new book? Who's doing all the shows talking about his new book? Who is advocating common-sense solutions to the most pressing problems America faces?

"Newt Gingrich, that's who."

My Presidential Pick

Over the last year I put forth several times my reason to select Newt Gingrich as my choice for President. Because it would have been illegal under current campaign laws for him to remain the head of American Solutions and run for President, Newt withdrew his name from consideration.

I had to find another candidate to support.

Human Events recently endorsed Fred Thompson as their choice for President, based on his Conservative record. In the endorsement statement they quoted Ronald Reagan: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

Several weeks ago I decided that Thompson best fit my concept of what conservatism is, based in part on his interview with Charlie Rose:

Thompson states that his stance on particular issues derive from guiding principles, embodied in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Beginning in late spring of last year, I read, studied and considered The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. It's an immense, dense work, and it took me a long time to read it. A basic definition Kirk uses of conservatism is the same concept as Thompson uses -- that our institutions (such as the church) are based on hundreds years of established practices and beliefs, and that they should not be discarded based on a popular idea or the latest fad.

None of the other candidates have struck me as having the same principled basis; instead they seem to have arrived at particular positions based on political expediency. They claim the "Conservative" label, but not with the same credibility that Thompson possesses.

Fred Thompson for President in '08.

Newt: "I'd be willing to be president."

Lloyd Grove has an article in the Washington Post today, giving one of the better-balanced pieces I've ever seen about Newt Gingrich.

Some highlights from the article:

On running for President: He says he'll give his final answer by Oct. 1.

On waiting so late to announce his candidacy: Gingrich, for his part, dismisses warnings that October will be too late for a non-billionaire to jump into the race and raise the necessary cash. "Do you know the approximate size of the U.S. economy? About $14 trillion. ... if you assume we live in a country of 300 million people, a substantial number of whom will not have contributed to anybody, we'll have to see. Assume for a minute that one of the three [Republican] front-runners collapses. How many supporters does that make available?"

On Mitt Romney and Rudy Giulani: Gingrich has been carefully cultivating key Republican constituencies, especially Christian activists who might balk at nominating a formerly liberal Mormon who claims to have seen the light or a pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control, occasionally cross-dressing, thrice-married Yankees fan.

On John McCain: "I like John," Gingrich says, "but the combination of McCain-Feingold [the widely despised campaign finance law] and McCain-Kennedy [the hated immigration bill] is a tad heavy."

On Fred Thompson: "I think he becomes the establishment alternative," Gingrich says. "I've been fond of Fred ever since 'The Hunt for Red October.' I think he was totally convincing as an admiral."

On his marital infidelities: [Newt] had already taken the extraordinary step of going on right-wing evangelical leader James Dobson's radio show to admit committing the sin of adultery..."It's like talking to your mom. There are things in life you just don't want to go home and tell mom. But it was my intuitive judgment that this was a room I had to walk through. If I never walked through it, I'd always be on the other side of the door."

Newt has huge ideas about changing government, and the presidency is only a small part, a possible step in that process: "I want to make sure by the time we're done that in 511,000 elective positions" -- apparently the whole of U.S. officialdom -- "there are people who understand the 21st century, understand American civilization, and have fundamentally changed government at all levels."

"And if, in that process, I become president -- that's fine."

Newt Redux

From the "Evans-Novak Political Report" from February 28:

"Conservative Void: Republicans around the country are now talking about the possibility that a conservative candidate outside the big three could suddenly catch fire and suck support away from both the frontrunners and several of the minor candidates. A push poll for the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses is instructive on the reality of conservative discontent with the current "big three" GOP candidates. The poll gives Sen. John McCain 20.5 percent, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 16.3 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 3.5 percent. The candidate for whom the push-poll was conducted, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore (R), leads them all with 31 percent.

This is not legitimate survey, of course -- it's a "push poll" that tells respondents positive and negative things about various candidates. The pollster peppered respondents with tales of the liberal deviations by McCain, Giuliani and Romney, and the true-blue conservatism of Gilmore. But it proves a point that is widely accepted in Republican ranks: None of the "big three" is a natural fit for the nation's right-of-center party. A conservative void unquestionably exists. The question is whether there is anyone who can fill the void.

The name usually mentioned as the void-filler is not Gilmore but Newt Gingrich. A straw poll by the right-wing Citizens United organization of contributors to its political fund showed Gingrich ahead with 31 percent (followed by Giuliani at 25 percent, Romney at 10 percent and McCain at 8 percent)."

The report follows up with "But based on his record as speaker of the House, Gingrich's conservative record is far from flawless." -- without giving details of the "flaws" Gingrich demonstrated.

During the debate between Gingrich and Mario Cuomo Wednesday night (Feb 28), Cuomo, in response to a question from the moderator, named Gingrich as the best candidate for the Republican nomination. "Intelligent, experienced, and a great debater."

The Experts are Catching On

Former Clinton advisor and current political commentator Dick Morris recently wrote a column entitled "Here Comes Newt." It eerily echoes my column "The Class of '08" from August 28, 2006, in which I predicted Newt Gingrich would be the 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

Why ain't my phone ringing off the wall with offers to be the one making $$$ advising politicians? (Attention Republicans: I am for sale.)

Why Hillary Won't Win

Unless something catastrophic happens to Hillary Clinton's campaign, she will be the 2008 Democrat presidential nominee. Currently the media are singing Barack Obama's song, and John Edwards (and possibly Al Gore) wait in the wings. But it's Hillary's game to lose.

Although she is certain to be the Democrat candidate, there are many reasons I believe she will be unable to win the Presidency.

Reason #1: "She's a girl." Yes, I realize that Hillary Clinton is not a child. Nonetheless, chauvinistic or not, many people will vote against Hillary because of her gender. Some of her supporters will vote for her for that reason alone, of course, but many more voters will decide to vote for Hillary's opponent based solely on her being a woman.

Reason #2: Her personality. Ms. Clinton will spend the next 21 months trying to soften her image. Since 1992, however, she has been depicted as a cold, calculating, hard-nosed, unlikable beeyotch. The rhetoric she will have to use to win the Democrat primaries will only accentuate this image, despite her attempts to change it.

Reason #3: Her husband. Bill Clinton polarizes Americans. Many people dislike him, and even among his admirers there are some who don't believe a family should return to the White House. "Time for some new blood" and "not again" will be the sentiments of many voters during the campaign.

Reason #4: The primaries. What Hillary Clinton did not need was a strong opponent in the Democrat primaries. Although she is certain to win the nomination, Barack Obama is currently the media darling, giving the other challengers the courage to challenge Hillary. This will entail a lot of mudslinging and the political version of a UFC fight. She's going to lose some teeth. The infighting will accentuate her negatives for the voters. Her only chance to come out clean and in good shape is if Obama's campaign disintegrates before the primaries, and the other Democrats roll over.

Reason #5: Her politics. Despite the 2006 elections (which was a reprimand vote against the Republicans' wandering from Conservative principles,) most Americans are conservative, and voters will put conservative politicians into office. Despite what she says during the presidential campaign (which will sound much more centrist and conservative than what she says during the primary campaign,) Hillary's record shows her to be very Liberal.

All of the above factors are rendered moot if Republicans field a weak candidate (ala Bob Dole, '96.) That's why it's vital that Republicans work hard to find someone who is intelligent, appealing, and Conservative.