Why on earth do any of you care what the talk show hosts are saying?  They are the same idiots that gave us the Bush debacle that lost Congress for us (and probably the presidency in 2008 and beyond).  

I just don't get it. There's not a hair's difference between Romney's past policies on immigration and McCain's, but Romney's the conservative?Have you seen Romney in the debate in Massachusetts defending so eloquently a woman's right to choose? And then rhapsodically recalling the image of his dear mother running for office on pro-choice platform?Did you see him promise more big spending in Michigan and Florida?Did you see that he appointed gay activist judges while governor of Massachusetts? Did you see he raised taxes in Mass (calling them fees doesn't mean they aren't taxes, they are--Ask Steve Forbes (who is endorsing McCain)).Did you notice Romney sticking his neck out for the surge in Iraq before it started working (NO HE DID NOT).Upon what, besides his unsubstantiated promises, do you consider him THE conservative candidate? Mitt has shown no spine in politics. He bends with whatever wind will get him elected. What makes you think he won't capitulate to a Democrat congress to get re-elected in 2012?You people have to get real. The only thing that has kept Mitt in this race is his own money, which he has stopped spending (note the fact that he has not produced a single new ad for Super Tuesday and his advertising budget has plummeted!). He cannot buy an election from the Democrats who raised $100 million last year. His campaign is $35 million in debt. How can he possibly compete!!!!See the WSJ article today about the courts by Steven Calabresi. If the idea of Obama appointing 6 supreme court justices that could be on the bench for the next quarter century doesn't scare you into voting for a candidate who can win, I don't know what will.

Senator Mel Martinez of Florida has endorsed John McCain for President.  Here is the press release:

MIAMI - Senator Mel Martinez just took the stage here at the Latino Builders Association in downtown Miami to officially endorse John McCain. Martinez told the crowd that "after very careful consideration I've decided that the best person to lead our country in these uncertain times ought to be John McCain."

Martinez cited the threat of radical Islam, arguing America needs a leader who is "tested" and "tempered."

"I know the respect people around the world have for this man," Martinez said, "I would trust the future and safety of our nation to this man."

Martinez also cited McCain's "good judgment," his "quality of leadership," and his ability to "tell it like it is." Lastly, Martinez promised the crowd that he was confident McCain would "be Castro's worst nightmare."

A couple of days ago Hugh Hewitt (I believe it was him anyway) ranted on about how if McCain is the nominee, he can't possibly raise enough money to compete with the Democrat juggernaut. Talk about bad timing:

John McCain, riding high off victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, has raised more than $7 million this month, collecting in three weeks more than he took in during a three-month period last year.

Guess you'll have to find something else to whine about.

It was nice to see the article in the WSJ today, "Panhandle Pander" about the candidates' responses to Florida Governor Charlie Crist's suggestion that the state (and possibly federal) government subsidize disaster insurance for Floridians.  This is just the kind of thing Republicans are supposed to be against, right?  If you choose to live on the coast in a hurricane zone (or in an earthquake zone, or mudslide zone, etc.) don't expect the government to subsidize your mansion by keeping disaster insurance below market rates.  So much for the free market economy.

So what say the so-called "Republicans" annointed by the Designated Geniuses of talk radio and Townhall.com?  The WSJ notes:

Giuliani:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, desperately needing a win in the Sunshine State, has happily obliged by making support for the Florida bailout a centerpiece of his recent speeches. His new Web video proudly announces that among the GOP candidates, “only one has a plan to lower rates and fix the insurance mess. Tested in crisis. Ready to lead. Rudy Giuliani.”

Quoth the Huckster:

"If there could be a national approach where there could be sort of a shared burden [or] responsibility, I think this makes a lot of sense.”

Romney:

As for Mitt Romney, as usual it’s hard to know where he’s headed. A spokesman says the former Massachusetts Governor “has not opposed or supported any specific proposal on the issue.”

The Palm Beach Post quotes Mr. Romney: “I’m willing to sit down with the Governor and with leaders of the insurance industry and others and talk about the options . . . If the private industry is able to deal with it effectively, fine. If it’s not, then we need to look for some kind of either multistate sharing program . . . or perhaps a national program. But recognizing, of course, that you’re not going to have very low risk homeowners or low risk states subsidizing high risk homeowners or high risk states.” That last sentence sounds promising, but then so did his original Massachusetts health reform.

Yes, just as he did in Michigan, Romney panders to voters’ economic self-interest.  

And what about McCain (the fake Republican)?

The most refreshing message has come from John McCain, who pointed out that we already have FEMA (and, we’d add, at least 26 other federal programs intended to assist people after natural disasters). Mr. McCain is opposing the House bill and has instead proposed reforms to make private insurance less costly. These include creating an optional federal charter to enable insurance companies to easily operate across state lines.

The Senator wobbled a bit on Tuesday with comments about preventing insurance companies from “cherry-picking” low-risk areas. But on Wednesday he reverted to good form and said a federal disaster fund would simply cost American taxpayers too much. Kudos to Mr. McCain for refusing to dance with the Panhandle Pander.

Apart from the bright shining fiscal conservatism evident in McCain's response, there is his bluntness.  No matter what you say about him, you have to admire McCain for going into Florida (a state he needs to win) and telling the governor to pound sand with his incipient socialism.  

That is the kind of honesty we need in a president.  Diogenes would be proud!

P.S. I won’t even mention the LA Times/Bloomberg poll showing McCain as the only Republican with a chance to beat Clinton/Obama. 

Signed,

LarrytheLawyer (thinks that the McCain haters ignore the truth).

Well, the heat is turning up on John McCain.  it seems that the holier-than-thou Republican blogosphere and the Republican Designated Geniuses (the same ones who brought us George Bush-both of them!) hate McCain only slightly less than they hate Hitler, Stalin, Satan, and Bill Clinton.  Actually, maybe a little more than any of them.

To start it off, I'll admit I'm a McCain supporter.  Three main reaons: 

(1) We are embroiled in note one but two wars that have not been run well.  This is my top issue because if we lose in these wars, it will turn in to another post-Vietnam era.  We will not be able to credibly protect our interests overseas, the military will lose prestige (a la the Carter era), and we will have destroyed Iraq and left it open to exploitation by terrorists and Islamic extremists.  I believe that we have a moral obligation to succeed in Iraq.  As Colin Powell said, "If you break it, you own it."  We have to protect Iraq now that we have destroyed it.

 McCain is the only candidate with the military experience and the courage to wage these wars in the face of what wil be unbearable Democratic opposition.

(2)  As the title of my blog indicates, I'd like a President that believes what he says.  Even if I disagree with him, at least I know where he stands.  initially I supported Mitt Romney.  I still like him and think he would make a fine President (though not as commander-in-chief).  However, after hearing him debate the abortion issue in 2002 while running for governor of Massachusetts, I can't believe in him anymore.  He panders too much to the crowd.  In Michigan he told the hopeful auto workers that he would get them their jobs back and that he would spend billions to rescue Michigan.  That is not a conservative and that is not someone I can entirely trust.

(3)  I want a president that I can be proud of.  John McCain has a personal history that is compelling.  Whether you agree with his politics, he at least was a courageous hero with an almost religious sense of honor.  We've been lacking that sense since Reagan left the White House in 1988.

Oh, also I like the fact that he can actually win the general election against Hillary.  I guess that's four things.  ("Our chief weapon is surprise, surprise and fear, fear and surprise, our two weapons are fear and surprise and a ruthless efficiency.  Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and efficiency and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.  Four weapons . . amongs our weaponry . . . .)  "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, "  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZQI0Xm29To 

What bugs me most about the opposition to McCain is the lack of thought that goes into it.  The hatred expressed for him is expressed in shorthand to which we are all supposed to fall down, tear our clothes, and wail.  "Amnesty," "Bush Tax Cuts," "McCain-Feingold" all become like words of doom that destroy upon their mere utterance.  

George Orwell brilliantly analyzed this phenomenon in his essay, "Politics and the English Language."  Here is Orwell in discussing sloppy prose:

As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. 

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy.

 When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases --bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy . . . .

Along with all the hatred that comes across (as if John McCain had done something to each of these writers personally), it is the sheer unwillingness to think about what they are saying that bothers me.  I assume there must be some valid reason for the attacks, but so far no one has bothered explaining anything beyond the sound bite/bumper sticker rhetoric so common in modern political writing.  

So here's an invitation.  If you really think John McCain how about picking out one or two reasons why he is so bad for America and rather than relying on cliches you got from National Review or Hugh Hewitt, actually express them.  I'd love to here about it and discuss it rationally.