A LIBERAL KODAK MOMENT IN L.A.

Senators Clinton and Obama faced off in a political joust Thursday evening at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles. CNN televised the event under the moderation of Wolf Blitzer, assisted by Jean Cummings of Politico.com and Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times. This was the last debate for either party before next week's Super Tuesday, with primary voting for both parties in twenty-two states. The audience was packed with California politicians and celebrities. I try to ignore Hollywood, but I did recognize Jason Alexander, Rob Reiner, Stevie Wonder, and Pierce Brosnan.

The Obama campaign tactically announced on the eve of the debate today that they had raised $32M in January alone, a staggering figure helped along by 170,000 new donors. Obama's South Carolina win, followed by the Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements, have him on an undeniable roll. Whether he can competee on a national scale will be tested next week. Hillary, meanwhile, has kept Slick Willie on a tight leash this week. His comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson and his previous tirade against a reporter forced the Clinton campaign to reel in Bill a little, at least for now. Don't doubt that if the race tightens further and goes on longer, the Clinton machine and it's army of private detectives will launch attacks that will make all the previous ones seem mild by comparison.

I have to issue a brief disclaimer. It is nearly impossible for me to tell who has won a Democrap debate. I have no frame of reference. I disagree with nearly everything that is said. I try to concentrate on the particular words and phrases used by the Dems that reveal their true intent or illustrate clear differences with conservative philosophy. Sure, I can tell when someone gets in a good shot, but beyond that, I'm at a loss. Listening to the talking heads just confuses the issue even more. And the truth is that there are very little policy differences between the Democrat candidates. Their contest this year is a matter of style and experience, not major policy fights.

The candidates were introduced simultaneously and walked out together, so it was a little hard to determine if there was any initial crowd bias. Some cheering occurred in response to both candidates at later points, but it wasn't dramatic. Wolf offered time for an opening statement, and off they went. Obama used the majority of his time to praise John Edwards, who dropped out Wednesday, in a naked appeal for the support of Edwards voters. Hillary instead attacked the "failed" Bush administration, and she definitely has experience with a failed adminstration. Each candidate was then given a chance to point out specific policy differences between them. Hillary started by attacking the Republican candidates, a general election pitch. She also called health care a "right", something I could not find in the Constitution. Clinton then spelled out her solution to the increase in housing foreclosures, which sounded very similar to the big government plan John McCain detailed last night in the Republican debate. Hillary's proposal to freeze interest rates is nothing less than a government takeover of the markets. Socialism, anyone? Obama admitted their health plans are "95 percent similar," but said his was absent mandates that would logically require enforcement of some kind. He declared drug company profits "oversize", an odd view of capitalism for a potential President to hold. Obama then landed a firm smack to the forehead of John McCain by pointing out the "tax cuts for the wealthy" language McCain used when twice voting against the Bush tax reductions. If McCain is the Republican nominee, we'll see that again, even though both Dems openly admitted they will surely raise taxes if elected.

The discussion then moved on to illegal immigration, and this is where they lose me completely. They both support a "comprehensive" immigration reform, and that translates to "amnesty". Obama refused to even acknowledge the effect illegals have on American jobs, terming the idea "scapegoating". Hillary was pressed on drivers licenses for illegals, a question she originally stumbled on in the Philadelphia debate. She twice attempted to run out the clock without answering by comparing Republicans to jackbooted Nazis for insisting immigration law be enforced and citing her support from a migrant farmworkers union. She eventually said she opposes licenses for illegals, but it took a while to get there. Obama cited public safety concerns for his support of licenses, and then Hillary uttered one of the most insincere and ironic sentences I have ever heard: "We have to respect the dignity of every human being." That's a real change in philosophy if she meant it. She has respect for illegal immigrants and criminals, but not for human life created yet unborn. Killing fetuses by the tens of millions is acceptable, but she "respects" EVERY human being?

The broadcast returned late after a commercial to candidate response to an apparent question about qualifications to be President. Senator Obama detailed his meager experience and said he has the skills that are needed. Hillary immediately threw out her "35 years" pitch. Again, you don't call the plumber's wife to fix a leak. She claimed visits to eighty-two foreign nations, like tourism is an executive skill, and topped off her response by maintaining she had once negotiated with (drumroll please)....Macedonia! Wow, I bet that was a tough deal to complete. The Macedonians are known worldwide for their diplomatic skills. A question about Romney's business experience gave Hillary the chance to swipe at Bush again, and Obama suggested Mitt had gotten a bad return on his investment in the campaign so far. The two played nice over the Kennedy endorsements and then Hillary was asked about the possibility of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. As in the past, she instantly defended Slick Willie's administration by citing the "surplus" when Bill left office. Never mind that war, balance the budget.

The debate again went to commercial, so I grabbed the remote like a hungry man grabbing a biscuit. Mitt Romney on Hannity calling McCain's tactics "Nixonian", and I thought that was pretty cool, as well as accurate. CNN returned from break with an exterior shot, and I saw something that warmed my heart: Ron Paul supporters. It's just good to know he's bedeviling the Democrats also.

Iraq policy arose next, with the candidates differing very little on future policy. Both are prepared to order a precipitous withdrawal, ignoring the progress of the surge and the sacrifice so far, and without regard to consequence. Hillary said the Iraqi government has "no time" remaining, strange for a member of an organization that can't issue checks in less than four months. Clinton proposed withdrawing one or two American brigades per month, but expressed a concern for the Iraqis who have supported us. She's not concerned enough to keep Al Qaeda from beheading them, but she's concerned none the less. Hillary even admitted and shrugged off the potential of further Syrian and Iranian involvement in Iraqi sectarian strife. Not only is she willing to surrender to Al Qaeda, she is prepared to abandon the battlefield to the two largest state sponsors of terror. Obama asserted our effort in Iraq has distracted us from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Latin America. Okay, I get the first two, but Latin America? Senator Obama beat Hillary over the head with her vote for the Iraq war, with Wolf Blitzer helping by asking Clinton if she was "naive" for doing so. She tried to assert that her vote was for further diplomacy and not military action, but that's tired and everyone knows it's disinginuous. Both have pandered to the cut and run wing of their party, and it will be hard for them to seem responsible on the issue in the general election, especially if substantial progress continues.

The broadcast returned late from it's final break, an annoyance considering they have clocks. The final segment was a big Democrat hug. Hillary was asked about Bill's role in her campaign and potentially in the White House, and it drew a hideous cackle from her that chilled the blood. She also described the presidency as a "lonely" job, something that may partially explain how the fat intern ended up under her husband's desk. The candidates were then quizzed about running together. Obama called the matter premature, but Hillary took the opportunity and ran with it. She gave a thirty second plug for her upcoming "national town hall" on television and the web. It was cheesy and opportunistic, paralleling her entire campaign.

No more debates for a while. The next ones are after Super Tuesday, February 27th and 28th in my home state of Ohio. Who knows what kind of political carnage may have occurred by then. It's up to the voters, as it should be. Just don't begin to think next Tuesday will settle either race, because that's unlikely.

REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE

The surviving Republican Presidential candidates convened for a debate Wednesday evening hosted by CNN in the Air Force One pavilion of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. There could not have been a less appropriate setting, considering none of the gentlemen still remaining in the race quite fit the Reagan philosophy. Questions were posed by moderator Anderson Cooper with assistance from Jim Vandehei of Politico.com and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times. Instead of dividing the evening up into issue segments, I decided to score the debate like a sporting event. Yeah, yeah, I know this is about selecting the leader of the free world and all that, but the Republicans have now debated at least a hundred times. I can only take so much, so why not have some fun with it and declare a winner at the end? Each candidate was awarded one point for each time they stated something with which I agreed, and one negative point for each time they said something that I found objectionable. The scores have been tallied, so let's look at the statistics, starting with the losers.

Ron Paul earned three good, solid kicks in the testicles for the number of times he used the word "empire" to describe American foreign policy. Listen closely, grandpa: America does not now nor has it ever maintained an "empire". We just don't fit the definition. United States forces in no way rule over foreign lands as absolute authorities, nor do we go around the planet absorbing smaller, weaker nations. Paul's assertion is that we can simply withdraw from the globe behind our oceans and no one will bother us. It's both stunningly stupid and stunningly naive for a man of his experience. His foreign policy totally ignores the last say, oh, seventy or eighty years of world history. His presence in the campaign has been a sad little joke that has wasted everyone's time. I will never get back the time I wasted listening to Ron Paul's vacuous and assanine philosophy, and I deeply resent that. I cannot explain the money he has raised or his continued presence in the race. Having a substantive debate over critical domestic and foreign policy matters is not helped by the presence of some braying jackass who has zero chance of getting the nomination. And stop saying "empire".

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee scored a big three points. Now, admittedly, I may have a residual bias against Huck from Iowa. I may never get over the floating cross commercial. It made me think of a Christian version of "Big Brother". Huckabee scored a point for his strong advocacy of federalism and the right of states to more freely legislate, a largely missing subject from this campaign. He also scored for wondering about borrowing money from China to finance consumer puchases of Chinese goods in an effort to stimulate the economy. Huck didn't score for a long stretch until the end, when his reply to a question about who Ronald Reagan would endorse, he said, "I don't know if he would endorse me, but I endorse him." Governor Huckabee complained several times about the amount of time allotted to McCain and Romney, and he was right. The press always neglect coverage of real issues to gather around a fight like children on a playground.

Arizona Senator John McCain scored plenty. Unfortunately for him, all his points were negative, and by the end of the evening, he stood at negative ten. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. When asked about his record as a conservative, McCain used his stock phrase to describe compromising conservative principles and submitting to the Democrats: "reaching across the aisle to get something done". I don't want "something" done, I want the right thing done. I vote Republican to promote conservative policies, not meld them with liberal claptrap. McCain's response to California's attempts to more strictly regulate carbon emissions devolved into a rambling version of Gore-style global warming hysteria. His answer to the subprime lending situation is massive government regulation. He continues to push the absurd claim that the Republican congressional losses in 2006 were solely because of spending, a simplistic argument that ignores every other possible factor. McCain's defense of his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, formed in cooperation with Ted Kennedy, continues to be unconvincing and pathetic. He also could not defend his Iraq timetable sucker punch of Romney on the eve of the Florida primary, and even the liberal media so in love with McCain seem to agree it was dishonest. He lost another point for complaining about "negative ads". I call those "political ads". You'd think a man who spent five years a prisoner of the North Vietnamese could take a few jabs. Shortly after his complaint, he took a shot at Romney's experience as "for profit", characterizing his as "for patriotism". So, he seems to have a problem with capitalism and thinks commanding a naval squadron is relevant experience in dealing with the national economy? Another shot at Romney's business experience cost McCain another point when he said, "He bought, and he sold, and some people lost their jobs." Again, a shot at capitalism. When did John McCain morph into John Edwards? McCain was assessed a tenth and final negative point for constantly saying he was a "footsoldier in the Reagan revolution". He was more like a passerby or witness than he was a footsoldier. McCain's performance was flat and unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was today's endorsement of McCain by Rudy Guliani, brazenly conducted at the library as well. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will reportedly endorse McCain tomorrow as well. Big deal.

Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney finished the night with eight points, well ahead of the other fellows. Mitt's justified interpretation of McCain's record scored first, and Romney even threw in the New York Times endorsement of McCain as proof. Romney correctly disputed Huckabee's assertion that building infrastructure can help the economy in the short term, and pointed out that McCain was one of only two Republicans in the Senate to vote against the Bush tax cuts. He strongly supported deporting illegal immigrants and assailed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Romney said Ronald Reagan would find McCain's tactics on the eve of the Florida primary "reprehensible", and he was right. He scored again over the same subject by asking McCain, "How are YOU and expert on MY position?" Mitt's last point came during his summation question about a theoretical Reagan endorsement. He concisely stated the Reagan philosophy and formula for winning elections and aggressively made his cas for the nomination. Huckabee's response to the same question was properly humble, but Romney made a good case for himself within the Reagan model.

There have been two debates since Fred Thompson dropped out, I have judged them both objectively, and in my estimation Mitt Romney has easily won them both. His challenge going forward will be to somehow slow the snowball effect of McCain's South Carolina and Florida wins. I can't say yet that I would vote for Romney, but it's looking more and more probable with each debate. If I can't vote for the candidate I really wanted, then I'll have to pick the best of what's available. The evening made clear once again that McCain certainly isn't it.

LAST STATE OF THE UNION FOR BUSH

President Bush delivered his seventh and final State of the Union speech to the 110th United States Congress Monday evening in the House chamber. The annual event is the single largest gathering of federal government authority in one place at one time, and as one would imagine, security is ironclad. The rituals of the affair are usually more interesting than the actual speech itself. The audience is always a Who's Who of Washington politics, and this time was no exception. First Lady Laura Bush was accompanied for the first time by both Jenna and Barbara. Democratic Presidential candidates Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were present, along with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Souder. The President entered as usual after being announced and proceeded down the aisle, glad-handing with members of Congress along the way. It's funny to see which members seem to get the seat next to the aisle every time so they can appear with the President. Some of them are sworn political enemies to the President, but no one can deny the power of television. The customary applause continued as the President delivered a hard copy to House Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Cheney. The roar from the audience continued long enough for Bush to manage three hand shakes with Pelosi. Let's all hope he has hand sanitizer readily available for just such an emergency.

The President began with domestic issues, and the economy was at the top of the list. Bush encouraged the Senate to pass the growth package as soon as possible and without a load of pork added. He also made his pitch for making his tax cuts permanent. In the best line of the night, Bush said he appreciated the enthusiasm of those who would voluntarily pay higher taxes, and said the IRS takes "check or money order". He also vowed to veto any tax increase and by executive order cut 151 wasteful federal programs, saving $18B almost immediately. Bush then laid down the law on earmarks, the spending hidden in legislation without a vote. Saying Congress had failed his request in 2007 to cut them, Bush said he would veto any spending measure that did not cut earmarks be at least half in number and total. He then threw down a gauntlet by saying he would order federal agencies to ignore spending not voted on by the Congress. This policy should have been implemented long ago, and it is one Bush can continue until he's gone. The whole section on earmarks elicited an evil Cheney smirk, most entertaining as he sat next to Pelosi and behind the President.

The remainder of the domestic agenda was expressed as a laundry list of the policies the President hopes to maintain or get at least some movement on before he exits. He called for the reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May, and called on Congress to provide tax-free bonds to refinance mortgages in danger of foreclosure. Bush restated his policies on health care, education, trade, and federal judges. He also supported an international agreement on greenhouse gasses, then made it a fantasy by saying all the major nations (read China and India) would have to be included. Bush challenged Congress to take action on entitlements, now that his proposals on the matter have been rejected. The President continues to to insist that our borders cannot be secured without a guest worker program, a dubious claim at best. Bush has never been shy about big federal spending on domestic programs, and his proposals Monday evening did not disappoint on that count.

The President shifted to events abroad by reviewing the events in that arena over the past seven years. Calling the war "the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century," Bush thanked Congress for it's support on Afghanistan and quickly moved to Iraq. "Some may deny the success of the surge," the President said, "but... Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, ... and this enemy will be defeated." Only the Republican side of the audience rose to cheer that, as often happens during controversial parts of the speech. The Democrat reaction to our undeniable progress in Iraq is a striking denial of reality and reveals their heavy political investment in defeat. Bush promised our military all the tools necessary to defend our nation, and pressured Congress for full funding of our troops on the battlefield. He laid out a gradual troop withdrawal plan for Iraq bringing 20,000 home this year, but only if conditions allow and commanders on the ground recommend doing so. Bush's stance on Iraq has been unwavering, and he will deserve every iota of the credit if we succeed, if for nothing else than refusing to budge.

His emphasis on democracy as a cure for terrorism continues despite dangerous results in the Palestinian territories, as does his inexplicable pursuit of a terrorist state astride Israel. The President called for Iran to abandon it's uranium enrichment and stop support for terror, neither of which is very likely. He did, however, warn Iran that we will defend our troops and our interests in the Persian Gulf. Bush stated American opposition to the genocide in Sudan and support for freedom in Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and Burma. He also disturbingly requested an additional $50B over the next five years for his African AIDS efforts. That amount of foreign aid could best be used at home or for defense.

The President concluded with veterans affairs. He pointed out funding for veterans programs has increased 95 percent during his administration. Bush called for further funding and a reform of the system. Bob Dole and Donna Shalala, co-chairs of the Commission on Care for Wounded Warriors, were in attendance, and Bush also requested implementation of their recommendations. Our nation would be making a huge leap in veterans care if Congress ever does.

The speech lasted fifty-three minutes and was interrupted by applause seventy times. The networks let the microphones roll as the President made his way out of the chamber. It was a unique insight into the man and the job. It seemed every member wanted an autographed program, and they crowded the aisle and often squeezed the President's shoulder in congratulation. The very same folks will be trying to rip out his political guts tomorrow morning. Members customarily gather in Statuary Hall after the speech to snag interviews and judge the President's performance. It's a fascinating ritual of our republic, regardless of who holds the office. Bush may get some approval for his effort, but the rest will require help from Congress. That's doubtful unless the Dems see political gain in cooperating, a rarity indeed.

CAMPAIGN STATUS REPORT

Barrack Obama thrashed Hillary Clinton in South Carolina's Democrat primary yesterday, far surpassing his expected vote total. The polls predicted a eight to ten point win for the Illinois Senator, but he finished with a twenty-eight point victory that netted over double the vote total for Hillary. Now the Dems move on to Super Tuesday while the Republican contenders face a Tuesday Florida primary with polls showing a slight Romney advantage over McCain. Now is probably a good time to review the situation on both sides and assess prospects for the future.

The reactions of both sides in the Democrat race last night illustrates the differences in strategy. Obama gave a soaring victory speech calling for unity and rejecting the politics of the past. The Hillary camp sent out a concession email and promptly proceeded to Tennessee. Slick Willie has compared Obama's victory to those of Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, attempting to relegate him to a "black candidate" status. Despite all the pronouncements of Bill Clinton as the most effective politician of our time, his contribution so far has been to divide the Democrat electorate along racial lines. He might have blown his status as the "first black President" over the past two weeks. He managed to turn a small win for Obama into a spanking of epic proportion. The Clintons are running on the idea of a co-presidency, odd for the first viable female candidate. Hillary claims to be strong enough to run for President, but has her husband out on the trail as her hatchet man to do all the dirty work. It's natural for conservatives to support Clinton opponents, but don't be fooled by Senator Obama. He gives a great speech, but he's as far left as they come. The policy differences among the Dems are few and minor. Hillary continues to run the Clinton political machine that feeds opponents into a meat grinder and will do anything to win. If Obama beats Hillary on Super Tuesday, he could be hard to stop with the usual Clinton dirty tricks. The Democrat electorate has tired of the same old dirty tricks and may continue to punish Billary for them.

The Republicans are campaigning across Florida ahead of the Tuesday primary there. Mitt Romney holds a slight poll lead over McCain, Huckabee is a distant third, and Rudy looks near finished. Romney had a superb performance in the last debate, and his business successes in the past have given him credibility to speak credibly on current economic issues. He currently leads in delegates, having won Michigan and Wyoming. A Romney victory could propel him with significant momentum into Super Tuesday. Mitt has enough money to finance his own campaign, so he's in the race to stay. McCain comes off his South Carolina win hoping to make nice with all the conservatives he has smited in the past. Florida is the first primary to allow only Republicans to cast a ballot, so McCain cannot rely on independent support that has helped him in the past. Huckabee is working on proving Iowa was a one time event and that he has no chance anywhere else. Rudy has pinned his hopes on winning Florida, having bypassed the earlier primaries, but the polls show him in fourth place and approaching single digits. The scandals involving his time as mayor of New York reported in November and December didn't help, and neither did his complete absence from the early part of the process.

Both races have developed into two person contests. Mitt and McCain battle it out to go against Obama or Billary. The sure bet is that nothing will be settled anytime soon. The party conventions this summer could be real floor fights instead of coronations. All the candidates will be forced to review their plans after Super Tuesday, and by then the picture may be a little clearer. Until then, sit back and watch the fur fly.

BOCA RATON DEBATE

The remaining GOP Presidential candidates gathered on the campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, for a debate Thursday evening. NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams moderated for the MSNBC broadcast. The Florida primary is Saturday, and the consequences are enormous. Rudy has been banking on Florida to restart his campaign, which has essentially fallen off the map. Romney could use a win to add to his delegate lead and slow McCain. Senator McCain needs to win a primary that includes only Republicans to maintain his momentum, and Huckabee could use any bit of traction at all to bolster his flagging bid. My man Fred Thompson has sadly withdrawn, so I was able to view the event somewhat objectively. That's not to say that any of them earned my vote in one evening, but there was a clear winner.

The first portion of the questioning focused on the economy and the recent measures agreed to by Congress and the President on a stimulus package. Senator McCain indicated he will vote yea on the bill, suggested a cut in the corporate tax rate is in order, and then went into his speech about controlling spending and the "bridge to nowhere". Rudy pitched the three rate tax plan several of his supporters have introduced in Congress and extolled mutual foreign investment. Governor Huckabee made points by wondering if borrowing money from China to give American consumers cash to purchase Chinese goods was a wise plan, but then asserted a huge public works infrastructure program would be better than individual taxpayer checks. It might be, but the pork, waste, and various other problems associated with that type of big government plan always slow and reduce its effectiveness. Whiny Ron Paul really annoyed me by using the word "empire" to describe our overseas military commitments and foreign policy. Someone should scream loud enough for retarded grandpa to hear that the United States does not rule other lands as a singular power or with absolute authority. It's the same as suggesting our troops presence as an "occupation". It's offensive to anyone who understands the nature of our armed forces and their intent. In any event, Mitt Romney won the round with his attack on all things Washington and the failures of the federal government. He also showed a commanding knowledge of economic issues and emphasized his successful private sector business experience.

Questions on Iraq found general agreement among the gentlemen concerning the need to continue our efforts and rejection of the Democrat surrender plan. McCain continued his sickening chest-thumping over the corpse of Rummy to support his status as the most committed to success in Iraq. Paul was the only man to say the war was a mistake and not worth the sacrifice, which was followed by cheers in support of Al Qaeda from the Paul supporters present. Romney once again seemed authoritative, and proposed increasing the active duty military force by 100,000 and providing full college tuition for veterans and reservists. Romney also pointed out the idiocy of the Dems on Iraq, and said no credit will be due to "General Hillary." Rudy correctly asserted the Democrat nominee will have a major problem if progress continues in Iraq. Romney's comments on this issue were knowledgeable and his language on the issue was exactly right.

After a commercial break, the candidates were offered a chance to ask questions of each other. It's an intriguing concept full of wild possibilities, none of which were fulfilled. The entire segment illustrated the candidates' refusal to attack at all. Honestly, the Democrat race has been funner to watch lately with Hillary and Obama having really thrown some elbows in their last encounter. Nothing like that occurred last night, a much tamer affair in general. Mitt asked Rudy about China trade, McCain asked Huckabee to defend the fair tax, Paul asked McCain a yawn inspiring economics question, and Rudy asked Mitt about a proposed national catastrophe fund. McCain also somehow sneaked in his global warming pitch. Most striking was Romney's defense of Second Amendment individual rights in a response to a challenge from Huckabee. Romney won the whole round by decrying renewal of the so called "assault weapons" ban that mercifully expired. He did not hesitate to answer firmly and forcefully on the guns issue, and that was reassuring.

Another commercial interruption preceded the most bizarre portion of the entire debate. First, McCain was asked about quotes from his mother, who is 95 years old. I don't know why, but he was asked. Then Russert and Williams started a rapid fire attack on Mitt Romney that backfired badly. It began with a question to Mitt about how to run against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Romney got in a good shot by saying he didn't think Bill in the White House again with nothing to do was a very good idea. Russert interrupted with a snotty "What do you mean?," but Romney ignored him and moved on to say Hillary would be the nominee, not Bill. Mitt scored major points by highlighting the Reagan formula of uniting economic, social, and national defense conservatives to win the general election. Romney was then asked about how much of his personal fortune he has spent so far, an amateurish jab he easily deflected by saying he feels the issues are important enough to warrant his concern and cash. Another question followed that drug up the tired old Mormon faith issue, something the press should have given up long ago. His answer made the moderators look like the bad guys for even asking by attacking their insinuations of religious prejudice among the American people. Just a few moments later, during the next segment, Romney was assailed again on Reagan's tax increase to fund social security. Mitt said raising taxes isn't the answer and spoke in favor of personal accounts and raising the retirement age as first steps. McCain managed to work in "bridge to nowhere" a nauseating third time during the social security portion. Just to show I'm fair, even Ron Paul said something I agreed with by suggesting younger folks should be allowed out of the system because the money will not be there for them upon retirement.

The evening concluded for some reason with the moderators using the most vile press attacks that could be found against the individual named by putting them in the form of a question. It was another example of the liberal media slinging dirt in a Republican debate instead of allowing the free flow of argument as they so often do in Democrat debates. I have to award first place to Mitt Romney. He dominated every segment of the discussion, and seemed informed and in charge. I can't endorse anyone yet and may not at all, but Romney clearly won despite the targeted assault by the moderators. A victory in Florida might start him on a roll that will be hard to stop.

DISAPPOINTED AND LOST

"Why should a belief in individual freedom, less centralized authority in government, and more local autonomy be called conservatism? By the same token what is liberal about wanting more government, government interference in the raising of our children, compulsory government medicine and the confiscation and forced redistribution of a sizable percentage of each citizens earnings?"

Ronald Reagan November 16, 1976


Fred Thompson's disappointing showing in Saturday's South Carolina primary and subsequent withdrawal from the race today leaves me with nowhere to go. Fred's exit ends the only chance of the Republican Party fielding a Presidential candidate who follows the Reagan political ethos. That officially ends the party of Reagan. The GOP has morphed into a spineless, philosophically challenged shell of the party once in control of both houses of Congress and the White House. See how the mighty have fallen. This is the result of years if not decades of party leaders neglecting and ignoring the proven ideas of Ronald Reagan. Dutch knew a thing or two about leading the free world and winning elections, and the party has abused his legacy to its own detriment. Conservatives such as I now have no candidate and no party.

The Republican primary voters so far have chosen candidates far outside what has traditionally been conservative thinking. The four gentlemen remaining are not assured of winning in November because they do not present unswerving dedication to the principles of the right and in opposition to the liberal Democrats. South Carolina winner Senator John McCain has shown time and time again that he will fold his political tent and cooperate with liberals just to claim "something" has been achieved. The two most famous pieces of legislation with McCain's name on them also have the names Feingold and Kennedy on them. More outrageous and unforgivable was the infamous "Gang of Fourteen" debacle in the Senate when a group of so called moderates in both parties cut a deal to avoid a substantive fight over judges. As a conservative, I am not sending Republicans to Washington to cut deals with the Democrats, I'm sending Republicans to D.C. to outvote the liberals. Senator McCain's service and dedication to our nation in unquestionable, but he is far too willing to smoke the peace pipe instead of opposing the Democrats when necessary. Rudy's a likable enough guy, he's good on the war, but his social positions are intolerable. Mitt Romney only became conservative to run for President. That and his striking resemblance to Count Chocula scare me. I find Mike Huckabee detestable. His blatant use of religion to fuel his campaign is morally repugnant, and he should be ashamed. Evangelicals in the early primary states were bedazzled enough to ignore his liberal spending, immigration, and big government record. I will not be able to vote for any of these people in good conscience, and that leaves quite a dilemma.

How does one vote when none of the candidates of their own party are suitable? One answer is to cast a vote for the other party, a sort of rebellious protest and something I've never done. Voting for a third party candidate is surely a wasted effort since they have absolutely zero chance of winning or even placing. Or perhaps disenchanted conservatives should just sit the election out and allow the chips to fall where they may. I believe the Democrats will win in November against any of the current crop of Republican hopefuls, with or without my help. It's an interesting question, and one that can be pondered for another seven months plus. None of the GOP survivors is likely to get my support whatever they say, and my differences with the Democrats on policy are large and many.

The current situation is that I have no political party. I will for for voting purposes remain a Republican so that I can support conservative candidates, if any should emerge at a later date. In addition, I in no way feel obliged to automatically support Republican candidates for other offices further down the ballot. The Republicans here in my state of Ohio are a strikingly pathetic and ineffective bunch, mirroring the national party. Now my support will have to be earned. I have a long time to decide a proper course of action for next November, but the party should know they have disappointed and driven away a reliable lifetime supporter. Saturday was a major setback for the GOP, but it may take a spanking from the Democrats in November before it is realized. It seems Barack Obama is more aware of the Reagan legacy than any of the Republican candidates. Ronald Reagan made me a Republican, and now the party is abandoning his policies. If that isn't a betrayal, it sure feels like one.

STANDING ON THE PRECIPICE

South Carolina holds their Republican Presidential primary tomorrow, and it marks a potential turning point for the party and the nation. Tomorrow starts a several week stretch that may determine the Republican nominee. Huckabee won Iowa with strong evangelical support, McCain carried the always independent New Hampshire, and Mitt Romney has won the Wyoming caucus and took his birthplace of Michigan with a strong economic message in a state hurting more than most. No clear national leader has emerged for the GOP, and it's possible the nominee might be selected on the floor of the convention. Tomorrow is the start of a process that will decide whether traditional conservatism will flourish or be unrecognizably altered.

The South Carolina campaign has been heated. Telephone calls to voters indicating McCain is a traitor or that some other candidate is secretly evil are just despicable. These sort of tactics originate from outside, so called "527" groups that are fronts for candidates willing to do the dirty work or lunatics. It is slightly ironic that a phenomenon created by the horrendously unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is coming back to bite one of the creators, but that in no way excuses this type of slander against any candidate. Mitt Romney has pulled out of South Carolina and headed to friendlier Nevada, and he's likely to win there with heavy Mormon support. Rudy Guliani has fallen off the map, dismissed the early primaries, and appears to base all his hopes on taking Florida out of nowhere later. McCain can expect firm support from older military veterans, but struggles to gain the trust of conservatives he has repeatedly affronted. Huckabee continues his apparent plan to win the White House on the support of evangelicals alone, and to the detriment of the process he has successfully mesmerized some into supporting his Christian socialism. Fred Thompson, in my view the only solid and consistent conservative, has struggled to gain widespread support despite his clear vision of the principles and future of the party. All the other candidates have a flaw that make their run a hobbled effort, a dark and foreboding cloud for November. Fred represents a return to the Ronald Reagan brand of conservatism the party has neglected and is threatening to abandon. The common sense traditional values evident time and again in Thompson's policy statements and speaking opportunities represent the core beliefs of a conservative Republican Party. Fred has said he has to "do well," but it's clear what's needed is a big win to justify his further participation. A win in South Carolina tomorrow would vault him into the news and increase fundraising. If another candidate wins, it marks the beginning of some very dark possibilities.

A poor finish by the only real conservative in the race will be a very strong indicator. It will mark the point at which the GOP stopped being a conservative party. We're also choosing the head of the party, and that leader will obviously determine party philosophy to a large extent. We risk the loss of any semblance of conservatism within the party. At that point there will be little philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats, leaving dedicated conservatives including myself with nowhere to go.

I'll remain optimistic until tomorrow evening. I have to hope the electorate in South Carolina will reject a moderate version of the party and select a candidate worthy of our full philosophical support. The party shouldn't cut moral deals in supporting a candidate that is not solidly conservative for perceived general election gain. The truth is that the party will not win in November without a candidate of unquestioned political beliefs and the ability to communicate them. The only man to fit the bill is Fred Thompson.

SURRENDER MONKEYS GATHER IN VEGAS

The three little defeatists congregated for a debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas. NBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams moderated and Natalie Morales read a few email questions for the MSNBC broadcast. Only Clinton, Obama, and Edwards participated, Dennis Kucinich having lost a lawsuit to force his participation. Each round of questioning provided examples of why these candidates are wrong on the issues and wrong for America.

The issue of race came up first, having been the hottest point of contention between Clinton and Obama and their surrogates over the past week. Billary claimed that all three of the candidates were here partially as a result of the civil rights movements of the sixties. Perhaps an argument can be made for the Obama and Clinton on that point, but Edwards? I'm pretty sure the movement wasn't intended to help wealthy white personal injury attorneys. In any event, it's delightful to see the Dems wasting time arguing about Dr. King and President Lyndon Johnson instead of addressing substantive issues like war and the economy. Everyone agreed they should all come together and hug and move on to other things. Even after that, Russert picked the scab for another round asking about candidate accountability for the statements of campaign spokesmen and Obama's admitted past drug use. Obama was asked about the difference between the poll numbers and actual results in New Hampshire, but no one could admit that white liberals lied about voting for a black candidate. The idea of closet racism among their own kind is too much for the liberal media to handle. Good stuff, but it went nowhere. The key is that the Dems pander constantly to minority groups to get elected, but then once in office fail to take promised action and rarely appoint minorities to high positions.

The discussion then turned to the President's role as chief executive. Obama laid out his vision of the President as some sort of national mood doctor. Hillary went after alleged Bush failures, oblivious to the fact the Bush isn't running again. None of the three can claim any executive experience at all, despite Hillary's assertions that being the wife of an executive counts. Under that logic, the wife of a plumber is qualified to fix a major leak.

The bulk of the evening focused on the economy and the Democrat socialist vision of how to deal with it. Whatever the economic scenario, the liberal answer is a big, expensive government program and the bureaucracy that goes with it. That applies to just about every other subject from health care to guns, but it's especially evident when they discuss the economy. In the Democrat reality, the federal government intrudes heavily into and controls the engines of economic growth. Instead of leaving business free to operate within reasonable safety restraints on its own, the Dems instead see a government reflex natural to each and every movement of the economic indicators. The evil nature of corporations and the unadulterated greed of capitalism become the bogeymen they use to justify an overreaching federal government. Voters are supposed to forget that big federal programs eventually become ineffective because of mismanagement and misspending.

The candidates had a chance to question each other, and all three blew the opportunity. Edwards asked Obama about the money behind his campaign. Hillary asked Obama to cosponsor an unconstitutional bill with her to limit the President's authority in reaching a deal with the Iraqi government on an extended American presence. Obama questioned Edwards about who could be faster to surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. The junior Senator from Illinois claimed the recent bombing of a hotel in Khabul indicated wider problems, completely misrepresenting the situation and proving he hasn't reviewed the casualty figures for the terrorists in Afghanistan lately. All the Democraps constantly and irritatingly refer to the American presence in Iraq as an "occupation", and I vehemently condemn the use of that term in reference to United States forces. American forces do not occupy, they liberate. The Dems also whine about the money being spent, something that is also highly offensive. Money should not be an issue when it comes to war: if the battle is already engaged, our men and women in uniform deserve more than to have liberals at home complaining about finances.

One small, measured kudos goes to John Edwards for supporting additional benefits including job placement for military veterans. Unfortunately it's part of his big government answer to all dilemmas. All the candidates vowed to enforce requirements on universities accepting federal funding to allow military recruiters and offer ROTC, a dubious promise at best. Democrats act like they suddenly need hemorrhoid surgery whenever forced to offer support for the military. They say what they must to get elected, but one senses they don't really mean it. It rings hollow from the party of surrender to terrorism.

After tussling on Yucca Mountain and nuclear power, the three stooges progressed to illegal immigration. It at once became clear that the Dems are united in their support for a blanket amnesty. They mask it with phrases like "comprehensive reform" and "earned citizenship". That translates to "amnesty for those already here". Obama pointed out his work with Ted Kennedy and John McCain on the failed amnesty bill, not exactly a ringing endorsement on either side.

A question about the rates of black male dropouts triggered yet another big government response from Obama. Billions of dollars and "programs" are desperately needed. Hillary once again raised her "35 years of experience" argument, and it's just pathetic. The woman did nothing before becoming Senator. Being the spouse does not qualify one to do the spouse's job at any level. Sipping tea with the wives of other world leaders is not considered diplomatic experience. Give it up.

The Democratic view of the Second Amendment was revealed by a query about the communist group trying to undermine ownership rights "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. They all agreed the assault weapons ban needs to be resurrected, showing they believe guns cause crime. Yeah, like flies cause garbage, right?

The substantive policy differences between them can be measure in microns. They all support a federal government bloated from higher taxes interfering regularly in our daily lives. They all are in a rush to surrender in Iraq despite solid and undeniable evidence of substantial progress on the ground. None of them have executive or military experience. All three have been legislators who have spent the bulk of their terms campaigning for higher offices. Tax increases, burdensome regulation of business, and withdrawal from the realities of the war are all part of their agenda. Whichever one of these three is nominated, the GOP candidate will have plenty of ammunition from their statements and policies. Let's hope the Republican nominee has the ability to use that ammo in an effective manner (see Fred Thompson).

FRED WINS BIG IN MYRTLE BEACH

Six Republican Presidential candidates assembled Thursday evening for a critical debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Brit Hume, Wendell Goler, and "Campaign" Carl Cameron of Fox News conducted what was the most relevant and interesting debate of the entire campaign so far. The candidates actually discussed important issues at length and engaged each other almost at will. The Republican primary is a jump ball. Huckabee won thanks to the disproportionate evangelical base in Iowa, McCain took New Hampshire as expected, and now Fred Thompson is hungry for a win in a southern state. Fred needed a big victory in the debate, and he got it with room to spare. The former Tennessee Senator and Law & Order was the star of the show and showed once again why he is the clear choice for Republican Presidential nominee.

The most effective way to understand what happened Thursday night is to proceed as close to chronologically as possible. The first questions were about the economy and the potential of a recession. Mitt Romney touted a "comprehensive" plan, whatever that means. Senator John McCain gave his tired old promise to make the authors of pork famous and mentioned increased job training. Mike Huckabee took the opportunity to sermonize about our enslavement to oil. Rudy Guliani peddled his proposal for tax cuts largely copied from Thompson. Fred then gave the correct conservative answer by supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent, providing tax relief for small business, and consider more immediate federal action only if necessary. Round one goes to Fred.

Then the moderators caught my attention by asking a series of questions about the Reagan legacy for the Republican Party, and that began the Thompson tidal wave. Huckabee declared the Reagan heritage and coalition dead and wildly exaggerated the role of evangelicals in the conservative movement. Senator McCain spoke about controlling federal spending and then crazily confessed to his belief in global warming (what?). Fred then spoke up and proceeded to jam Huckabee into a verbal wood chipper, and it was magnificent. Thompson said the future of the party is at stake in this election, and he's right. Fred excoriated the former Arkansas governor for pronouncing traditional conservatism deceased, for being part of the "blame America first" crowd after his "bunker mentality" critique of the Bush foreign policy, and for proposing the closure of GITMO and transfer of Al Qaeda detainees to American soil. Thompson summed it all up by finally and correctly identifying Huckabee as more in the Democrat Party model than the Reagan model. It had to be said amongst the right, and Fred delivered the message like a sharp punch in the nose. Rudy could only cling to Reagan's "peace through strength" policies after that, but it was clear that Thompson had stolen the issue and the moment. It just wasn't wise for any of the squishier candidates to challenge him with Huckabee's guts on the stage. Round two goes to Fred.

Discussion then moved to the recent provocative actions taken by the Iranians with speedboats in the Persian Gulf. Huckabee again flashed back to his ministerial history and referred to the enemy seeing "the gates of hell". Thompson then suggested perhaps the Iranians might be introduced to all those virgins they predict. Fred was the only candidate to comprehensively cover the entire issue, saying the recent incident is a test of our resolve. Rudy spoke about sanctions and Iran's domestic politics (yawn). McCain gave a history lesson on freedom of the seas, and Romney correctly labeled the Iranian actions as calculated. All the candidates agreed decisions about engaging the Iranians has to be left to the military commanders on the scene. Round three goes to Fred.

Another foreign policy round ensued. McCain was thrown a softball on Iraq he answered by falsely and outrageously claiming he was the only man on the planet besides Bush to support the surge. Rudy fantasized about the Palestinian Authority recognizing the right of Israel to exist and renouncing terrorism and vowed to pressure Musharraf to get Bin Laden. Pakistan was the next matter up, and Fred took his turn to properly point out that the overriding issue is the security of Paki nukes, and that our support for Musharraf is critical considering what the alternative might be. Huckabee whined about the accountability of foreign aid supplied to Pakistan, for which he was hit by Fred for worrying about dollars instead of supporting the Paki military controlling the nuclear weapons. Romney got in a good line about foreign policy in the last century being like checkers compared to today's issues that are more like three dimensional chess, but Round four went to Thompson for recognizing the important core of the matter.

A change versus experience discussion was next, giving each candidate an opportunity to tout their own record. Romney gave his tired and cliched broken Washington spiel and pointed out his background of problem solving. McCain listed his military credentials, which are indeed impressive, but then he actually had the audacity to bring up his unconstitutional campaign finance law aided by his defeatist buddy Russ Feingold. Huckabee said he has signed a pledge not to raise taxes and then exposed his socialist vision of federal involvement in health care, roads, and education. Fred emphasized his consistently conservative and pro-life record in the Senate and his ability to effectively communicate conservative principles. He then pointed out Huckabee had said earlier this year on Meet The Press that he would not sign a pledge against raising taxes, a charge Huckabee could not and did not refute. Rudy was asked about how his experience as mayor of New York relates to foreign policy, and he could only respond by citing his dealings with the United Nations. Huckabee responded to a question about his involvement with a Southern Baptist document stating women should be subservient to their husbands, proving him with yet another opportunity to go into preacher mode. Fred wins again.

Immigration was the last issue, and Thompson used it to put an exclamation point on the evening by demonstrating his knowledge and unwavering principles. McCain started the last turn by defending himself on his disastrous illegal immigration amnesty bill that failed miserably last year after great public outcry by saying he's from Arizona. Romney pursued his usual tack of going after McCain for supporting amnesty. Rudy defended his poor record on illegal immigration by saying he reduced crime in New York. Fred's policies included securing the border, punishing sanctuary cities by cutting their federal aid, helping employers identify legal workers, and enforcement by attrition. Thompson also slammed Huckabee for providing tuition breaks for illegals while governor of Arkansas, and Huckabee's response was a lame light versus dark homily. Fred takes the game, set, and match.

Hopefully last night's clear debate victory will translate into greater donations and movement in the polls, the only way to increase media coverage and discussion. Fred has so far gotten a raw deal from the media, liberal and conservative. Maybe now real conservatives in South Carolina will be able to correctly identify Thompson as most representative of their values and most able to win in November. The Democrats will play fast and loose with the facts as usual, and Fred has the knowledge and ability to correct them and win the White House. The future of the Thompson campaign looks much brighter after the debate, and a win like the one tonight couldn't have come at a better time.

IRANIANS CLOSE ENOUGH TO ENGAGE

Five Iranian speedboats swarmed U.S. Navy ships in the Straits of Hormuz over the weekend. As the video above clearly shows, these boats were well within firing range and could potentially have been suicide, U.S.S. Cole style bombs. This is a serious incident in one of the most vital sea corridors in the world. Much of the world's oil passes through that area of the Persian Gulf, and obviously our navy's presence there is vital to our troops on the ground on Iraq for both supply and combat air elements. It calls into question procedures for dealing with small, fast boats in close proximity to much slower warships that provide large targets. In addition, it is not wise to allow the Iranians to conduct operations of this nature anywhere near the United States Navy. The time has come to take aggressive action against Iran.

The first step has to be clarifying and announcing our exact rules of engagement to the mullahs in Tehran and the rest of the world. With a clear set of standards in place, there is far less chance of an accident or attack that might lead to American casualties. The rule should be short and sweet: non-allied naval vessels that approach to within 500 yards of a U.S. Navy vessel will be warned only once, and if they do not immediately alter course, they will be engaged without the courtesy of a warning shot. We cannot afford the loss of a major warship to what basically amounts to a cigar boat packed with explosives. Our vessels were operating lawfully in international waters and definitely have the right to defend themselves. The video also shows how fast the Iranian boats are in relation to the large American ships. Permitting these small, fast boats to approach as close as they did is not a solid defensive posture. Let's hope the rules are made plain to all involved before American sailors are killed or wounded. Remember, we're talking about the Iranians, who are already responsible for the death of U.S. troops in Iraq.

One more little incident should provoke the destruction of the Iranian navy and all it's facilities. The overwhelming power of the U.S. Navy should be brought down with full air and naval force. If the Iranians cannot conduct themselves lawfully and peacefully in international waters, they should forfeit the right to deploy a naval force at all. No doubt those plans already exist, and American naval commanders should be prepared to begin that operation immediately if not sooner. Puny little powers like Iran cannot even be given the opportunity to challenge our forces in any way. Tolerating their shenanigans only encourages further dangerous interplay and risks the lives of our young men and women. Repeated occurrences also diminish the future effectiveness of threatening naval action.

This incident coincided with President Bush's trip to Israel, so it was contrived and planned. Why the President is seeking to establish a terrorist state along side Israel is another matter. The facts are that the leader of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel while relentlessly pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Iran has long provided various forms of support to Hamas and Hezbollah and has supplied terrorists in Iraq with EFPs to punch through American armored vehicles, resulting in U.S. casualties and deaths. That is tantamount to material support for Al Qaeda and should carry all the ramifications that entails. We have allowed Iran to take all these provocative actions without a meaningful response and are thus inciting further dirty deeds. It's time to lay down the law to Tehran about endangering our military forces. President Bush, in Israel on Tuesday, promised "serious consequences" and said "all options are on the table" to protect American ships. That having been said, Bush may have to back that up with action sooner rather than later to curtail the Iranians. Or maybe we should just wait on Old Europe to talk the mullahs into playing nice.

"Close enough," was my first reaction. Close enough to get blasted. The United States Navy should not pussyfoot around with these terrorists. The next time such a scene takes place, the Iranians should lose some boats and sailors. It looks like they are seeking a demonstration of American power, so let's oblige them.

THE DEATH OF THE GOP

As returns from the New Hampshire primary are reported, it is becoming clear that the Republican Party I grew up voting for is in it's death throes. The abundance of Presidential candidates who are not even close to conservative and their apparent success will be the end of the party serving as a representative of the right. In a desire to compromise basic principles, the party is losing me, and I would imagine other conservatives as well. When one deeply analyzes the transformation of the party over the past several decades, it is clear that the party has become more and more moderate and unwilling to stand up and fight for the beliefs it espouses.

Ronald Reagan was the man who made me a Republican. His ability to clearly explain conservative principles drew me in as a young man. His congenial manner and sense of humor defied the conventional perception of conservatives. As I've gotten older (now 41), I have been continually disappointed in the party's performance in relation to the ideas of Reagan. Each Republican President since Reagan has fallen short in moving the conservative agenda forward in a meaningful way. The party has constantly kowtowed whenever the left opposes them. This didn't start yesterday, and it surely won't be corrected anytime soon, if tonight's New Hampshire primary is any indication.

George H.W. Bush is a good man, but he is not a conservative. Like Mitt Romney, he changed his position on abortion to run. He increased taxes despite a vow not to do so and was not reelected largely because he abandoned the conservative principles he claimed to represent when first elected. Sound familiar? It should, because George W. Bush has headed the same direction. Bush 43 has massively increased the size and scope of the federal government using the war or "compassion" as an excuse. His tax cuts are commendable, but it pretty much ends there. And what did either of these gentlemen do to further the conservative agenda? The answer is not much.

Roe v. Wade still stands as the law of the land, for one example, despite having been wrongly decided and based on now archaic medical information. No one in the party has made any serious attempt to the end the massacre of 35 - 40 million innocent Americans killed in the womb since 1973. How many Einsteins, how many Salks, how many great athletes or skilled artisans have been killed? The toll on America is inestimable, yet the party whose platform includes an anti-Roe plank has made very little progress even at the edges. You often hear the spiel about America not being ready for that sort of change. Perhaps those aborted are ready. Unfortunately the Republican Party has given in to liberal whiners and criers. See, you can't hear a fetus cry, so their cause is pushed aside for political expediency. The party seeks not to offend those who use abortion as a form of regular birth control.

The federal government grows ever larger. It's grubby little fingers now reach into nearly every corner of our existence. Individual programs are touted as necessary or compassionate and pushed through without regard for their deleterious impact once implemented. Whether it's Homeland Security or a massive prescription drug program for seniors, the inexorable trend continues, often with GOP sponsorship or assistance. Very few in the party even attempt to address this issue. The liberals have successfully connected states rights to southern resistance to the civil rights movement, and now even use of the term will raise eyebrows. How sad for a party supposedly committed to restricting the growth of the federal government. It rings hollow.

The Second Amendment is under continual assault. Various states and localities pass ordinances far outside their authority in a misguided belief that restricting gun ownership will mean less crime. Even the feds have attempted to restrict ownership based on the shape or magazine capacity of certain weapon types. The few Republicans who claim to support gun rights will immediately start adding caveats if questioned. The Constitution could not be more clear on this issue, and the last time I checked, it didn't mention any caveats. Here in Ohio the government has seen fit to "permit" concealed carry of guns, but only with the permission of the local sheriff and only after a "safety course". I have news for the sheriff: I do not need your permission to exercise my constitutional right to self-defense, nor do I need the permission of the governor. The right to bear arms is an individual right, and hopefully soon SCOTUS will affirm that in the D.C. case. The Second Amendment does not mention "reasonable restrictions", the phrase always thrown out by gun-fearing liberals. The party has largely abandoned the fight on this matter, much to the detriment of responsible citizens.

Now comes the current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls. Those leading the polls are not likely to change the direction of the party in a positive direction. Witness John McCain, who has defied conservatives and made nice with the worst of the Dems whenever possible. Witness Mike Huckabee, a social conservative who is a liberal on everything else, including taxes and spending. Witness Rudy Guliani, who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control, yet seemed the likely nominee until very recently. Witness Mitt Romney, who morphed into a conservative for his Presidential campaign after serving in Massachussets as a moderate to liberal governor. None of these men are consistent conservatives and none are worthy of the conservative vote. Fred Thompson is worthy, but the press is not helping and the party seems oblivious to it's headlong plunge into irrelevance.

I will only vote for true conservatives. If the GOP nominates a moderate, I'm through. I will not vote for a candidate who is little different from the Dems. If my party does not nominate a conservative, it cannot legitimately claim to be a conservative party. I will not waste my time holding my nose to vote for someone who does not share my values. Been there, done that. The Republican electorate better consider the effect of a moderate nominee, or it faces losing many conservatives like me. And I will not be talked into voting Republican just to oppose the Democrat nominee. I see little difference between the Dems and a moderate Republican. I cannot and will not support any nominee who has shown any wavering of principles, or even worse, supports flat out liberal policies. If the GOP follows the path it is currently on, it will lose to the Dems in November and fade into oblivion. It's a far cry from the permanent Republican majority dreamed of several years ago, and it's because the party and it's nominees refuse to fight for their basic principles. Sad, very sad.

GOP N.H. FORUM SHARPENS DIFFERENCES

GOP Presidential candidates gathered for a Fox News forum Sunday evening in Manchester, New Hampshire, ahead of Tuesday's primary. The same gentlemen also debated Saturday evening, but that was up against the NFL playoffs, and no one, including me, was watching. Sunday's format, which had the candidates seated literally shoulder to shoulder, was probably the best of the campaign so far. The candidates discussed a wide range of topics including the war, taxes and spending, immigration, social security, and negative campaign ads. Participants had ample time to answer questions and respond to barbs when necessary. For analytical conservatives, the forum once again clearly showed Fred Thompson to be the only candidate running worthy of support. Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee all demonstrated philosophical flaws that simply eliminate them from contention. The GOP nominating race is wide open, and any of these five men could get the nod. This campaign may not produce a nominee until the convention, perhaps even resulting in a dramatic floor fight. If Republican voters wish to continue as the conservative party and win in November, Fred must be their choice. To make my point, a review of each candidate overall may prove more instructive than detailing issue to issue.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani is attempting to execute a primary strategy that has never worked for anyone. His showing in Iowa was statistically insignificant, and results in New Hampshire are not likely to be any better. He's hoping he can hang on by the fingernails until Florida and the bluer states more likely to support his liberal social policies. The problem is that he may be an afterthought by then. Rudy's one redeeming policy position on the war cannot diminish the fact that he is not a true conservative overall. The main rationale for his candidacy is his performance as NYC Mayor, a scandalous and debatable record at best. His record on illegal immigration is highly suspect, and his recent problems explaining the security provided to his then girlfriend on the public dime are only the tips of icebergs the Dems would pounce on immediately with great relish. Rudy's answers Sunday night all centered on reminding voters of his prior service as mayor, and that may not be the best way to go. Extrapolating that service into claiming qualification for the Oval Office doesn't cut it, especially for a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control candidate who claims to be a conservative.

Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney reminds me of Count Chocula, and I may not ever be able to get past that. More disturbing is his conversion to conservatism of several major issues including abortion. One wonders if what he is saying now might not change in the future. Romney has the ability to self-finance his campaign, and he has outspent the other candidates by a wide margin. It didn't work in Iowa, and it looks like he may finish second to McCain on Tuesday. He is attacking Senator McCain mostly on immigration, an issue on which Romney is not exactly squeaky clean. His record as governor is just as suspect as Rudy's as mayor, and he has not demonstrated the long term commitment to basic conservative principles GOP voters should be seeking.

Huckleberry Hound Mike Huckabee is looking more and more like a one trick pony with each passing day. The former Arkansas governor does not have a deep evangelical base in New Hampshire like he enjoyed in Iowa. Frankly, his manner is starting to become annoying. Everything is a joke or a cute little saying lifted from one of the past sermons he delivered as a Baptist minister. Huckabee's populist rhetoric and calls of compassion for lawbreakers of various types seem more at home in the Democrat Party. He has made numerous factual errors in statements over the past month, revealing a lack of understanding of important issues. Fred Thompson took him to task Sunday evening for supporting the closure of GITMO and the movement of detainees to Leavenworth. Huckabee's retort showed a poor understanding of the legalities involved in such a move, including habeus corpus. He's a nice man, but we're not seeking a pastor.

Arizona Senator John McCain is leading the polls in New Hampshire, a state he won over George W. Bush in 2000. He obviously has the credentials and experience to be CINC and no one can challenge his honorable service in Vietnam as a prisoner of war held for five long years. McCain has, however, taken every opportunity that has come down the pike to compromise the conservative principles he espouses in the name of progress (judges, anyone?). From the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill to the disastrous "comprehensive" immigration amnesty bill he authored last summer, there is a repeated pattern of cutting deals with liberals. And anyone who would put their name on a bill with Russ Feingold isn't a principled conservative. McCain claims he can get Osama and is most ready to be President, but I don't want yet another conservative who will make deals with Democrats.

Fred Thompson once again demonstrated a broad and deep knowledge of the issues and an outstanding ability to communicate conservative principles in easily understandable terms. Fred detailed his plan to reform social security, something no other candidate has offered. His plan to expand the military is exactly what is needed, and is also something no other candidate has detailed. Thompson has the clearest and strongest illegal immigration and border enforcement policies of any candidate on either side. Despite unfair coverage from Politico.com and Fox News, Fred has shown time and again why he's the best choice. Sunday night was another experiment proving Fred is the best candidate running.

In an apparent effort to immediately prove their bias, Fox went to a Frank Luntz focus group that allegedly came in undecided and came out committed to Romney. One has to wonder what they watched while the debate was in progress. It certainly seemed like a crowd stacked with people already committed to Romney.

The closing statements by the candidates boil it all down quite well. Huckabee gave his nice guy sermon, Romney claimed he's a problem solver, Rudy reminded us he was New York Mayor, and McCain said he's ready. Fred summed it up by pointing out that the next President will need the credibility to go to the American people and tell them the truth: that we have major difficulties that will not be solved overnight. GOP voters would be wise to consider those closing statements before casting a ballot. New Hampshire may not provide Fred with much support, but the race will soon swing south to much more fertile ground for a candidate with consistent conservative principles.