Presidential Race 08 Election 2008

[eoeleven]

Sean Hannity: "I'll tell you right now, and I've not announced this, but I will be voting for Mitt Romney in this campaign. It's the first time I've stated it publicly. I'll state it now." ("Sean Hannity Radio Show," 1/31/08)

[eoeleven]

Rally for Romney
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.

By Mark R. Levin

I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.

I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.


Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.

I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?

As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).

McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

— Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.

[eoeleven]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynew...216063&lang=en

Ann Coulter says McCain is so liberal she would campaign for Hillary if that is the match up

BOOM

[cowboys_junkie]

Well if Levin is voting for Romney I guess that means I will. I actually like that guy.

[becky-mom]

Clinton, Obama spar on health care, war
By TOM RAUM and NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 8 minutes ago




LOS ANGELES - Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton sparred, for the most part cordially, over immigration, health care and the war in Iraq in their first one-on-one debate on Thursday as they faced high-stakes Super Tuesday contests that could go a long way toward determining the party's presidential nominee.

Clinton emphasized that the nation needed a president ready to go to work on "Day One." Obama responded: "Part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that it is important to be right on Day One."

Five days before Super Tuesday, the two alternated between civility and pointed swipes, underscoring the importance of the upcoming contests. The debate came as Obama's campaign reported raising a staggering $32 million in January, cash aplenty to advertise all through the nearly two dozen upcoming races from coast to coast — and contests beyond.

Clinton's campaign reported raising $26.8 million from October through December, the most recent period she reported.

Clinton defended the increasingly high-profile role of her husband, former President Clinton, in her campaign and his recent sharp criticism of Obama. "At the end of the day, it's my name that is on the ballot."

Both were asked about the possibility of a "dream ticket" of Clinton-Obama — or Obama-Clinton.

"Obviously there's a big difference between those two," Obama said. "I respect Senator Clinton, I think her service to this country is extraordinary." But he said, "We've got a lot more road to travel" before such a decision.
Clinton agreed it was too early to discuss running mates.

Both predicted that one of them would be the next president in a history-making inaugural. Obama would be the first black president, Clinton the first female president.

Clinton said the Republicans are "more of the same" and, gesturing toward Obama, she said, "We will change our country."

Making amends for his apparent snub of her at Monday's State of the Union Address, Obama assisted Clinton by pulling back her chair as the debate — televised on CNN — began and ended. They then embraced.

But it wasn't all sweetness and light.

One of their most pointed exchanges came on the question of whether illegal immigrants should be able to obtain driver's licenses. Obama supports doing so; Clinton initially supported it and now opposes it.

"Senator Clinton gave a number of different answers over the course of six weeks on this," Obama said, turning to Clinton. "Initially, you said you were for it, then you said you were against it." He said he was raising her wavering to underscore that it is "a difficult political issue."

Clinton called the controversy "a diversion" from efforts to come up with comprehensive immigration reform. "I co-sponsored immigration reform in 2004 before Barack came to the Senate," she said.

Obama argued for his candidacy, saying, "I respect Senator Clinton's record. I think it's a terrific record. But I also believe that the skills that I have are the ones that are needed right now to move the country forward, otherwise I wouldn't be running for president."

They also clashed on Iraq.

Clinton suggested only she had "the necessary credentials and gravitas" to lead the country in withdrawing from Iraq without endangering U.S. forces or further destabilizing the region. She said it was crucial to bring Syria and Iran to the diplomatic table.

Obama shot back, "Senator Clinton mentioned the issue of gravitas and judgment. I think it is much easier for us to have the argument when we have a nominee who says `I always thought this was a bad idea. This was a bad strategy.' It was not just a problem of execution."

Clinton voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq, while Obama opposed such authority in a speech he gave in 2002 as a member of the Illinois state Senate.

The two also reached out quickly to backers of former rival John Edwards, who bowed out of the race Wednesday without endorsing either one. Both praised his efforts in their opening statements.

Obama called Edwards "a voice for this party and this country for many years to come." Clinton saluted both Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, as setting "their personal example of courage and leadership" in their advocacy for the poor.

Asked whether it was good for the country to have another Clinton in the White House, further extending Bush and Clinton family control over government, Clinton drew applause in the Kodak Theatre — home of the Academy Awards — when she replied, "It did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush."

The nation's weakening economy was a prime topic, and both candidates said they preferred Democratic-proposed stimulus plans that would give more tax relief to low- and middle-income workers than would Republican proposals.
Obama focused on Republican front-runner John McCain, praising McCain's two votes against Bush's first-term tax cuts and questioning his support now for extending them. "Somewhere along the line, the Straight Talk Express lost some wheels," the Illinois senator said, referring to the name of McCain's campaign bus.

Both Obama and Clinton nodded in agreement as they compared Democratic economic solutions to those put forward by the GOP.
Befitting a Hollywood audience, among the celebrities in the theater were Diane Keaton, Jason Alexander, Pierce Brosnan, Rob Reiner, Stevie Wonder, Kate Capshaw, Steven Spielberg, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Whitford and Gary Shandling.

Both candidates acknowledged policy differences but also sought to ratchet back what had become increasingly personal attacks and the animosity of their last debate before the Jan. 26 South Carolina primary, which Obama won by a margin of 2-to-1.

Obama appears to have most of the momentum as of now, including high-profile endorsements and impressive fundraising. But Clinton has considerable institutional strength and is still widely favored to do better overall than Obama on Super Tuesday.

"I was friends with Hillary Clinton before we started this campaign. I will be friends with Hillary Clinton after this campaign is over," Obama said .
"We're having a wonderful time," Clinton said at one point.
___ Tom Raum reported from Washington.

[eoeleven]

Originally Posted by cowboys_junkie

Well if Levin is voting for Romney I guess that means I will. I actually like that guy.

I am not real familiar with him offering a lot of endorsments either, I do not think it is a normal thing for him to do.

[cowboys_junkie]

Levin is a strict constructionist and an expert in constitutional law. His main bag is with the judicial system.

[eoeleven]

Originally Posted by cowboys_junkie

Levin is a strict constructionist and an expert in constitutional law. His main bag is with the judicial system.

which is my biggest concern

I do not like taxes
I fear us reduceing our controling influence in the middle east
I am worried about social security

but I REALLY REALLY do not want Clinton, Obama, or McCain judges

at least with Romney I KNOW he will feel strong pressure from his inner circle, the far right, and the mormon church to place the correct judges on the bench

by correct I mean more like Justice Alito, Senator McCain not less like him

[eoeleven]

~now Hewitt is a pro Romney guy (he co-wrote Romney's book) but this is interesting reading.Super Tuesday Math: Far, Far From OverPosted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:39 AMCNN puts McCain with 97 delegates and Romney at 74.

Let's look at the worst case for Romney on Super Tuesday.

Next Tuesday the winner-take-all states that lean McCain are New York (101), Missouri (58), Arizona (53), New Jersey (52) Connecticut (30), and Delaware (18) for a total of 312 delegates. (Even though Missouri, another winner-take-all leans Huck right now, lets give its 58 delegates to McCain.)

Romney is favored in winner-take-all Utah (36) and Montana (25), for a total of 51 delegates.

Thus before the sorting takes place in the other states, McCain's got 409 delegates and Romney's got 126.

Huckabee will certainly get the 34 Arkansas delegates to go with his 29, for a total of 63.

States dividing delegates Tuesday on other-than-a-winner-take-all basis:

California 173
Georgia 72
Illinois 70
Tennessee 55
Alabama 48
Colorado 46
Massachusetts 41
Minnesota 40
Oklahoma 41
West Virginia 30
Alaska 29
North Dakota 26

Total 671

If these divide 40-40-20, McCain and Romney will add 269 delegates each, and Huck 133. But since we are going worst case for Romney, make it 50-30-20, or 336 for McCain, 201 for Romney, and 134 for Huck.

Total at the end of Super Tuesday without a major reversal of fortune for Romney:

McCain 745, Romney 327, and Huck 197.

It takes 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination. There are more than 900 delegates left to fight for after Super Tuesday.

Start looking hard at the numbers and put yourself in the discussions with Team Romney. It isn't pretty, but it is far, far from over.

And if the Huckabee voters look at the reality and see they are voting for McCain when they vote for Huck, anything can happen.

[eoeleven]

With Mitt Romney on the ropes, the post-mortems are inevitable; call them O-Mitt-uaries. Anyway, we're starting to hear from a lot of smart Republican strategists about what happened. And the thing that everyone seems to come back to is Romney's religion. Why? Ask yourself: Without the issue of Romney's religion, does Mike Huckabee ever take off? Because Mike Huckabee is the single biggest obstacle to Romney coalescing economic and social conservatives behind him to take on McCain. Take a close look at the Florida results by county from Tuesday night. In more than half of Florida's 67 counties (37 to be exact), the Romney-Huckabee combined vote total equaled or surpassed 50%. And in those counties, 17 of them tipped to McCain. Well, extrapolate this out to, say, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee or Georgia this Tuesday. Will the combined Romney-Huck total surpass 50% while delivering all four states to McCain? Now, if Romney hadn't given evangelicals second thoughts simply over his religion, would Mike Huckabee have happened? It may be Romney needs another four years to convince evangelicals his religion won't interfere with their priorities.