This is great news to those of us on the right who can’t stand voting for McCain in any election!

“Former US congressman Bob Barr on Monday announced plans to run for president on the Libertarian Party’s ticket, in a move some analysts say could hurt Republican presumptive nominee John McCain.
“My name is Bob Barr and I’m a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America,” said the former Republican lawmaker, who played a key role in the congressional impeachment of former president Bill Clinton.

Barr said he was running because there was not “currently or anywhere on the horizon” any candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on which he said America was founded.”

ARTICLE LINK

This is a good article on some of the protest going on about McCain being the GOP nominee.

Virtually all the nation’s political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who’ve each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.

On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.

Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP’s presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

As Politico.com’s Jonathan Martin noted recently, at least some of these results are temporary protest votes in meaningless primaries built on lingering affection for Huckabee and suspicion of McCain.

Link to full article.

Blogger’s Notes: Team Ose and some elected officeholders have gone to CRP Legal Counsel Chuck Bell, a noted Moderate to get a legal opinion in an effort to de-legitimize the Placer GOP endorsement of McClintock.

Tom Hudson sent the following e-mail to 200 county chairmen, treasurers and CRP officers that basically debunks any of the assertions Team Ose is making to the contrary.

Dear County Chairmen and Treasurers,

Recently, there has been a great deal of discussion about whether County Central Committees can or should endorse in primary elections. I have had several inquiries about this lately because the Placer County Republican Party has been working very aggressively to elect Senator Tom McClintock to Congress in the Fourth Congressional District. Unless your situation is like mine, I am certainly not suggesting that you or your Committee should take sides in a primary battle. However, in case you are interested in this subject, I am forwarding some comments that I made to a couple of County Chairmen :

Party Bylaws: The California Republican Party Bylaws have long prohibited local county Central Committees from making pre-primary endorsements. This prohibition was put in place at a time when state law explicitly prohibited such endorsements, so the Bylaws conformed to state law at that time. As explained below, the legal prohibition on pre-primary endorsements has been repealed and the relationship between the State Party and the local Central Committees has also evolved since then.

For an analogous situation, take a look at Article 2, Section 6(b) in the current California Constitution. It still says: “No political party or party central committee may endorse, support, or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office.” It is right there in black and white. Every Central Committee that endorses non-partisan candidates is violating the plain language of the California Constitution (and we need not worry about doing so because that language itself is unconstitutional, and thus null and void).

Supreme Court Action: The major change in this controversial area came when the United States Supreme Court overturned California law and the California Constitution in a case known as Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214, in 1989. (Do not be fooled by the legal citation: numerous Republican Central Committees participated as plaintiffs in this litigation, including the Alameda County Republican Central Committee, of which I later served as Chairman.) The case is all over the Internet, but here is one place you can read it for yourself:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/489/214/case.html

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that Central Committees and their members have a First Amendment right to free speech and we can endorse whomever we please.

Legislative Reaction: The California Legislature responded to Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee by repealing large sections of the California Elections Code. Senator Quentin Kopp was the author of a bill in 1993 and it was treated as an omnibus Elections Committee bill, which had no opposition inside or outside the Legislature. I have often spoken to staff members who handled that bill and the pro-freedom intent was clearly understood by everyone involved.

(As an example of the sweeping legislative change, there is no longer any reference to Central Committee membership dues, which was once set by state law as $24 per year. The Legislature repealed that section because everyone agreed that the Legislature had no constitutional authority to tell Central Committees what their dues should be. Ironically, several Republican activists around the state have incorrectly concluded that Central Committees cannot charge dues because that section of state law was repealed; they seem to think that we need permission from the Democratic majority in the Legislature to set our own internal dues, which is exactly the opposite of the position the courts have adopted.)

Party Reaction: Since the law changed, political parties have amended their internal rules to allow pre-primary endorsements. The California Republican Party has amended its Bylaws on a case-by-case basis so that, for example, the Party could officially endorse Dan Lungren and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Our Party has not categorically repealed the endorsement ban, as we logically should. It is very interesting that almost every time the State Central Committee has amended the rules to allow endorsements, they have only allowed themselves to endorse but have continued to prohibit local Central Committees from exercising that same First Amendment right. The only exception is in the section that I wrote myself (Section 3.02.02, subsection B), which deals with disloyalty in Legislative redistricting efforts.

There is a great deal more that could be said about this history, but for now I will just point out that the California Republican Party itself has made pre-primary endorsements over the years and so have various County Central Committees. Nothing disastrous has happened, although endorsements are always controversial.

Relationship Between State and Local Party Committees: It is critical to understand that local Republican County Central Committees are not mere units of the California Republican Party, like the chartered units of the California Republican Assembly. Instead, County Central Committees are separate, independent legal entities in every sense and they have been largely independent since they were first founded. Almost 100 years ago, County Central Committees became democratically elected bodies, while the State Central Committee is still an appointed body, with a few exceptions. While state and local central committees may share common goals, we do not share common operations, common membership, or common rules. We are not required to follow common procedures or particular campaign tactics and strategies to achieve our common goals.

Relationship as Defined in the State Bylaws: To reinforce what I just said, I should direct your attention to Section 1.03 of the current Standing Rules and Bylaws of the California Republican Party. I will reprint them below for your convenience. Please note this sentence in particular: “There is no affiliation relationship between the [State Central] Committee and such Republican county and district central committees.” Here it is in context, with emphasis added:

“Section 1.03 Role And Relationship To County Central Committees and National Committees

The Committee is the official organization of the ballot qualified Republican Party, and exercises general direction over the statewide election campaigns for Republican nominees for state elective offices. The Committee works together with the local Republican county and district central committees, which are provided for in the California Elections Code and operate under their own bylaws and direction with respect to local election campaigns. There is no affiliation relationship between the Committee and such Republican county and district central committees in connection with federal election campaigns. The Committee and the Republican National Committee California Account, the National Republican Senatorial Committee California Victory Fund, and the National Republican Congressional Committee Non-federal Fund ( California ) are and shall be affiliates of the Committee as provided for in the California Government Code, Title 9, commencing with Section 81000 et seq.”

Federal Ramifications of Affiliation: It is very important to understand that there are major ramifications if local County Central Committees are controlled by the California Republican Party as local affiliates of a single entity. Under federal campaign finance laws, for example, there are strict limits on campaign contributions to parties. In states where state and local party organizations are affiliated as a single entity, under common rules, the Federal Elections Commission has ruled that a donation to any local party committee counts toward the overall donation limit for that donor. Local parties are forced to coordinate very closely with each other and with the state party to avoid breaking the law by exceeding contribution limits.

By contrast, in California , our state and county parties operate independently under different rules. The Placer County Republican Party, the El Dorado County Republican Central Committee, and the California Republican Party are each a separate parties for purposes of federal contribution limits. When my Party received a donation from PG&E, for example, I did not have to worry about the fact that PG&E had given more than $10,000 to other Committees before giving anything to my Committee.

If the California Republican Party could control the operations of the Placer County Republican Party and supplant our local rules with the state rules, then it seems likely that we would be deemed to be a mere local affiliate of a unified political entity. That would mean that my Committee, your Committee, the State Central Committee, and all the other local party organizations would be subject to a single contribution limit (and thus, we are all criminals for exceeding that limit).

Given the controversy, why endorse? I understand that just because we have a constitutional right to do something does not automatically make it a good idea. We always need to act in the best interests of the Party. Endorsements are inherently divisive, so we need to think twice before we act.

In Placer County , the present circumstances heavily favor pre-primary endorsement. The June 3rd primary election is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime event for us. We have no president or statewide candidates on the ballot. Our Assemblyman and State Senator have no opposition at all, not even write-in candidates. We have no local ballot measures and no contested elections on the ballot, with the exception of the Fifth Supervisorial District (the smallest, least Republican part of our county). Our cities, school districts, and special districts are not holding elections until November. There are no local initiatives, no local bonds, no parcel taxes, no charter amendments. The two statewide initiatives both deal with the obscure and arcane subject of eminent domain reform. (I know: Yes on 98, No on 99!) The Fourth Congressional District primary, an open seat with nationwide attention, is the only game in town. Voter turnout is completely tied to the Congressional race because that is the only race where our votes will determine the outcome. Congress is the only thing that our volunteers, donors, and voters have any reason to care about. We ignore that race at our peril.

Fortunately, the Placer County Republican Party Bylaws allow the Central Committee to endorse by a two-thirds vote, so there was no procedural obstacle to prevent us from getting involved.

I realize that other counties have different rules and different circumstances. My point is just to explain our perspective on this controversial issue.

Yours for a Republican Majority,

Tom Hudson, Chairman

Placer County Republican Party

P.S. These off-hand comments are not intended to serve as legal advice, but I should mention that I have worked as an elections attorney in private practice. I studied Election Law at UCLA under the first chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, who helped draft the Political Reform Act. I served as the Policy Consultant for the Elections Committee in the Senate Republican Caucus for several years in the California Legislature, etc.

From a Placer GOP Committee Member who called into Eric Hogue’s Show -

Yesterday I had the chance to ask Doug Ose a question on the Eric Hogue show. I asked him “You stated that you would only run for three terms in the Congress, yet when you left you kept a $500 thousand campaign fund and are now running in the 4th district despite your pledge… How do you explain that?”

His answer (paraphrased) is that things are different now. The world is a worse place and the country needs him.

Unfortunately, I was hung-up on and did not have the opportunity to follow up because the answer was clearly dishonest. How did he know that the world would need him when he hung on to that $500K? Is it more likely that he intended to run again and that is why he kept the money?

We really need the elected members in the 4th to get off Ose’s bandwagon and stand for Republican principles. It really bothers me to see them line up with him for what appears self-interest, rather than principle.

And another Placer GOP member responded with the following reply to the first committee member…

I don’t say this lightly, understanding full well what I am saying, but Doug Ose is a liar, he is lying about his record. After Doug Ose announced, I spent a couple hours researching his voting record and I have been appalled at what I found. I am now in New Orleans at a Council for National Policy meeting, and I will flat out tell you Doug’s record will be exposed… how he voted on taxes, wasteful spending, life, family, guns, etc. Doug will not be able to hide from his record. These elected officials will have to choose, will they stand with Ose and his ideas? Are they really people who want to raise our taxes, increase their pay, expand government, take guns away, promote the culture of death and push homosexual marriage? These elected officials may well have done us a favor, they have identified themselves as left of center… and opposed to conservative principles.

Are there any questions as to why the Placer GOP committee endorsed Rico then McClintock.

The New York Times lands a bombshell on McCain today. Interesting to note they’ve sat on this story for quite some time and decided to release this after McCain has pretty much wrapped up the GOP Presidential Nomination. This is what conservatives have been saying all along, McCain is not the guy we want representing our party or in the White House. Anyone now doubt the liberal media bias?

New York Time article

From that rag: “A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.”

Good grief what has happened to our party? Any student of history will recognize the value of the two party system; this primary race demonstrates that the system is only a safe-guard and not a solution. The safeguard has likely failed us, leaving our country with the worst two candidates in the history of our nation.

We can still hold out hope that the remaining states realize McCain is an unacceptable candidate. This is not likely, but consider the delegate math. McCain needs roughly 37% of the remaining un-pledged delegates, this includes non-committed delegates from states that have already held their primaries. That’s a bigger chunk of the vote than he’s been getting in most contested states. We still have time for voters to wake up to the threat of a McCain candidacy. There is little hope for Romney or Huckabee to wrap up the vote prior to the convention, but it isn’t too late to take out McCain.

Should McCain win the nomination what is a principled conservative to do? McCain is a much bigger threat to conservatism than any liberal Democrat, but is it ethical to vote for somebody that is still an enemy to what you believe? Some conservative talking heads preach that we need to vote for McCain for no other reason than the courts, which only raises more concerns with McCain. I predict that should we be so unfortunate to see McCain elected, he will lecture us on why we need justices with moderate political views that believe the constitution is a living document.

The one compelling reason I’ve heard for voting for McCain is his age. If he were to bring on a true conservative as VP, we could hope his current diet of donuts and more donuts would relieve us of his leadership in short time. I’m predicting moderate Republican Governor Charlie Christ of Florida will be the VP nominee, so this won’t be an issue.

One last thought:
Placer County has a reputation of being a conservative area, but if we look at returns for the last few elections, this area is not actually very conservative. For example: in 2006 only 53% of Placer County voters supported parents having the right to know when a school takes their 12 year old daughter to have an abortion, Placer County’s only supervisor with a reputation of being conservative has endorsed a liberal candidate for congress, and yesterday McCain won here.

Perhaps the leftists in our party are correct: If the Republican Party is to remain viable, we need to accept the liberal ideas of the democrats and abandon the principles of Ronald Reagan.

More anger from the Right. You cannot with good conservative conscience vote for McCain, not now, not Tuesday and not this November.

As the Democrats debated Thursday night, Ann Coulter was on Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” declaring that if John McCain faced Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election, she would vote for Clinton.

“She’s more conservative than he is,” Coulter said.

McCain also faces a conservative insurrection over his opposition to interrogation techniques that border on torture and opposition to drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Wall Street Journal headed its editorial Thursday, “McCain’s Apostasies.”

That same day, Human Events headlined its lead story online, “Who hijacked the primaries?”

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. In recent days, the supremely influential radio icon has been vociferous (even for him) in declaring that a McCain nomination will cause the destruction of the conservative movement.

“My so-called base is not rushing to vote for McCain,” Limbaugh said on his radio show.

“He relishes kind of tweaking conservatives,” said Don Devine, vice-chairman of the American Conservative Union.

“He doesn’t have, or has very few, friends in the leadership of the conservative movement. There is no question about it.”

Devine said he would likely not vote for McCain should he win the Republican nomination.

Article from the Politico

Watch the video here if you missed it on Fox….

VIDEO

This post is dedicated to anyone thinking of supporting McCain. Please reconsider, soon!

DO YOU KNOW THE REAL MCCAIN AGENDA?
Pushing The Democrat Position On Immigration, Taxes, Energy…

“A conservative is not a man that calls tax cuts that George Bush passed that revived the economy, ‘tax cuts for the rich.’ … A conservative is not a man that teams up with Teddy Kennedy to produce a bill that is nothing short of amnesty … A conservative is not a man who says that he wants to increase taxes, maybe 50 cents per gallon on the American people… That is not a conservative. I could go on forever and ever.” – MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 1/31/08; LINK)

Sen. McCain Would Sign McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Legislation Into Law:

Sen. McCain Recently Admitted That If Elected, He Would Sign McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill Into Law. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “If the Senate passed your bill, S.1433, the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill, would you as President sign it? MCCAIN: “Yeah. But look, the lesson is, it isn’t – one, it isn’t going to come. It isn’t going to come.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 1/27/08 LINK)

Sen. McCain Would Not Champion The Bush Tax Cuts He Voted Against:

In 2004, Sen. McCain Said He Was Against Making The Bush Tax Cuts “For Higher Income People” Permanent. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: “They want to make the tax cuts for higher-income people permanent, and I don’t want that.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 6/16/04)

Sen. McCain: “I Don’t Think We Should Continue To Cut Taxes.” SEN. MCCAIN: “I don’t think we should continue to cut taxes.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks, Washington , D.C. , 5/18/04)

• In 2001, Sen. McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Vote Against The $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay)

• In 2003, Sen. McCain Was One Of Only Three Republicans To Twice Vote Against The $350 Billion Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay)

- To be continued

Rudy Giuliani has hit the skids in a Florida freefall that could shatter his presidential campaign and leave a two-man Republican contest in the state between John McCain and Mitt Romney, a Miami Herald poll shows.

Despite hovering over Florida voters for weeks, Giuliani is tied for third place with the scarcely visible Mike Huckabee in a statewide poll of 800 likely voters.

Miami Herald link

Let’s hope he does not endorse John McScam.

Rumor has it that Pat Buchanan Jr. is going to start supporting Ron Paul.

I guess those in the anyone but Romney/Rudy caucus are praying for a brokered convention.

As for this blogger- I am in the anyone but McCain caucus.

Meanwhile – the Dem race is really heating up and is hysterical. Watch ‘em fight!

I get Thompson’s Campaign E-Mails… they have said flat out that Thompson has drawn a line in the sand in South Carolina.

The good news here is that Thompson is unloading his aresnal in South Carolina – this screws McCain and Huckabee.

The bad news is that Rudy is opening fire in Florida – and he is the biggest beneficiary of the fact that everyone else has unloaded on Romney.

Somewhere McCain is being given therapy.

World Net Daily – Posted: January 17, 2008

With a divided GOP field going into South Carolina, voters have a chance to make the Second Amendment an issue in this election. And they should.
South Carolina holds a distinctive place in our presidential nominating process. As the first in the South primary, its focus on faith, family values, military service and American traditions makes it one of the most conservative states in the country.

Anyone who’s ever campaigned in South Carolina will tell you that it’s worlds apart from many other parts of the country. And while Second Amendment rights are a sizeable factor in many states’ elections, in South Carolina you cannot win a general election if you’re seen as hostile to firearm freedoms.

That’s in general elections. In the GOP primary, you don’t even want to show your face in a crowd of Republicans if you aren’t ready to protect their gun rights.

Both Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson have a perfect record for supporting Second Amendment rights. They’ve both talked about that in South Carolina and should make an issue of this latest development.

Is anyone listening? To all the Romney bandwagon jumpers…Where’s Mitt’s name here???

Mitt Romney really must take this opportunity to explain exactly where he stands on the Second Amendment. He angered gun owners in December by endorsing and promising to sign into law the Clinton gun ban and the Brady Bill on “Meet the Press.”Those were two of the worst anti-gun laws in American history. He should forcefully take a stand on this Justice Department brief, and while he’s at it he (Romney) should retract his support for these anti-gun laws.

-The writer of this article is the immediate past president of the NRA and a longtime member of the NRA Board of Directors.

By: Jonathan Martin and Lisa Lerer – The Politico
Jan 17, 2008 06:11 AM EST

Looks like the heat’s getting to Mitt.

Just a day after his big win in Michigan, Mitt Romney ceded South Carolina to his rivals.

“This is a state I’d expect that Sen. [John] McCain has pretty well wrapped up,” Romney told reporters at the Sun City Hilton Head Retirement Center in Bluffton. “It would be an enormous surprise if he were unable to win here.”

Polls show Romney standing in solid third place in South Carolina, taking anywhere from 13 percent to 17 percent of the vote. But in Bluffton, Romney put himself in fourth place, noting that “even a strong fourth is better than what some of the other guys saw in Michigan last night.”

Full article

Gold = winning primary/caucus in given state
Silver = second place finish in given state
Bronze = third place finish in given state

Romney 2xG 2xS
McScam 1xG 1xS
Huck 1xG 2xB
Thompson1xS 1xB
Hunter 1xB
Rudy DNP

Rudy is betting the farm on Florida
Thompson is making his last stand in South Carolina and will likely endorse McCain once he loses.
Huckabee is likely not going to make it until Feb 5th either.

Romney is your front-runner… thank God, because McCain would even lose to Edwards.

Rudy may have waited too long.

HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson
by Human Events – 1/13/2008

The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.

Fundamental Beliefs

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us and for the conservative community boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.

To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.

Read the rest of this interesting article here.

The number one issue for Republicans in this race should be judges, based on John McCain’s past and current positions Republicans CANNOT trust him:

Global Warming, Affirmative Action, the International Criminal Court, Guantanomo, Tax-cuts, McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, Amnesty(or Z-Visa if you don’t like that word), Christian leaders are “agents of intolerance”. McCain has not admitted to being wrong on any of these issues, with the exception of an apology to Christians for attacking Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance.” I’m sure the apology was as sincere as any of his other straight talk.

As a person who believes in repentance and forgiveness I should comment on why these issues prevent me from EVER supporting John McCain. I believe that a man can repent and be forgiven, but that doesn’t exempt him from facing consequences.

I will not vote for someone who has cheated on their wife, period. McCain cheated on his wife with a beautiful 25 year old with enough family money to launch his political career.

Believe what you want about his supposed straight talk. I am grateful to him for his service to our country, but I would never vote for him.

This incredibly biased AP story says if Romney loses (finishes out of first) in New Hampshire (even though he’d still get delegates…) that he would be finished.

Please note that this story references a CNN/Zogby poll that has Romney -5 to McCain.

I have also seen a Rasmussen poll with Romney at +1. (posted below by…)

The person fighting for their political life is McCain. McCain has to win NH to have a chance…

Story HERE

As of this morning, post-second NH debate….

McCain 34%
Romney 27%

Obama 32%
Rodham 28%

Courtesy of Hank Shaw’s blog I found a website called Glassbooth.com

The link I am going to post is a link to my results. You can take the test for yourself and see what comes up.

It is interesting to note that when I looked at the other candidates drop down menu – I got the complete picture of where I stand relative to the others…

Hunter #1 at 89% Match (Hunter was always my favorite, but he can’t get any traction…)
Huck 76%
Romney 74% – (I support Romney because he can raise the money)

Thompson 71%
Rudy 70% (Are you kidding me?)
McScam 65%
Ron Paul 54% – look close here, the disparity is Ron’s Libertarian views.

See where you score and drop a comment.

LINK

Citizens for Life endorses Fred Thompson as his campaign is sliding into the abyss.

This is actually a fatal blow for Huckabee who is supposed to be the choice of the puritans.

Romney has been beaten up for being a Mormon and if you read Massachusetts papers, they have criticized Romney for being a closet Conservative for years.

Thompson is dust, if McCain can not hold onto the 5% lead he has fallen to in NH, he is dust.

It is time for the Thompson supporters to choose Huckabee or Romney. Romney is way more electable, because he can raise the money to beat Obama. (or Hildabeast)

Romney finished 2nd in Iowa and 1st in Wyoming.

He will finish 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire… this is called momentum even after weeks of Mormon-bashing.

Click on this POST to get links a blog and MSNBC to keep up on the polls.

I am also looking for some fresh polling data on Michigan Nevada and Florida. This is heating up in a hurry and the Wyoming results have Huck and Romney in a delegate dead heat.

Why is Rudy laying so low? Anyone want to take a guess???

I’m not quit sure why my conservative friends haven’t explained why Thompson is taking every pro-life endorsement. Doesn’t Romney care about this issue?

January 4, 2008 – Press Release

CITIZENS FOR LIFE MAKES ENDORSEMENT:
“FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT!”

Citizens for Life, the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, today joins with NRLC and sister pro-life organizations from South Carolina to California in endorsing former Senator Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

“Granite State voters like no-nonsense candidates who stand up for their beliefs. Fred Thompson is such a candidate,” said Roger Stenson, Citizens for Life Executive Director. “Fred Thompson had a 100% pro-life voting record as a member of the United States Senate. For all of us who care about the dignity and sanctity of human life and the most basic freedom upon which our nation was founded – the right to life – Fred Thompson is a leader of great promise.”

Fred Thompson has had a strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career. He has routinely stated his opposition to abortion and his belief that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which allows abortion for any reason, was wrongly decided and should be reversed. During his years in the United States Senate, he always opposed using tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported the many pro-life measures such as parental notice and consent.

Thompson has also stated his opposition to the kind of stem cell research that requires killing human embryos, while supporting the kind of stem cell research that harms no one and is the only kind producing cures.

We know that each abortion results in the death of a child, and a family is forever changed. Nearly 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.

“The majority of the country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions and Fred Thompson has shown by his consistent pro-life voting record that he is firmly in the pro-life majority. Citizens for Life is confident in Senator Thompson’s resolve to protect and defend the most defenseless among us: our unborn children. We are proud to endorse Fred Thompson for President of the United States,” Stenson added.

Citizens for Life is the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s major pro-life organization.

In my first report, we see some interesting things around NH.

First, I see a ton more Dem signs than GOP, which was shocking for me. This used to be such a great Red State. Obama’s people seem really organized. Hillary has more people on the ground walking, mainly middle aged women with clipped hair and mean faces. Anyone listen to Savage? :) I saw the Edwards rally in downtown Portsmouth. Why wasn’t I at a GOP event? Well you see, most of the media coverage is around the Dems and the GOP is absolutely horrible about communicating. I couldn’t find out much about any event except for Huckabee. Thompson didn’t even arrive until late morning so he’s given up and Romney had a post debate rally in a sports bar, alcohol optional.

Second, I’m in a hotel filled with Clinton and Edwards campaign people. Hill and John might actually be a few rooms down from me. God help me!!! It feels like I’m surrounded by cult people.

Word on the street is that McCain will do well here on Tuesday, which I guess I can’t disagree with, but I see almost no signage or people for him. Maybe he already has entrenched support? I can see Ron Paul doing well but I don’t think he’s polling well, but we’ll see on Wednesday, and I know he’ll do better than the media thinks he will do.

It’s cold here but beats the storm passing through Cali right now.

Yet another good nod for Fred from the Right.

Fred Thompson announced the endorsement of Right to Life of Wyoming.

“We’re proud to endorse Senator Thompson for president because he has a long track record of supporting pro-life principles,” stated Steven Ertelt, President of Right to Life of Wyoming. “Senator Thompson had a 100% pro-life voting record during his tenure in Congress. Today, he supports overturning the Roe v Wade decision which allowed for unlimited abortions, he opposes euthanasia, and he opposes forcing taxpayers to fund scientific research that requires the destruction of human life.”

Right to Life of Wyoming (RTLW) is the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee which has endorsed Senator Thompson for President, along with 13 other state affiliates.

“I’m blessed and honored to have the endorsement of the Right to Life of Wyoming for President of the United States,” said Senator Thompson. “Thirteen right to life organizations from coast to coast have voted to endorse my candidacy, and more likely will, because they know I have stood with them yesterday, I stand with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow. They know I have the ability to win this election. They know I believe in the sanctity of life and as President I will do all that I can to do to protect life.”

Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan’s Mexico City policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.

Link to article

California will host the Super Tuesday debates on January 30th at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. The Primary vote will be held on February 5th. Candidates invited must have finished in the top 4 spots of the early Primary States voting so this will be a trimmed down event. Unfortunately, CNN wil be hosting this debate so get ready for some more strange behavior from the audience.

“To hear Mitt Romney tell it, Republican Mike Huckabee shares more with Democrat Bill Clinton than a hometown in Hope, Ark., and a stint as Arkansas governor.”

“Both men, Romney suggests, have left-leaning governing philosophies, particularly on taxes and spending.”

Full article

“A $3 million investment in radio and television advertising in New Hampshire, a belated effort to become competitive in this state, is now viewed by the campaign as a largely wasted expenditure.”

“A Boston Globe poll published Sunday found that support for Mr. Giuliani had dropped in New Hampshire over the past month, even before any fallout from the decision on Wednesday by an ailing Mr. Giuliani to have his campaign plane turn around and take him back to St. Louis, where he spent the night in the hospital.”

Article

“Mike Huckabee vowed in Iowa on Saturday that one of his first actions as president would be to review what he called the “absurd” convictions of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean — and suggested he might pardon them immediately.”

““Our president has sided with the drug dealers and the criminals over law enforcement,” Rohrabacher said. “The president’s stubborn and heartless side is all too evident in this case of Ramos and Compean.” “

Article

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today that he wept with relief when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon church, announced a 1978 revelation that the priesthood would no longer be denied to persons of African descent.

Romney’s eyes appeared to fill with tears as he discussed the emotional subject during a high-stakes appearance that he handled with no major blunders.

Article

Republican White House contender Mike Huckabee refused to apologize Sunday after a rival accused him of insulting President George W. Bush by describing his foreign policy as “arrogant.”

Huckabee butted heads with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney after publishing a foreign policy paper calling for American foreign policy to change its “tone and attitude, open up, and reach out.”

“The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad,” the former Arkansas governor wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs.

“My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists,” said Huckabee.

Romney, who has seen Huckabee surge past him in opinion polls with just three weeks until the first nominating contest in Iowa on January 3, expressed outrage at his rivals criticism of the Republican president.

“That’s an insult to the president, and Mike Huckabee should apologize to the president,” Romney told NBC television.

Full Article

Check out the funny mail pieces here

By: Avi Zenilman
Dec 14, 2007 06:16 AM EST

On the campaign trail, Rudy Giuliani touts the supply-side economics popular among Republicans since Ronald Reagan was president.

Giuliani consistently echoes President Bush’s assertion in February 2006: “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”

But there’s a growing sentiment among many conservative economists — including those who generally support cutting taxes to spur economic growth and job creation — that Giuliani’s statements are simplistic and at worst misleading.

Rest of story

“Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee hold 9-point leads in Iowa with less than three weeks to go before the Jan. 3 caucuses, according to a new poll conducted for the Quad-City Times and other Lee Enterprises newspapers.”

Story

CNN POLL: SOUTH CAROLINA

Huckabee 24%
Thompson 17%
Giuliani 16%
Romney 16%
McCain 13%
Paul 11%

Huckabee shows again he’s soft on the illegal alien issue. Tancredo was the clear winner here by avoiding this debate altogether. I wish the rest of these guys stayed home as well. The voting/political process is starting to become a real joke in this country.

“It looked like a hostage take. ... [The candidates] were trying to say, ‘You should go home,’ without saying, ‘I hate you,’” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which favors combining tough border enforcement with an onerous legalization path for those already in the United States.

“But he clearly has developed a case of Romney-itis, the affliction that causes a top-tier Republican to turn from centrist to conservative to avoid political punishment by the party’s base.”

“During the forum, Huckabee called for a “reasonable window of time,” for an illegal immigrant to return home and get at the back of the line to legally reenter the United States.”

Article

And the “voters” backing Hillary actually are backing her due to Bill himself. Wow, I didn’t think people were that stupid. With this recent development and with the subprime mess, I’m going to have to rethink my position.

NY TIMES 12/10/07
G.O.P. Voters Are Uninspired by Candidates

“Three weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Republicans voters across the country appear uninspired by their field of presidential candidates, with a vast majority saying they have not made a final decision about who to support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.”

“None of the Republican candidates is viewed favorably by even half of the Republican electorate, the poll found. In a sign of the fluidity of the race, one candidate who had barely registered in early polls several months ago, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is now locked in a tight contest nationally with Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.”

The poll found that former President Bill Clinton could be an effective campaign weapon for his wife. Forty-four percent of Democrats said Mr. Clinton’s involvement would make them more likely to support Mrs. Clinton.”

Totally no PC but I like it. He’s standing up on principle and making a great point. This kissing up to certain segments of the “American” people is making me sick. Stop it and start acting like adults and people who want to lead this country, not have the country lead them.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press.
DENVER—Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo is boycotting a Spanish-language debate with his fellow GOP presidential candidates in Miami on Sunday, saying it has no place in presidential race and accusing his rivals of “pandering.”

“It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language,” Tancredo said in a release Friday. “So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate?”

Tancredo has made hard-line immigration issues the hallmark of his long shot presidential campaign in much the same way it has branded his five terms in the House. The Congressman’s two campaign ads focused on border security and threats ranging from terrorist to gangs—using bloody images to underscore the point in both cases.

Tancredo said he will not join the other candidates at the Univision Republican debate at the University of Miami to drive home the idea that the nation needs a common language.

“Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual, but it has perilous consequences for a nation,” Tancredo said. “As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign.”

Full article

The latest Iowa polls…

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive

“The new NEWSWEEK poll shows the former Arkansas governor now has a two-to-one lead over Romney, while Barack improves against Hillary.”

“The ordained Southern Baptist minister now leads Romney by a two-to-one margin, 39 percent to 17 percent, among likely GOP caucus-goers.”

Article

A good article by World Net Daily Founder Joseph Farah who talks about Huckabee’s view on the government’s role in social issues. He makes some great points that Christians as individuals are responsible for helping the poor, not the US government.

“The first troubling discovery is that, as governor, Huckabee was a tax-raiser to put Bill Clinton to shame. Worse than that, now he tries to tell audiences the courts and legislature twisted his arm to sign that tax hike. But there is just no evidence to support that interesting revisionist view of reality.”

“The second troubling finding is his support (there is really no other word for it) for illegal immigration. As governor, he helped Arkansas serve as a magnet for illegal immigrants who wanted jobs in the Tyson chicken plants or in-state tuition rates unavailable to American citizens from neighboring states or a Mexican consulate generously offered up to the Mexican government for free.”

“As Christians, they are confusing the role we as individuals are assigned as followers of Jesus with the role of government. When Jesus tells us to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, He is not suggesting we transfer that personal responsibility to government. He is not suggesting we transfer that responsibility to our neighbors. He is not suggesting, as the old saying goes, we rob Peter to pay Paul. This is a personal, individual responsibility of the believer.”

Article

PJB gives some conservative street cred to Mitt Romney’s “Mormon speech” the other night. I still have reservations about a guy who only found the pro-life issue in 2005.

Mitt’s Hour of Power
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: December 6, 2007

“If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.”

If you also want to read what WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah thought about this speech, click here.

“I’m telling you, I don’t think that it’s the primary responsibility of the federal government to tell you what to eat,” Thompson said to applause when asked if his health care plan included any details on preventative care, a priority for Democratic candidates.

Thompson

“National support for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani significantly eroded over the past month,” USA TODAY Washington bureau chief Susan Page writes.

Meanwhile, Republican Mike Huckabee’s standing in the national poll has shot up—to the point where he leads a group of four GOP contenders basically tied for second place behind front-runner Giuliani.

Poll link

Big gamble!!! I think he’s feeling the pressure from the other candidates.

(CBS) By CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will deliver a much-anticipated speech on religious faith at the George H. W. Bush library on Thursday, CBS News has confirmed. Romney’s Mormon faith has been an underlying theme of his presidential candidacy but, until today, it has been an area he and his campaign have shied away from addressing directly.

”...new polling data released today shows that Huckabee has pulled to within a single percentage point of Hillary Clinton in a general election match-up. Huckabee is also a frontrunner in Iowa and essentially tied for second in New Hampshire.”

H-SURGE

Well the CNN Debate last night as almost as good as watching Kid Nation on CBS. Rudy answered his questoin
on the Yankees and the Red Sox, McCain defended
the rights of Terrorists, and Ron Paul managed to sound like a Peace Activist. The adults at the debate were
Romney, Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter. The other candidates
were spectators and the CNN news staff were the biggest kids at the event waiting to play on the arcade.
Lastly, Fred Thompson you need a makeup man you looked old
and you need to want to run for President and not just
seem like you were dragged into it.

“As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.”

Giuliani

I think he’s actually got a valid point.

By Bob Cusack | Posted 11/25/07 11:05 a.m. [ET]
November 25, 2007

“Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) suggested on Sunday that Fox News is biased against his campaign, charging that the network highlights commentators who have been critical of his run for the presidency.”

Bias