Final Calif Debate a Barn-Burner

Tonight's GOP debate was broadcast from the Reagan library in nearby Simi Valley - a site I used to ride my bike past all the time during Reagan's presidency. I have not been to the library, even though it was built years ago. Go figure. I watched the debate from Romney California headquarters in Rancho Cucamonga after reading they had set up shop and needed help running a phone bank to drum up support for Mitt. I drove out after work and there were about 100 people there. All of us watched the debate and ate pizza. I was looking up from a cubicle (it was a vacant office building) at one of several plasma TV's mounted on walls with a giant "Mitt Romney For President" banner next to it.

I thought Romney did pretty well in this debate, though I had hoped he would really cut loose on John McCain. He definitely got animated halfway into the debate (more on that in a minute), but not as much as he could have, I'm afraid. For his part, John McCain looked for the first time like he was already the nominee. He was completely fearless and looked more like the McCain so many of us are used to seeing: Not the friendly, down-home candidate but the gruff, arrogant, smirking senator who wags his finger in the faces of conservatives. He smiled broadly when Romney, sitting next to him, criticized his record, and confidently answered every single question by talking up his military service. He lobbed insults, engaged in class warfare, and dishonestly attacked Romney about something he alleged the governor said in an interview a year ago.

Mitt made the mistake of uttering the word "timetable" in an answer he gave to a reporter about the Iraq war, referring to our two governments getting together and working out various plans to evaluate our progress, which would of course involve (internal-only) timetables and milestones. He responded to the very next question by saying he would veto any bill that came to him demanding timetables for withdrawal. Pretty clear. John McCain, however, took that quote and extracted just a few words out of it, claiming that Romney then supported a timetable for withdrawal. This was, of course, a baldfaced lie, and McCain knows it. Every media outlet in the country (most of them liberal) even came to Romney's defense on this issue, disagreeing with McCain that this was Romney's intent in the quote. Romney, of course, given the chance to discuss this at the debate tonight, raised all these issues and even said McCain was lying and that it was dishonest. He also pointed out that McCain's doing this at the 11th hour before the Florida primary gave him no time to defend himself from the accusation, and that it (rightly) smacked of old-style Washington political shenanigans.

McCain, shockingly, seated 2 feet from Romney, smiled and actually had the gall to restate his smear right on stage! Romney was beside himself and for the first time, tried to interrupt McCain to defend himself. The two kept talking over each other until Anderson Cooper, the moderator, tried to step in, at which point Romney backed off but McCain kept filibustering. Eventually he'd get another smear out of his mouth and Romney would get all worked up all over again, and Anderson Cooper would try to stop them (again). McCain looked like an absolute jerk, and Romney looked like a class act who was being unfairly berated. It was at this point that I began to wonder if I really could support McCain in November if he gets nominated.

McCain also had a few other choice moments that jumped out at me. One was, in referring to the subprime crisis, that there are greedy people on Wall Street who should be taken to jail. Wall Street?? How about the greedy homeowners who wanted something for nothing, and who will be walking away from their obligations? The fraud involved on subprime loan app's was incredible. He also said that government needed to make some changes to the rating system that allowed these mortgage-backed securities to be rated as highly as they had been. Hello? Not the government's job. Let S&P and Moody's, as well as Fannie May and Freddie Mac take the blame for that and they'll clean up their own house. It reminded me of his comment in a previous debate that the pharmaceutical companies were "the bad guys." This is standard liberal demagoguery and anti-business mindset. And he claims to be a conservative.

I was particularly irritated by a response McCain gave when asked if he was qualified to run the U.S. economy (he's not). Romney had just been asked a similar question and had started his answer by praising and respecting McCain's service to the country. McCain, showing zero class, began his answer with a faux praise of Romney's business acumen, but it quickly turned out to actually be a slam against him, as he pointed out that he was sure that in his business dealings, people had lost their jobs. Romney was certainly aghast, but managed to just laugh it off. Loudly. People watching understood that McCain was again taking a cheap shot. By the way, McCain's answer to whether he was qualified to run the economy was that he was a war hero. That was pretty much his answer for everything.

Similarly, in one of his innumerable diatribes about his military service (he's starting to sound like the John Kerry broken record), he pointed out that he had not gone into the service "for profit," but presumably for patriotism, etc. The gist was that -- again, with the class warfare -- Romney was somehow bad for choosing to try his hand in business. It's amazing to me how liberal politicians tout job growth while simultaneously berating corporations and their CEO's.

McCain has not been a guest on any conservative TV or radio show that I frequent (and I frequent a lot of them); he and Huckabee have dodged them from the beginning. Romney, by contrast, has been accessible and a gentleman throughout this campaign. He is certainly the smartest guy running right now; has decades of successful business experience; has the strongest family life of any politician I have ever seen; and has a better and broader command of issues conservatives care about than any candidate out there right now.

And yet Florida handed a gut-wrenching victory to John McCain instead. With that victory, the real John McCain is emerging: arrogant (constant smirks and you-can't-touch-me looks); liberal (promoting class warfare); old (71 and invoking dinosaurs like Warren Rudman and Phil Gramm??) and completely unknowledgeable on the economy. Will voters figure it out before it's too late? Will they care? Where is our country headed?

Must-read piece by Power Line:

...if McCain thinks that invoking his military experience is going to
persuade voters that he can be trusted on economic issues, he should reconsider.
He’s starting to sound like Rudy Giuliani, who answered every hard question by
talking about New York.

Debate play-by-play by Michelle Malkin:

9:36pm Eastern. Debate’s done. McCain shakes hands with Romney.
Hope Romney brought hand sanitizer.

The word on the street is that Romney has decided not to advertise in any of the Super Tuesday states. This signals to me that he is preparing to give up. I hope not. I'd rather see him try and team up with Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is not going to get the nomination, no matter how much happy-talk he tries to put out there. This is clear. And yet he draws votes off of Romney. What if Romney offered to make Huck the V.P. in return for an exit and an endorsement? While we're at it, someone should tell Ron Paul to get a life and get the heck out of the race. He has no chance at all to win, and as Dennis Prager said today, the only plausible reason why Ron Paul would stay in the race at this time is ego. Newt Gingrich said on Sean Hannity's show today that if you remove Huck and Paul from the race before Florida, McCain potentially loses to Romney there, 60-40.

Hugh Hewitt has comments on the debate, as well as a call for Romney to keep pushing ahead, past Super Tuesday, all the way to Minneapolis if necessary. If Huck doesn't pull out, I don't know how just how wise that advice will be.

It will be an interesting week. After tonight's abysmal and dishonest performance by John McCain, I seriously question whether I will vote for him.

The Coming Week

With John McCain winning Florida, he steals Mitt Romney's momentum and runs with it into Super Tuesday. Romney supporters have this one last chance to stop him and get our guy in as the nominee. This coming week we need to have the conversation with our fellow Republicans -- because the liberal media loves McCain and annointed him the front-runner long ago -- that Romney is our best hope for turning Washington around and stabilizing the economy; not McCain.

Romney cheerleader Hugh Hewitt has good analysis on his blog here. It's a good post; here's a choice quote:

Despite the outcome in Florida, Republicans across the nation should spend the
next week thinking long and hard about the demoralizing prospect of a McCain
nomination.

He also succinctly sums up Romney's qualifications and echoes my feeling that it's now or never:

Mitt Romney is a better candidate than he lets on. His business acumen has
hardly been explored in this campaign, at least not early enough. He is, as they
say in Boston, wicked smart. Of all the candidates running, it is hardest to see
the colossal managerial failures of Katrina happening under his watch. His plan
wasn’t perfect, but I like the fact that he’s a Republican who’s tackled the
health care issue. He can communicate about matters of war and peace, and his
instincts are sound. He could position himself as a clean break on the economy.
Attributes he had to soft sell in the primary campaign would provide attractive
contrasts to Hillary Clinton in a general election. And in Presidential
elections, Governors beat Senators. Romney is our last chance of getting that
historically winning combination.

I will be at the newly established California Romney Headquarters tomorrow night watching the debate in Simi Valley and then making phone calls. I'm doing my part to try to win this election for conservatives. At this point, every conservative needs to be asking himself whether he or she is. It's time to fish or cut bait.

Oh, Lord - Retirees, Military, Hispanics Carry McCain in Florida

Mitt Romney just gave his concession speech after losing the Florida primary. I honestly expected him to win it by at least a couple of points. Instead, John McCain has won it by 6%, a wide margin. Michael Barone is reporting that McCain beat the heck out of Romney in counties with high Hispanic, retiree, and military voters. Big surprise: McCain is a war hero and his father was, as well. He's 71, and he is a strong proponent of his McCain-Kennedy, aka "Shamnesty" illegal alien amnesty bill. Romney won in other counties, but not by as wide (4:1) margins as McCain did in Miami and Tampa Bay.

At this point, Mitt is going to have a tough road ahead of him. His concession speech reflected as much; you could hear the disappointment in his voice. He will fight hard, but you could see that this loss hit him right in the gut. McCain finally won an all-Republican primary.

McCain is now out giving his victory speech. He is playing up his military record big-time. He says he "intends to win it and be the nominee of our party" next week. Holy cow, that's scary.

I will support McCain 100% if he wins the nomination. But I believe he will lose the general nonetheless, and badly. This will be like the nomination of Bob Dole back in the '90s. People are happy about it now, but they will be wandering aimlessly when McCain gets slaughtered in November by either Hillary or Obama (both of which send shivers down my spine). John McCain is a war hero and that's about it. Other than that he is a RINO. He has the policies of the Democrats and none of the charm or fight (or youth) of either Hillary or Obama.

McCain is giving his victory speech and appears to be looking up at teleprompters way above and behind the cameras; it looks weird. Romney, a master orator, was much more relaxed and authentic. How people could think McCain will be better for our country than Romney, I have not a clue.

Retirees prevented Congress years ago from meaningful Social Security and Medicare reform, which will never hurt them but will certainly wind up hurting my generation. And hispanics love McCain because he wants to make all the illegals legal, throwing U.S. sovereignty out the window. It was these two groups that largely gave McCain this victory. Hopefully the general public throughout the country feels differently and we still wind up with a better result after Super Tuesday.

Dr. Dean Edell Insults the Church

Yesterday afternoon, as I was driving home from Lowe's after picking up some household stuff, Dr. Dean Edell, famous radio and TV doctor, began his show. He normally does this by going through various news stories in the world of medicine, also contributing his opinions on the various stories. This time, however, he decided to rant about the evils of the Catholic church for 5 minutes, as he talked about an embryonic stem cell project and a human cloning project.

On embryonic stem cells, Dr. Edell claimed there had been some progress in using them to treat Muscular Dystrophy, and indicated that he knew how he would vote if he had MD. His point was that it was ridiculous, all this commotion about the research. He didn't consider for a second why people oppose this kind of research; namely, that killing the embryos to harvest their cells is completely immoral. He can believe what he wants to believe, but ridiculing the Church, which leads the fight against this kind of research, started to cross the line, in my opinion.

He continued on by reading a short quote by Pope Benedict about how human cloning is evil and how this latest, apparently successful, attempt to clone human beings is to be condemned. At this point, Dr. Edell went off the rails, ranting about how the Church itself was evil and to be condemned for all its misdeeds over the centuries. He went on and on.

I notified the Catholic League this morning, and sent Dr. Edell an email, which read as follows:

Hello Dr Edell,

I've listened to you off and on for a couple decades, it seems like, and enjoyed your show. Yesterday, however, I was aghast at your offensive 5-minute long rant against the Catholic church to start off your radio show.

When you began talking about an alleged advance in embryonic stem cell research and announced the successful attempt to clone 5 human beings, you qualified the stem cell research twice as "that research you don't like" and you immediately mocked Pope Benedict's condemnation of the cloning. You continued by comparing the Church's position on cloning to a number of alleged misdeeds done by it over the centuries, such as the Inquisition; "enslavement of populations" aka religious persecution and forced conversions; taking positions against birth control and against condoms in Africa (virtually stating that the Church had African blood on its hands as a result); and wrapped up by rhetorically asking why Protestants, Jews, and Muslims don't argue about such things or force people to convert (yes, Muslims NEVER do that...). You were offended that the Church "attempts to manipulate" laws and policies in this country, which affect you, even though you're not Catholic. Your example was abortion, the Church's position on which you apparently disagree with. Though you admitted right away that "we all want fewer abortions in this country," you never ventured to say why, nor what your problem is with the Church's position. Perhaps you realized at that point that you were in uncharted territory, commenting well outside of your field.

I'm not going to spend time defending against each of these insults because the purpose of my email is not to change your mind on such matters, but to point out to you that, first, your remarks were incredibly offensive to me and other Catholics. Second, they were made all the worse because you made them on a nationally syndicated radio program that is successful and listened to by hundreds of thousands of people. Because of these two factors alone, you owe Catholics a public apology.

Finally, as much as I respect and enjoy listening to your medical discussions, I need to point out to you that when you make such remarks, you sound like an absolute fool. You sound foolish because,like many scientists before you, when you start commenting in an area in which you obviously have no expertise, especially to the point of criticizing and condemning others who ARE experts in the field, you make big mistakes like the ones I just outlined. It would be as if I, a software developer, tried to give medical advice. I'm not qualified to do so, and you, sir, are not qualified to give theological or,sadly, moral advice. The fact that you need to keep in mind is that people often make decisions of all kinds (including medical ones)partly on the basis of MORALITY, not just on the science behind such things. Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, condom and birth control use, these all carry moral considerations with them. That you don't see that is something you should consider next time you think about railing against the largest religious body on the planet.

The pope alone has already forgotten more about theology and morality than you will ever learn. Show some respect and keep your dignity by keeping your opinion on these matters to yourself.

I don't know whether or not he'll ever read my email. Hopefully he will, and hopefully this gets some attention at the League, as well, as they can make more noise than I can.

Truly Unbelievable

I am an avid bicyclist, and I was moved when I read an article a couple months ago in Bicycling magazine about road crashes with vehicles and how the laws in the U.S. are poor (i.e. favor drivers, not cyclists) and opportunities for redress (i.e. lawsuits against drivers) are limited. All the cyclists they profiled had been hit from behind and never saw it coming. It made me nervous to saddle up again.

Then tonight I stumbled into this British article on a guy who hit a kid who was on a bicycle, while speeding, killing the kid, and now the guy is suing the kid's family for the damage to his Audi !!!! I am serious.

He also wants a further 6,000 euros for the cost of hiring another vehicle while his was being repaired.

The scary thing is that this is the U.K. If it could happen there, where I'd think the laws would favor cyclists more than here, then it could definitely happen in the U.S.

Florida GOP Debate - Classy All Around

I just finished watching the latest GOP presidential debate on MesSNBC and I was pleasantly surprised by it. First, hosts Tim Russert and Brian Williams asked each of the candidates tough but fair questions, mostly about issues Republicans care about. Second, in sharp contrast to the current state of the Democratic debates and campaigns, all of the GOP candidates were very respectful and friendly with one another, even to the point of refusing to take the bait offered multiple times by the moderators to pick fights with each other.

Last time I watched MSNBC host a GOP debate was at the Reagan library in nearby Simi Valley a few months ago. Extreme left-wing neanderthal Keith Olbermann was there, and the debate was moderated mostly by former Democratic operative Chris Matthews. Matthews' running of the debate was an absolute disgrace, and embarrassed candidates and the network alike, in my opinion. Matthews kept asking "gotcha" questions with the intent of tripping up the candidates and making them look foolish. He admitted as much in later in post-debate interviews.

This time around was much better. Russert started off by lobbing a softball on the economy, starting with Mitt, who of course didn't even break a sweat. Then they went down the line and warmed up the candidates with simple questions, and then tried something I haven't seen before: Russert would address a candidate by referring to one of the other candidates and asking if he "trusted" the other candidate on things like tax cuts, etc. Rather than take the bait, every contender started off his answer by complimenting the other guy, pointing out that there were differences of opinion, then stating his position.

In the second segment, the candidates were each allowed to ask one question to one other candidate of their own choosing. None of them, including Ron Paul, asked potentially embarrassing questions or disrespected one another. All the questions were interesting and good, as were the answers. Mike Huckabee, for example, asked Mitt Romney about his stand on the second amendment and gun control. Huckabee has strong credentials in that area and Romney does not, so it was good for Huck to ask it and Mitt needed to be able to address it, and he did. All the candidates joked with one another throughout the event.

What I came away with was a couple things: First, I still support Mitt and I think he did a fine job tonight. He has morphed himself away from his weak area of discussing social conservative issues (he is weak because he's a bit on the "stiff" side) and is now regularly talking about economic issues, where he has better credentials than anyone. He started doing this in Michigan and was extremely effective there; people could tell that , fundamentally, Romney is competent in the fiscal conservative area. Also, Romney seems to have taken a page from the McCain playbook and has started acting like the frontrunner, reacting to questions involving Hillary Clinton with a far more aggressive posture than he has had with the GOP rivals. He's acting like the GOP nominee for the first time, and it is interesting to me to see him get a lot more feisty. I was a bit nervous about his ability to shake off the "Mister Nice Guy" image if he ultimately goes on to get the nomination, because the Clinton machine will sling everything but the kitchen sink at him and he'd better be able to respond.

Second, I would willingly vote for any of these four guys (I'm excluding Ron Paul), and will no matter who gets the nomination. People like Dick Morris have been saying that the GOP is "in chaos" right now because we haven't all gathered behind our assumptive candidate yet, and that going into the September convention, our party would collapse. I've never believed this and continue to believe that, once a frontrunner is found and the convention is held, Republicans will unite behind the winner. All this debating and bickering over who's the most conservative on this or that issue, this is all healthy for the party, not chaotic.

If any party is coming apart right now, it's the Democrats. Obama and Clinton are duking it out, hurling insults at each other and fighting in the mud. It is entertaining to watch, partly because they brought this on themselves. They encouraged the Left to be offended at the drop of a hat by minor things, and now this is coming back to haunt them. Whoever winds up with the Dem nomination, I think we'll be able to run a strong campaign against them. I believe that now more than before tonight's debate.

My Pick for President

It's no secret I'm backing Mitt Romney for president. I have since the day he announced. I was impressed with him the first time I saw him, at the Olympics in Salt Lake City when he gave a speech at the opening ceremony. This was a guy who was obviously a gifted orator and leader, having turned the troubled Olympic organizing committee completely around from bankruptcy to success in about a year. When he became governor of liberal Massachusetts, I paid attention whenever I heard some news about stuff he was up to, and was always impressed. When I heard him describe his health care plan for the state, I remember thinking that here was a guy who had accomplished near-universal health care without resorting to government control over the system. A free market solution to a problem no one had ever been able to solve. And working with uber-liberals like Ted Kennedy.

So when he announced for the presidency, I wrote a check the same day, and have continued to do so periodically ever since. To my mind, he has easily the best resume of all the candidates. He's been a huge success in business, having made hundreds of millions of dollars there. By all accounts, those who worked with him during those years, as well as various journalists and others who have met him since, all remark that Romney is the smartest person they have ever met. He had a reputation in the business world of always seeking out the arguments from both sides of a challenge, and then making a decision as a leader should. These are very positive qualities for leadership of any kind.

He is unapologetically devoutly religious. He was a missionary as a young adult, having traveled to Europe evangelizing, another admirable quality. And as a religious American, he properly understands the value to this society of our traditional Judeo-Christian value system and specifically of the critical foundation of The Family to this society. He walks the talk, too: He has been married to his high school sweetheart for 35 years, and they have 5 children and multitudes of grandchildren together. All 5 of his children actively campaign for him.

So here is a guy who is highly intelligent, a proven leader who has governed a state, a successful businessman at the heights of big business, and a devoutly religious family man. Is this not the man you want running for the office of President?

The Competition
A quick word about Romney's opponents. By the way, while I have differences with every one of these men, any one of them would be a far better choice for President than any of the Democratic candidates, and I will strongly back whoever the nominee is in the end.

Mike Huckabee - Arkansas governor for over 10 years, he has the leadership experience, no question. He's also devoutly religious and very personable. My problem with him is that he's been too soft on illegal immigration over the years, as well as soft on crime, not particularly conservative on taxes, and appears to know virtually nothing about the world outside of the U.S. In these dangerous times, that is scary.

John McCain - I met McCain in 1985 when he spoke to my ROTC detachment in Arizona. McCain is a true war hero and by far the strongest of any candidate on the military in general and the Middle East wars in particular. He's also very strong fiscally, speaking out forcefully against congressional "earmarks." Unfortunately he's too liberal for me on just about every other issue: Immigration (views as bad as President Bush's); campaign finance "reform"; and he built the "Gang/Group of 14" that prevented the G.O.P. from permanently killing the ability to filibuster Supreme Court nominees a few years ago. He's also 71 years old and would get slaughtered a la Bob Dole in a general election.

Rudy Giuiani - Strong on the war and on the military, like McCain. Good on fiscal issues. Governed weakly when it came to illegal immigration but seems to have the right ideas today on that. Very bad on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. His personal life is also a train wreck, having been married several times and flaunted one mistress in front of his then-wife in the same house, then moving out to live in a house with homosexual friends. Hard to imagine he would be strong on Supreme Court nominees and/or pro-life, despite what he claims.

Fred Thompson - I don't even know what Fred's views are on just about anything. People say he's the conservative, the only true one, in the race. Yet he got in relatively late, seemed to try to dodge one debate in particular, and never appears to have any energy. He seems older and slower than McCain. He comes across as though he got dragged into the race and might just walk out at any time.

The rest of the field has zero chance of doing anything at all in this race. Our candidate will be one of the guys mentioned above. An important question for all of them, too, will be "can he beat the Democratic ticket?" Out of those above, I think Romney has the best shot at this, followed by Huckabee and then McCain. Bottom line: Romney is the man. Support him now and we have a shot at winning in November. If he drops out we're in real trouble.

Mitt Romney and Pundit Idiocy

The first two Republican contests, a caucus and a primary, are now over and my candidate, Mitt Romney, who I have supported since the day he announced, did not win either but came in a fairly close second. In Iowa, Mike Huckabee came out of nowhere, spent almost nothing and beat Mitt by 9 points. In New Hampshire, John McCain took a lead and held it to win by 5 points. Romney had planned to win both and then cap those wins off with a third in Michigan, which is next week. Since this plan has completely come apart, every political pundit on TV and radio is writing off the Romney campaign completely, especially if he doesn't win in Michigan, where he grew up.

These people are idiots. To me they all sound like people whose job it is to prognosticate and in the situation we have today, which is a pretty wide-open race, they don't have much they can rely on and so they just make these big pronouncements without thinking them through. Dick Morris has never given Romney any credit. Robert Novak is now out there writing him off with comments like, "a loss in Michigan probably ends his run," and referring to his campaign as being "on death's door." Both of these guys have regularly referred to his "checkbook" and made other derogatory comments about the amount of money he has been able to spend on his campaign, as if he were trying to buy the nomination.

They appear to be relying on the tradition of Iowa and New Hampshire predicting the election results. On its face this is just stupidity anyway. But especially this election cycle, it makes zero sense. In Iowa, Huckabee clearly did well because the evangelicals came out in droves for him. Great for him. In New Hampshire, McCain has won that state before, in 2000, and he's easily the strongest candidate on the Iraq war and foreign policy, which plays well there. Great for him. But in both cases, those candidates lost badly in one of the two states, while Romney did well, posting a second place twice. Since he also won Wyoming (which no one has bothered to report or consider), he now leads all the candidates in delegates, with 30 to Huckabee's 21 and McCain's 10. And even if he doesn't win in Michigan, he'll certainly do well enough to pick up a substantial portion of those delegates and stay in the lead.

Rudy Giuliani got beat by Ron Paul, of all people, in Iowa, and no one has written him off. Why the ridiculous comments about Romney? McCain gets slammed in Iowa and Huckabee loses badly in New Hampshire, yet no one suggests they are at the end of their ropes. Instead, McCain is now, all of a sudden, the golden boy, set to win the nomination. This, after one win in the tiniest of states. Give me a break.

One other point: New Hampshire has a ridiculous rule allowing "Independents" to vote in whichever primary they choose, Democrat or Republican. How does that make any sense at all? Why should people not in my party get to have any say in who my candidate is?? Make a commitment to the party and then you can have your say. Worst case, you could get a campaign of Independents intentionally making the weakest candidate in a party win so as to make the general election easier on the opposing party. The whole thing is just stupid. Michigan has the same system, so watch for similar results there.

Mitt Romney has the most stable and broad support of all the candidates. We're already seeing that in every race so far. He may not be winning every state, but he's doing well consistently, which is something none of the others can say. He has plenty of money, both from his own fortune and from donations by folks like me. He also has business acumen that makes that money go far. Translation: He's in it until Super Tuesday, no question. Don't believe what you hear from genius "pundits" who write anyone off at this point. The race is wide open and we won't know who the candidate is until February 6th.