After weeks of bashing Republican Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin over the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", it turns out both Obama and Biden voted AGAINST redirecting the project's funding, and both voted FOR the final legislation funding the bridge.

An added bit of hypocrisy can be found if you look closely -- another issue the Democrats have tried to use as an attack on the Bush administration is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet when given the chance, neither Obama nor Biden voted to send the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding to help the rebuilding of New Orleans.

But wait, it gets even better!  Biden, who continues to blow hot air about the bridge in Alaska, is responsible for $342 million in earmarks for Delaware, for things like an opera house and a water park. And the icing on the cake is -- can you guess? -- a bridge connecting two beachfront towns. The kicker? They already HAVE a bridge. A bridge that the head of the Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce says is just fine. And really, the bridge is just a shortcut anyway, since an extra 30 minutes is all it takes to get from one town to the other without using the bridge.

We've got bridges in dire need of repair in this nation, as recent tragedies have clearly demonstrated. Yet here comes Biden, deciding that HIS bridge gets priority despite the fact there's already a bridge that isn't in need of any immediate repairs.

Obama and Biden refused to redirect the "Bridge to Nowhere" funds when they had the chance, they refused to send the money to New Orleans instead, they voted to build the bride, and Biden himself has his own little bridge back home that is a complete waste of taxpayer money and is just one part of hundreds of millions of dollars in pork Biden sends to his state.

And yet these hypocrites still stand up in front of the American people and sling mud at Gov. Palin, still use their applause lines about the bridge in Alaska, and still spout off in disingenuous anger about "pork" and insist they will bring change to Washington. But Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain is the only one who has consistently refused to seek any pork projects for his home state of Arizona.

Bottom line: the Obama-Biden campaign will lie about anything and everything to get elected.

Senator Barack Obama claims he wasn't calling Governor Sarah Palin a "pig" with his remarks the other day. Judging from the audience reaction, Sen. Obama was the only one in the room who didn't make the connection between his remarks and Governor Palin's joke about hockey moms being pit-bulls with lipstick. Her remark got so much attention, it is unimaginable that it just never occurred to Obama that people would immediately connect his comments with Palin's.

Then, of course, Obama went on David Letterman's show last night and made a joke calling Palin the "lipstick" being applied to "the pig" John McCain. So as usual, the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too -- they expect to get away with slanderous remarks, to later deny the remarks were slanderous, and then make more slanderous jokes about the slanderous remarks. No doubt, anyone expressing further outrage over Obama's continued offensive jokes on Letterman's show will be met with more denials followed by more offensive wisecracks from the Democrats.

What surprises me is, nobody has mentioned that Obama's initial insulting remark about "lipstick on a pig" preceded yet another even more potentially crude and offensive bit of innuendo from Obama. Immediately after the "lipstick on a pig" slander, Obama made a remark about "old fish". Now, I'm not going to get into much detail explaining the obscene nature of the implied insult there, but I think everyone can pretty easily figure it out.

So, if Obama was indeed trying to make a not-so-subtle reference to Governor Palin with his "lipstick on a pig" remark, it seems to me that his very next comment about "old fish" has to be taken in the same light. And it is simply a disgusting way for a presidential candidate to conduct himself. Of course, disgusting behavior is nothing new for the Democrats, but this is really a new low even for them.

And even if we take Obama at his word -- a dangerous proposition, and not one I would ever recommend mind you -- then he was calling Palin nothing but "lipstick" and McCain the "pig", and further calling McCain "old" with the "old fish" insult. Right? I mean, whichever way Obama tries to spin it, either McCain was being called "old" and smelly, or Palin was being called a smelly fish. So which is it, Sen. Obama?

I'd also point out that, in Obama's version of events, him calling Palin "lipstick" still has rather overt sexist overtones. So she's just there to pretty things up, eh? Just comparing her to "makeup", right? Why not toss in a joke about shoe-shopping while you're at it, Senator? And really, we're supposed to think it's entirely appropriate for you to call Sen. McCain a "pig"? And "old"? And stinky? Really, you think that this spin on your slander makes it all acceptable?

Of course you do. Because how dare we even begin to question you, someone who lives so high above the rest of us unwashed masses down here on Earth, right? Palin's just some broad without substance and good for nothing but eye-candy, and McCain is just some old pig who smells bad, right Senator? I can't wait to hear you call Palin "sweetie" or whatever it is you go around calling women this week.

So yes, by all means, call Palin a "pig" or "lipstick" or a "fish", or call McCain a "pig" and "old" and smelly. Because one thing we'll never call YOU is "President".

That may sound like four crazy words, but history says it's not so crazy after all. The Democrats have only won a majority of the vote in California  during a presidential election four times since the FDR-Truman years, out of a total of 13 elections. Three of those majority victories were the last three presidential elections -- 1996, 2000, and 2004. The other was Johnston in 1964. Prior to Johnston's victory, Wilson's 1916 victory is the only other Democratic Party victory in California's presidential vote since the 19th Century (and even then, the Democrats managed only four other victories in the entire time since California became a state.

Even during the liberal hysteria that swept much of the country through the 1960's and 1970's while "flower-children" and leftist radicals flocked to California, our party managed to keep winning California election after election. Bill Clinton couldn't manage a majority in 1992, and had to accept a plurality.

Our party has a long history of dominating California during presidential elections over the last 50+ years. We've elected 15 of the 19 governors elected after the 19th Century, including 3 of the last 4 (meaning we dominated through the Clinton years and only gave it up briefly to Ray Davis before he was recalled by voters). Democrats rely on winning a thin strip of voters straight down the coastline, and we take the rest.

More than a quarter of California's population is foreign-born. Over 35% of the population is Latino or Hispanic. African-Americans make up only about 7% of the population. Women make up half of the population. California also has a large percentage of gay residents. In these numbers are some of the keys to recent Democratic Party success in California, but also the keys to our party's retaking of the state.

The immigration issue was such a force in the 2006 mid-term elections that the winning Democratic Party margin can largely be found in the overwhelming rise in support for the Democrats within the Hispanic voting population. Our party tried desperately to use this issue, but it backfired and could be the single issue that really cost us our majority in Congress, even more than the war issue. John McCain can remove this problem our party has developed with Hispanic voters, especially if Mike Huckabee campaigns for him in California among the Hispanic communities. Sarah Palin also can reach out to these voters as a mother and a churchgoer. Palin can also help with female voters in the state, if she focuses on family issues and particularly the role of women in the workplace and in taking more leadership roles in government. Cutting into the Democratic margins among female and Hispanic voters will go a long way toward eroding the Democratic majority in the state. If our party can successfully challenge the Democrats in California this election, we can not only retain the White House, but also bring California back into the GOP fold.

So the Democrats think it's fine and dandy to mock Alaska. More moose than people, a dozen people and some caribou, and other such snide insults have been tossed around by liberals and the MSM since Sen. McCain announced Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Apparently the Democrats think it's acceptable to spit on states with smaller populations. Well, unless it's New Hampshire -- do you think the Democrats would dare mock residents of that state as unimportant and their leaders as unqualified? How about Montana? How about Wyoming, which actually has a smaller population than Alaska by the way? Why don't the Democrats just come out and say it: the only people who really "count" to liberals are those living in California, New York, and a handful of other left-leaning states. If you live in any states in-between, well forget about it, you aren't important and your leaders are worthless.

Palin is the only candidate on either ticket who actually has executive experience. She also has "legislative" experience from city council work. She also has business experience, what some of us who aren't named "Biden" call WORKING for a living. And she has family experience. Someone needs to inform the Democrats and the MSM that despite their smug opinions, the life experiences of people NOT named "Obama" happen to matter, too.

I seem to recall a lot of hoopla made about the fact that Obama's life OUTSIDE of the United States, his time pontificating about his place in the world while he snorted cocaine, and his time as a father are all supposedly very important and this life experience (especially, in typical liberal fashion, the time spent in other countries) is supposedly an actual qualification to be president. Yet being a working woman, a working mother, fighting for education and ethics reform in her community, and running an entire state aren't qualifications. Obama can spend four years doing nothing in Congress, on the heels of his time spent avoiding voting on anything in Illinois, and that (combined with his time as a child living in places not called "The United States") make him the best choice to lead our nation and command our armed forces. Oh, I forgot, he knows how much arugula costs... I guess that proves his superiority to all those knuckle-dragging normal people who live in Alaska with the moose, right?

And besides the actually very positive comparisons we can draw between Palin and Obama, how about a VP-to-VP comparison? If the Democrats want to talk about experience and qualifications, I'd like to point out that while it's indeed true that Biden has spent more than half his life sitting in chairs during committee meetings talking endlessly about his liberal ideas for foreign policy, that's not actually "experience". My uncle does that, too, with the minor difference that he doesn't bore us to death. While Biden's been holding his little meetings to explain in extremely long detail what he'd do if he were in charge (all of it wrong, of course) and spending months running for president (where he called Obama too inexperienced to be president but said he'd be "honored" to be McCain's VP), Governor Palin was running a state. Biden talks, Palin works. It's that simple.

So every time the liberals and the MSM spew some new insult about Alaska and why Palin running a state isn't experience, we need to remind them -- LOUDLY, so they can hear us over Biden talking about himself -- that a few years running a state full of working people counts for more than doing nothing in Congress for a few years more. Both Palin and Obama have spent less time as elected officials than their running mates. The difference is that the time Palin spent counts for something, and that the narrative of HER life was spent here in America and she's smart enough to be PROUD of that fact.

[Side Note: Can Republican crowds PLEASE stop booing and jeering, or otherwise making extremely unhelpful negative displays, when Palin refers to Hillary Clinton and her supporters? If you are endlessly committed to working against our party winning over women voters, reaching out to former Clinton supporters, and generally recognizing the importance of the impact of Clinton's campaign on women in politics and presidential elections -- then sure, by all means, continue to be unhelpful and obtuse and utterly kill important lines in Palin or McCain's speeches. Boo your hearts out, create embarrassing moments on television at our party's public events. But if, just by chance, you are showing up at the events because you perhaps SUPPORT conservative issues and actually maybe LIKE Palin, maybe -- just MAYBE -- consider not booing when she's trying to help our party's outreach strategies, okay? Yeah, just think it through, people. Thanks.]

With Sen. John McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate, the dynamics of the election have completely changed. Palin was perhaps the only alternative to Mike Huckabee as VP that has a chance of getting social conservatives to actively work for the Republican Party for the next ten weeks. Many, like me, are deeply disappointed that Huckabee was not selected, and it will take some time to assess the final choice and determine our next move and how actively we will work for McCain's campaign at this point.

However, some points should be made about the impact of Palin's selection on women voters. Some people assume the Democrats have an inherent, automatic edge with women voters. That is not actually true. The Democrats only topped the GOP in the last presidential election among SINGLE women without children. Mothers split evenly between the two parties, and in fact the GOP won among married women.

With so many female voters still angry about the manner in which the media treated Hillary Clinton, and with Obama's campaign for not only failing to speak out but also smirking and encouraging the anti-woman attacks by the MSM (particularly some of the most liberal media outlets, it should be noted, who in their messianic adoration of Obama were willing to dismiss their usual over-sensitivity about women's issues and restorted to outright misogyny for months). Then the leadership of the Democratic Party refused to say anything about the problem, or to issue any warnings to Obama's campaign to speak out or at least stop chuckling and egging it on.

Thus abandoned by the Democratic Party and by nominee Barrack Obama, women voters are feeling understandable anger and frustration. While it's doubtful that a large number of former Hillary Clinton supporting women will completely abandon the Democrats and their nominee to the extent the party and nominee abandoned women voters, it happens to be very likely that at least some of them will choose to look elsewhere. If our party can maintain the support from the segments of women voters that we earned in 2004, we would only need to add a few percentage points to those two groups, and then win as little as 5-8% of former Clinton backers from the remaining women voters. That would actually create a female voting block that alone would probably be enough to win the election easily, even if our support among other voting groups remains the same while Obama increases the turnout of African-American voters and youthful voters.

Palin also has the chance to tour the South with Mike Huckabee, and mobilize social conservatives. Her story as a mother who refused to abort her child despite grave assessments from doctors and others is precisely the sort of personal narrative on a key issue that can overcome disappointment about Huckabee's lack of a nomination. With him standing at her side while she relates her story, coupled with perhaps a break to do some fishing and meet with local NRA representatives, will do a lot to secure the South for our party. Beyond this, she must barnstorm the nation to speak with women's groups, particularly organizations for mothers, and speak about women's issues in the job market and education and politics. She must stress how important it is to the GOP to see women take on more leadership roles in our party, and the party must augment this by having every Republican woman in every state start speaking about this topic. It is time to end the Democrat-and-media sponsored myth that our party represents the opposite of women's issues and ambitions.

One added bonus to consider using would be to have her husband travel with her out West in certain states, like Nevada and Arizona, as well as states with voters who have Native-American heritage. Seen on stage and in public with her, as well as introducing her with a short speech noting his own heritage, would be a good way to add to a short message from Palin and McCain about his work on immigration policy and the bond between church-going Latino voters who should be a natural constituency for our party, were it not for some of the unfortunate and extremely over-the-top bashing immigrants got from some loud segments of our party in the past few years. Send Huckabee out West with McCain and Palin on this issue as well, for some added "oomph" to the message of both a more immigrant-friendly and church-goer friendly GOP ticket. Palin as a mother has much to say that would be welcome by Latino and Native-American mothers as well. The growing segment of immigrant small-business owners in key states like Nevada is also important and opens an additional avenue that our party can pursue with these voters -- they are a large and growing voting block, and if we ignore them and continue to bash them then we will pay the price this election and for many more to come.

Palin and McCain together should make a point of speaking loudly and frequently about their work on ethics reform. McCain should take an introductory role in many cases, giving his narrative about his work on ethics reform in the Senate, but then hand off the microphone to Palin and let her delve into the background she has in working for real substantive changes and reforms in the party and in government in general. Palin can stand as the symbol of women in the White House, social issues, and reform. She must be made a clear partner on the stump, and must be given the chance to speak forcefully on these issues again and again, aggressively and without allowing the media to send her off-topic or overshadow the narrative she must help create for herself and our party. Let her focus on domestic policy talking-points, but quietly and subtly prepare her for big, key foreign policy discussions and points to make on the stump and most importantly in the debates. Getting management of Iraq under control, dealing aggressively with Russia's resurgent military posturing, and trade matters would be the best talking-points for her to stick to.

Trade is an issue that can be linked to China, for example, and that has inherent overt and subtle defense-related undertones that work to our party's advantage much more than the Democrats. Russia likewise benefits our party greatly, and Biden and Obama can quite easily be demonstrated to be naive and weak in how they would deal with Russia compared to McCain and Palin. On Iraq, Palin should focus on better management of the situation and on our nation's responsibility to keep our promises to the Iraqi people and not desert them when victory is right in front of us all. This last point, about promises to the Iraqis and not deserting, should be the key talking-point for Palin. "Deserting" and "abandonment"/"abandoning" should be used repeatedly to accurately describe what the Democrats are proposing, as these are MUCH better talking-points than things like "cut-and-run". These are much more emotional, personal words and they will have a lot of power.

I'd also remind everyone during the debates that while Biden can certainly point to "many, many, many, many, MANY years sitting in the Senate talking on and on" with other windbags about foreign policy, that doesn't really add up to "experience". Especially when what he was saying was almost always wrong -- in fact, spending years pontificating with other people like himself apparently has never lead him to get better ideas or become more experienced in his understanding of the RIGHT kinds of foreign policy decisions. Poke at him, jab him, and the real Joe Biden will come out on stage and on television for everyone watching the debates to see.

Women as Leaders, Women as Mothers, Women as Reformers, from the South (she must begin there first, with Huckabee at her side) to the Mid-West (with other GOP and Independent women political and business leaders), an uninterrupted narrative to drown-out the inevitable lies and talking-points Obama's campaign will spread and that will be spoon-fed to the MSM. Palin could end up being McCain's ace in the hole, and could be the deciding factor in this election, if the campaign does it right.

Glen Beck's commentary at CNN today is excellent in many regards, but one issue in particular deserves to be looked at more closely: health care, and the 47 million people currently without health insurance in the United States. That sounds like a lot, because it is. But let's examine the numbers more closely, using the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau's report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.

About 38% of them – over 17 million – live in households making $50,000 or more per year.

About 20% of them – almost 10 million – aren't citizens of this nation.

About 33% of them – roughly 16 million – are eligible for govt insurance but aren't enrolled yet.

So, 43 million of that 47 million – or about 91% -- either can afford insurance, aren't even citizens of our country, or are already able to GET health care assistance but haven't.

So more than 33 million of the 47 million uninsured – or almost 79% -- either could afford insurance and just don't get it, or are eligible for health care assistance but haven't bothered to sign up.

Only 9% -- about 4 million people – are U.S. citizens who cannot afford insurance and are not eligible for government insurance. That is barely more than 1% of the population. Of course it is sad that anyone goes without health care insurance, and we should find ways to fix even that low number; but it does not signal an actual crisis, and is certainly something entirely manageable within the existing health care structure of this nation. And by the way, the 47 million number? That's one million LESS than it was before, which is more than a 2% reduction. That's a drop equivalent to 25% of the total number of people – 4 million – who currently lack insurance and cannot afford it but who aren't eligible for government insurance. If all of those one million people were among that group, then there was a 20% decline in the rate of uninsured people from that group.

And we might also consider that many of those (nearly 9 million) without insurance are children – a point Democrats love to make but ignore the implication that the overall number of households and families without insurance is actually very low, and as already noted the majority of them in fact either can afford insurance but choose to do without it or they are eligible for government insurance but choose not to enroll.

So what, exactly, have the Democrats – and their nominee, Senator Obama – done about the supposed health care "crisis"? Nothing. Obama, in fact, skipped nine of the 15 Senate votes on health related measures during his tenure. NINE. He missed 60% of the votes. At least Hillary Clinton can claim to have actually done a lot of work to create a gigantic monstrosity of a health care proposal once in her life.

No, there is no health care crisis in America. It is merely another Democratic party scare-tactic based on a myth.

While some reports claim Sen. John McCain has decided on a running mate and that the person will be notified today, the McCain campaign is denying those reports this morning. But McCain's VP pick will reportedly join him for a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, and some reports claim McCain will formally announce his running mate at an Ohio campaign event Friday.

It's probably safe to make a couple of guesses regarding who it WON'T be. Despite continued speculation, Sen. Joe Lieberman is almost surely no longer in the running. With recent polling demonstrating that Lieberman would in fact hurt the GOP's chances in some very important states; with Karl Rove himself working to keep Lieberman off the ticket; and with conservative commentators like Robert Novak, Henry Olsen, and many other conservatives expressing open opposition to Lieberman as the VP nominee, the odds are stacked against McCain so alienating the GOP's base and ignoring polling and high-level advice. Not to mention that Lieberman himself thinks he'd be a bad pick, and even said so publicly several months ago.

Likewise, Tom Ridge's pro-abortion views would create similar problems for McCain with the GOP base. The fact that Ridge is scheduled to introduce McCain and the running mate at the Pennsylvania rally on Saturday is a good indication that Ridge won't be the VP pick. While some party officials claim Ridge would be acceptable to the pro-life base if McCain can convince them that Ridge would adhere to McCain's positions, the fact is that McCain himself has to do more to win over Christian conservatives in order to get them to the polls in November. With so much convincing and mobilization still left to do, McCain is not in any position to rely on convincing the base to

The remaining top contenders seem to be Mitt Romney (whose real record should immediately disqualify him), Tim Pawlenty, and one would think Mike Huckabee.  Yes, Huckabee's name has largely been dropped from most discussions, but any well-considered analysis should place Huckabee's name at the top of any short-list. He is, in fact, the most obviously beneficial choice.

Many conservatives are now realizing -- and regretting -- that Huckabee did not end up as the presidential nominee, such as Adam Graham at The Conservative Voice. Now, however, even some folks at previously anti-Huckabee conservative outlets like National Review are reconsidering a McCain-Huckabee ticket and finally realizing some of the obvious benefits that pairing would bring to the ticket.

I'd like to now explain my own views regarding why Mike Huckabee is the only potential VP candidate who very quickly solves or makes much easier two crucial problems for McCain's campaign.

First and most important, it mobilizes the base who otherwise will simply not be excited enough about the GOP ticket to not merely favor them and vote for them, but actively go door to door to turn out the vote and work hard to get this ticket elected. Sure, these voters are probably much more inclined to vote for the Republican ticket against Obama anyway, but that is not enough. If they don't act as the foot soldiers in key states, if McCain cannot count on them to actively work for his election, and if he cannot guarantee a large turnout from this key constituency, he will not win the election. And right now, he simply has not got their full trust or their full commitment to vote, organize, and turn out for him.

Mike Huckabee will not only bring these voters onto the campaign, he will energize them and rally them to do the grassroots work the campaign desperately needs in order to confront the formidable organization Obama has developed on the ground. The Christian base has demonstrated for the last 28 years that they are instrumental to Republican success at the polls, and when they fail to turn out in large numbers and do the grassroots work to elect conservatives, we see election results like 2006. That will happen again this November for the presidential and Congressional races, if the presidential ticket does not mobilize the right people at the right time. Now is the time for McCain to pick the one and only running mate capable of setting in motion the sort of mobilization it will take to win: Mike Huckabee.

Secondly, Mike Huckabee will also solve another key issue facing McCain's campaign: shoring up the South. Conservatives make a huge mistake if they underestimate the potential danger in the next ten weeks that faces us in Southern states. If we do not sweep the South, we will not win. Obama's campaign has the money and the ground campaign to force our party to expend a lot of resources in the South, lest we risk an upset in a few key states that would cost us the election. Mike Huckabee can and will solidify our dominance in the South, and no other candidate can do this. His appeal here is on several levels, beginning with the already mentioned ability to mobilize Christians and churches to confront Obama's organizing head-on. Add to this Huckabee's immediate strong appeal as a former governor from the South, and his personal roots in the poor and working class community. He speaks from personal experience, and can engage voters on economic and social issues because he understands them. The voters respond to him, they know he understands their concerns and their difficulties, and this is why Huckabee made such a strong showing during the primaries.

If McCain is largely freed of the need to expend excess resources in the South, every penny he saves there is a penny spent in swing states or to actually challenge Obama in typically "safe" Democrat states. And here, too, Huckabee has a strong role to play that nobody else but McCain himself could play. Huckabee, like McCain, can make a strong argument to the Hispanic voters, a group that has absurdly been ignored and marginalized by our party at a time when they are surging in relevance. If we concede the Hispanic vote to the Democrats now, they will solidify their hold on those voters and we won't just risk loosing this election, we will in fact guarantee a growing electoral tidal wave against our party in the years to come. NOW is the time to make a stand and fight for this up-and-coming block of voters, at least to win over enough of them to deny Democrats a huge coalition majority that includes overwhelming support from the Hispanic community.

McCain has some appeal to the Hispanic voters, but he has an opportunity to make more inroads and shrink the size of Democratic dominance in that voting block. Mike Huckabee would help strengthen this drive to win over a larger percentage of Hispanics, because perhaps no other Republican candidate has spoken more eloquently and forcefully to the issues concerning Hispanic voters while making his arguments in ways that in fact appeal to some of the most heartfelt core beliefs of the GOP Christian base. If that base can be won over to Huckabee's arguments concerning immigration policy, and if this in turn allows those voters to assist in Huckabee's outreach to Hispanic voters in states like Arizona, Nevada, and California, then the GOP has a chance to establish a base in a few Western states from which to work to build a larger Hispanic voting block for our party. Mike Huckabee should be McCain's "ambassador" to those voters, and any other candidate in fact works against this strategy and ultimately would instead ensure Democratic dominance of a growing Hispanic voting population that will soon play a deciding factor in elections for many years.

Mike Huckabee also brings strong credentials to the education issue, which is not appreciated as the important issue it could be in targeting key constituencies in certain states like Michigan. Huckabee would have a very strong argument, much stronger than the Democratic presidential ticket, regarding education reform and an unquestionable commitment to improvements and innovations in education policy. Members of teachers unions would be especially open to Huckabee's arguments, and that is no small thing in states that are currently facing big battles concerning public education and the teachers unions. These happen to be some of the same states where Huckabee's resonance with poor and working class economic issues also would have strong appeal, and that combination would further strengthen the grassroots work of his Christian supporters in such states, and it could solidify the GOP's hold on certain states while winning over a few of the swing states in this category.

There are a few assertions and lies about Huckabee that some of his detractors put forward, but those are easily refuted. The primary "negative" that other conservatives use against Huckabee is the tax issue, but that is in fact a non-issue. We should obviously consider Ronald Reagan's time as governor in California as a comparison, for example; we should consider Huckabee's platform regarding the Fair Tax during his presidential campaign; we should consider that McCain himself once opposed President Bush's tax cuts but now has vowed to make them permanent; and we should consider that there is a difference between Huckabee's views on how a governor must run his state compared to his views on the role of the federal government, ultimately the key factor for anyone serious about Federalism.

But really, perhaps the most important thing to consider is that our party's fate in November will not rise and fall on foot soldiers on tax policy doing grassroots, energized campaigning. It is simply the blunt truth that fiscal conservatives will largely support the GOP ticket because however much they might grouse about Huckabee's tax policies during the primaries, in the end they know the above points (Reagan's record, the Fair Tax, Federalism, etc) are true and they know the severe economic dangers that exist if Obama wins. Even with all of the complaints about President Bush's economic record in terms of government spending etc, in the end fiscal conservatives are some of the most dependable voters for our party because differences tend to be very small and nuanced, and they know ultimately what is economically best for this nation and vote accordingly. It is a matter of overall agreements and shared philosophy, a matter of practicality and finance.

This is why it happens to be very different from the issue of whether Christian conservative voters, for example, need to be mobilized. One cannot realistically compare the motivations of people organized around issues of spiritual faith and core moral beliefs (I will not vote for someone who is pro-abortion, for example, because it is a personal moral principle about which there can be no compromise), to people who have differences of opinion about the degree to which a particular tax policy should be tweaked or debates over how much deficit is too much etc. Fiscal conservatives do not believe that their Creator and Lord will judge them based on their commitment to a specific percentage drop in fiscal spending. Christian voters know that they can actively mobilize and oppose abortion and other issues regardless of the November vote, and that there is a long-term strategy they must adhere to or they will cease to be relevant anyway (so voting pro-abortion would be the same as not voting at all anyway, since they lose on their issue and they lose influence with the party). This is why I say that the facts about Huckabee's record on taxes, his commitment to different policies at the federal level, and the overall superiority of Republican economic policy should make it very clear that McCain should not view his VP selection as a way to shore up fiscal conservatives who still express any worry about his campaign, because it is simply a non-issue.

Mike Huckabee is the only rational choice for the VP nomination. I have faith that John McCain will make the right choice, and that he is aware that some choices -- Lieberman, Ridge, and Romney most obviously -- will cost him a significant portion of the GOP base, will add no real advantages to the ticket, and will thus cost him the election. Mike Huckabee will shores up the base, shores up the South and thus also saves resources to go on the offense in key Western states rather than on the defense in the South, he moves the GOP strongly in the direction of cutting into Democratic Party dominance of the Hispanic vote (adding to the ability to go on offense in the West), he speaks to working class and poor voters -- particularly in important Mid-Western states, and he has the ability to make targeted appeals to certain voters like teachers and mothers regarding education and health care in several important states as well.

If McCain does not pick Huckabee, then the GOP has signaled a sea change in terms of their commitment to Christian voters, and we will see a return to the domination of the party by moderate fiscal conservatives who have for years fought to wrestle control of the party back into their hands and to leave behind the policies that are most important to social conservatives and Christians. Our party must look to the future, and that means the future beyond November 2008. It will be a future without the support of social conservatives and Christians, with a tiny single-digit support among one of the fastest-growing voting blocks in the nation (Hispanic voters), and with a dwindling dominance in the South, if the party fails to nominate Mike Huckabee as Vice President.

If Obama wants to make the "elitist" label stick, he is doing a marvelous job. Consider his remarks about McCain's and Clinton's suggestions that the gas tax be suspended during summer months. Obama says it wouldn't be worth it, because it would only save an average of $30 per family and is simply a short-term solution.

Let's try some simple math. Summer is about three months long. Divide $30 by three, and you get $10 per month.

For people who actually work for a living, unlike Senator Obama (and I don't just mean that as a slight against Democratic politicians, I mean it even more literally, in light of Obama's tendency to skip work), $10 a month can in fact make a difference.  You can buy a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a carton of eggs, and a five-pound bag of sugar with that $10. That's an extra week's worth of staple grocery items at a time when prices for such goods are on the increase, and if you are a parent with mouths to feed, an extra week's worth of those groceries every month is very helpful.

Or that $10 could be seen as a little government subsidy for the energy bill each month, during summer months when energy bills run higher. A ten percent subsidy on the first $100 of your electric or gas bill can be a big help for a working-class or poor family.

How about using the $10 for an extra three or four gallons of gas, to get to work or pick up the kids from school or take your family to the park? I don't know anybody who would turn down $10 per month in free gasoline, do you? Look at it that way, and it doesn't seem so worthless after all, does it?

An extra week's worth of groceries each month, a subsidy for your energy bills, or three free gallons of gas every month -- that's what the gas tax suspension equates to for working and poor families in this country, and that is why this simple proposal can be a helpful little short-term friend for a lot of households. When people are already struggling to support their families on just a little bit, every extra little bit helps.

Obama and others like him dismiss the importance of such things, precisely because of their contempt for the average family. Already displayed through things like his dismissal of gun ownership and church attendance as things embraced only by bitter rednecks, Obama's elitist attitudes and utter failure to relate to working Americans is further clarified by his new opposition to helping those same Americans buy more food, more gas, and pay their bills. Maybe someone needs to point out to him that he can use his own $10 a month in savings as a government subsidy for pricey arugula.

One of Obama's criticisms of the gas tax suspension is that it would in fact increase demand and thus not help bring down prices. Well, the first rather obvious problem with this snotty attitude is that it pretty much debunks Obama's own suggestions, like the plan to stop buying oil for the strategic reserve. If there is more oil on the market, the price would go down, right? Oops, wrong, since increased demand would drive the price higher again, remember? Anything that brings down the price inherently would raise demand, and increased demand is at the heart of Obama's claim that prices won't drop.

Obama also keeps repeating the empty rhetorical line that gas tax suspension is just a short-term solution when what we need are long-term solutions. So, it appears that Obama doesn't think that sometimes short-term relief is necessary while bratty elitists work out their long-term solutions. When did Senator McCain (or Senator Clinton) state that the gas tax suspension is the only plan? Why does Obama falsely pretend it's an "either-or" situation? Because he's disingenuous, he can't relate to the day-to-day problems working people face, and he pretty much looks down his nose at and resents any idea that isn't his own, that's why.

(And apparently, Obama must've forgot that in fact, gas tax suspension was his idea previously. Yeah, that's right -- he voted for a gas tax holiday THREE TIMES.)

People are hurting right now. They will be hurting more this summer, as gas prices and energy bills and food prices rise even more. Yes, obviously we need long-term solutions, but in the meantime something should be done to help people get by while the grand schemes for the future are debated and studied endlessly. The gas tax suspension is a simple idea that admittedly brings short-term, moderate relief, but that is something a lot of families would benefit from in the here and now. The here and now, however, is someplace that Obama doesn't seem to live in. He resides on some alternate plain of existence where he transcends the problems and shortcomings of us mere mortals, where change, the future, the inadequacies of those he seeks to rule, and the just massive size of his own great big brainy brain are the only concepts he has time to contemplate.

Me? I'll take the $10 a month, thank you. I work for a living, and I've got bills to pay.

This is a follow-up to my last blog entry, "What You Aren't Hearing About South Carolina".

With just one more primary left in January, John McCain has staged a political comeback that few people expected. Likewise, Mike Huckabee was relegated to the third tier of "also-ran" candidates and almost nobody anticipated his stunning move into second place in the contest. Now, however, both of these underestimated men have shown the strength and determination to face down difficult odds and rise to the top of the Republican field.

I personally believe that McCain's victory in New Hampshire, and the strong showing of McCain and Huckabee in South Carolina, signal an end to the "wide-open" nature of the race and create essentially a two-man contest between John McCain and Mike Huckabee. January will end with McCain and Huckabee winning all of the most important states while Romney grabbed a few states with little or no bearing on the eventual outcome, with the single exception of  his home state of Michigan. With McCain and Huckabee surging in national polls and in key states that demonstrate electabilty and regional strength, we will likely see Thompson dropping out of the race (having remained in primarily to help McCain in South Carolina by pulling votes from Huckabee) and a further surge in McCain and Huckabee's numbers from Thompson's supporters. Romney has not gained the traction or enough support to do more than hope for a miracle on Super Tuesday, and will probably have to drop out after that big day.

The party can ill afford a long, inconsistent slug-fest among our best candidates, which will weaken them all and could handicap the eventual nominee by both bruising him and the potential vice presidential picks, and by widening divisions and resentments among our voting coalition. So the emergence of a two-man race at this point is a very good thing indeed, especially since I think the two top candidates will very likely share the ticket in November.

Such a combination brings strong advantages that should be immediately evident. It weds foreign policy conservatives and social conservatives while providing congressional experience with governing experience, not to mention the obvious advantages it brings in the South. Among conservative voters, these two candidates cover the bases on the issues most important to conservative voters while appealing to independents, plus opening doors on some other issues not traditionally considered viable territory for conservatives or at least usually available among only a narrow constituency – education and the environment, and to some extent economic disparity (Huckabee is often criticized for his concerns about this, but the truth is that a significant segment of voters, and of conservative voters, are worried about their economic situation and feel left behind, and they deserve to have their concerns represented).

If conservatives will overcome their lingering anger with McCain and Huckabee on the immigration issue (a topic that won't help Democrats in the general election, so this is only a problem if it dampens Republican voter turnout), the only real barrier that still exists will be removed from their road to the nomination as a ticket that would be unbeatable in the general election. McCain represents more than any other candidate the heart of Republican foreign policy and security policy. Huckabee represents more than any other candidate (for years, in fact) the heart of Republican social values. McCain has worked in Congress and knows what it takes to get an agenda accomplished, he has reached across the isle to get things done, and has passed important legislation. Huckabee has governed, he has ran an executive branch and had to work both with and against a legislature. Their shared experience is precisely what American needs.

Those who say these two men are not fiscally conservative enough are mistaken. McCain's record speaks for itself, and he has over these many years been a consistently reliable conservative. The fact that he has on a few occasions allowed his concern for the best interests of our nation to intrude into his consideration of a couple of massive tax breaks, because he was unsure if it would actually help or might not be prudent or responsible at the time, doesn't mean he's not fiscally conservative. It means he honestly assesses whether there are times here and there when a huge tax cut might need to wait just a bit, for the interest of our nation, or whether the way it is being done might not be the best way at that time. But this is an exception, not a rule, to McCain's voting, and his real record is fiscally conservative, whatever his detractors might dishonestly claim about him right now in their attempts to force Mitt Romney upon our party.

Mike Huckabee's record has also been attacked as fiscally liberal, and again this is disingenuous at best. The same people claiming a Huckabee nomination would destroy our party would've apparently said the same thing about Ronald Reagan back in 1980, I guess. See, the entire point of conservatism is small government that cuts spending and sends as many decisions and as much funding of programs as possible back to the states. States should, as often as possible, be the ones making those determinations and then creating the sources of funding if it's needed (rather than coming to Washington with their hands held out). As a governor, you must make decisions and enact programs and legislation in ways that are different from how you might decide and what you'd be willing to enact from the White House. This is an entirely consistent viewpoint about the role of states and federal government, and anyone who understands these processes or the actual philosophy of our party knows this. So again, if the people distorting the truth about Huckabee's record now had been around in 1979 and 1980, they'd have done their best to keep Ronald Reagan out of the White House.

John McCain and Mike Huckabee deserve to share the Republican ticket in November, and it will be one of the strongest tickets our party has put forward in many decades in terms of experience, strength, representing our base, and having a clear and compelling vision for our nation in the future.

Both men also bring a special voice to the things they represent, too, something that has been missing even among some of the best conservatives in government: when McCain and Huckabee speak about foreign policy or social values, their voices sound like our party's conscience. Many Republicans will talk about abortion, or about how to conduct war -- but Mike Huckabee reminds us that life doesn't begin at conception and end at the birth-canal, and that being pro-life sometimes has to mean providing prenatal care for an illegal immigrant to save her baby; and John McCain reminds us that when we consider whether or not to torture terrorism suspects in the course of a war we simply cannot afford to loose, it's not about who "they are", it's about who WE are and who we want to be as a nation. Huckabee speaks about morals and faith as a former preacher, McCain speaks about moral certainty in how we conduct war as a veteran and former POW victim of torture. I don't think we should forget or underestimate this role as voices of conscience for conservative principles, because it is something that many of us now realize has been perhaps missing or forgotten for a while, and we welcome it's return.

Our candidates, our GOP ticket for the general election, and our next President and Vice President of the United States, are in front of us now. I hope and pray that we realize it, and that as a party we move forward as one.

John McCain's win in South Carolina was no doubt huge for his campaign, and will help secure his position as the front-runner in our party.

Several prominent conservative celebrities and pundits have been singing the praises of Mitt Romney, saying he is the true conservative in the race for the nomination and that he more than anyone else embodies the Reagan legacy. This chorus of pro-Romney voices is growing larger by the week, and was given a bump by Romney's win in Michigan. Well, with all due respect to these usually dependable conservative pundits and voices, they are absolutely 100% wrong. Mitt Romney's real record tells us many things, but being a conservative and the heir to Ronald Reagan's legacy are not among them.

Let's start by looking at Romney's much-trumpeted record as a businessman.

Mitt Romney's time in private industry was mostly spent in leveraged buyouts -- including using junk bonds to finance buyouts and hanging out with indicted junk bonds guru Michael Milken -- some of which put large numbers of people out of jobs and caused bankruptcies that left stock owners broke but made huge profits for Romney and his firm. Romney also sat on the board of one company that swindled the government out of millions of dollars (the company plead guilty to defrauding in the amount of $25 million), due to Romney's lax oversight. He later openly lied about the situation, trying to claim personal credit for starting an investigation into the situation and saying the problem was solved under his watch. The truth is that court documents show the defrauding continued under Romney's watch (and his firm tripled their investment in the company), and that someone else eventually halted the swindling. Romney personally made nearly half a million dollars out of the deal.

When the firm was in danger of going under, Romney was put in charge of saving it -- and this started his reputation as a turn-around man. Well, what exactly did he do? He made the founding partners give back $30 million they took from the employee-stock ownership plan and another $100 million in notes. Then he stopped paying bills, renegotiated debts, and got rid of a couple hundred employees. So, he took back money, stopped paying the bills, refinanced debt, and fired people. Well, that's not exactly some "out of left field" decision-making, folks.

How about the Olympics? Well, Romney pledged publicly not to take any "severance pay" for his work with the Olympics (and he himself notes this promise in his book Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games), and then went ahead and took a nearly half a million dollars severance payment anyway (in addition to his salary for the job). Then, apparently deciding he may as well see how much more he could squeeze out of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee, he then lobbied the committee for 25 MORE such payments to his senior managers as well.

Oh, and the whole "scandal-plagued" Olympics situation Romney came in to clean up and turn around? Well, turns out Romney is close friends with -- and later took political donations from -- David E. Simmons, one of the two people blamed for the entire scandal in the first place.

Mitt Romney's track record as manager of a state holds even worse signs of how he would govern as president.

According to researchers at the Center for Market Studies at Northeastern University, Massachusetts was behind the rest of the country as a whole on "all key labor market measures", frequently at or near the bottom in fact.  Manufacturing payroll employment in Massachusetts was the third worst in the nation during Romney's term as Governor. The researches also stated, "Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," and was one of the two states that had no rise in resident labor force. Median real weekly  earnings fell by about 2 percent for full-time and salaried workers during Romney's term, and in 2005 median household income fell about 3 percent from its 2000 level. By 2005, Massachusetts had the fourth-highest median home prices in the nation. This combination of poor economic conditions resulted in (and then was further enhanced by) a large outmigration of people of working age, the second-highest rate in the nation when Hurricane Katrina's depopulation effect is excluded.

The Cato Institute noted that Romney "balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix."

Click here to see a chart comparing Massachusetts' economic stats under Romney, with the statistics for the rest of the nation.  It's not a pretty picture, and it does much to dispel some of the myths Romney and his new band of cheerleaders are trying to promote.

Now let's look at Romney's position on abortion, since he seems to be running away from his previous positions as fast as he can.

It was just three years ago that Mitt Romney endorsed former Planned Parenthood attorney Rocky Anderson, the Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City . But that's just in keeping with his long record of supporting abortion.

When he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."  And he argued on camera during a debate in that election that he was more liberal than Kennedy!  Romney further explained during the debate, "[M]y mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see my wavering on that."

During his campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney was endorsed by the pro-abortion group Pro-Choice Coalition, and during a debate he got into an argument with his Democratic rival about which of them was the most pro-abortion.  His campaign Web site included the assertion: "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Romney answered YES to all of these questions during the campaign, on a questionnaire from Planned Parenthood: "Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?"; "Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women?"; and "In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?"

Click here to see Romney defending abortion and stating his support for its legality.  And click here to see him explaining his pro-abortion position on camera yet again.  Then click here to see him saying he has no links to the pro-life movement.

And once governor, Romney signed into law a health care plan that did in fact provide tax-funded abortion (click here to see the actual document on the Web site for the state health care program, and look at the first list of benefits under "What benefits will I get?").  Incredibly, if you click here you will see that the law funding the plan states that Planned Parenthood is on the payment policy advisory board, but Romney never did anything to change this part of the law either (but you'll notice he did object to and change other parts of the law).

The truth is plain for anyone to see -- Mitt Romney has been a longtime supporter of abortion, and is now simply being dishonest about his past positions. There is little reason to believe that for the first 50+ years of his life he was outspokenly pro-abortion, and enacted policies as governor that advanced this pro-abortion position, but suddenly when he decided to run for president he at long last changed his views. And it is disingenuous at best for prominent conservatives to make excuses for Romney and his shameless dishonesty about his views on abortion.

Mitt Romney is not a true fiscal conservative, nor is he an honest businessman or someone who we should trust to handle our economy. He is also not conservative on social issues either, as his long and strong support for abortion should clearly demonstrate. That he attempts to cover up this embarrassing past is yet one more piece of evidence that he cannot be trusted, and does not deserve the support of conservative commentators or voters.

The tendency of Barrack Obama to vote "present" on controversial matters during his time in the Illinois State Senate is getting some media attention lately, and his campaign has sought to dismiss the criticism by claiming there were good, sound political strategies involved in Obama's decision to avoid voting.

The most absurd aspect of the whole story is not his votes -- which are already pretty absurd -- but rather his attempted defense of those votes.  Obama's defense of not doing the job he was elected to do? He couldn't vote on those bills, because his votes would've been used against him when he ran for reelection.

HUH? Since when is it a legitimate argument to say, "I didn't vote on that bill, because it would hurt my political future." Even worse is that much of the liberal press has actually accepted this ridiculous, indefensible opportunistic point of view.  So, pretty absurd and inexcusable, right?

Oh, but wait -- it gets better!  Not only does he admit his votes (or lack thereof) were based on purely political calculations, and not only does the mainstream media accept and defend his argument.  Deciding to just take the ball and run with it, Obama and his supporters say that not voting out of personal political opportunism is in fact an example of true leadership on these issues he wouldn't vote on!

What is interesting is that during all this examination of Obama's record in the Illinois Senate, nobody is raising the issue of Obama's serial non-voting in Congress.  Let's take a look at how he voted during his long one-year career in the U.S. Senate:

He skipped voting on 26 of 59 budget, spending, and tax measures – that means he didn't bother to vote on 44% of these measures during his entire career in the Senate. He skipped NINE out of fifteen votes on health related measures. He skipped voting on FIVE of six transportation measures in 2007.  He skipped voting on FOUR of five welfare-related measures. He skipped voting on about half of environmental-related measures. He skipped voting on half of education measures. He constantly skipped out on votes relating to farm subsidies and agriculture expenditures.

He voted AGAINST a bill that would deny legal status to undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms. But then he voted FOR a bill reducing the number of guest workers. Now, regardless of one's view on immigration in general, if you had to choose between allowing in MORE criminals or MORE legal workers, which would you choose? That's all I'm saying!

He skipped voting on future military funding for Iraq, as well as multiple other Iraq funding measures, skipped voting on the Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, after first voting AGAINST it a few months earlier; and he also skipped voting on the measure designation Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But he's been running around the country for months saying he opposes the war and that he'll end the war, while being unwilling to go on record about any of it.  I'm not saying he should have voted for a withdrawal, I'm just saying he's like a lot of cowardly liberals who say something but are unwilling to actually risk backing it up with action.

Finally, in an apparent attempt to continue his strong record of leading by non-example from his grand days in the Illinois Senate, Obama skipped voting on two of three abortion-related bills in Congress. At least on this issue, his vote -- or rather, non-vote -- has remained consistent, I guess.

Well, that's one way to ensure the Republican candidate won't be able to attack him for his record in the Senate -- just avoid having one!

If you are standing up, you may want to sit down before hearing this.

Andrew Malcolm, a blogger for the Los Angeles Times Web site, wrote yesterday that Huckabee's endorsement by the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (BASS) founder Ray Scott doesn't matter, basically because "it's fishing and who cares", to paraphrase his stuck-up "I'm from California and we're too cool for anything that doesn't happen in California" attitude (I guess nobody fishes in that coastal state).

I know some of you will be skeptical that a West coast liberal would act elitist, or would mock something like fishing that average normal people do, but I have a theory that might explain what's going on. Ready? The Los Angeles Times are a bunch of snobs.

Shocking, I know. But this is the conclusion I've reached, and I promise you it is not merely based on this single blog entry by precious Mr. "ew, warm beer and bugs!" Malcolm.  No, I now believe that there is probably a consistent, stuck-up overall 'tude at the Times.

I can see Andy and his pals sitting around reading about the endorsement, saying things like, "Fishing? Who the heck fishes? Even as the largest fishermen's group in the world, BASS is still low-brow entertainment for hicks, isn't it?"  Maybe someone choked on some brie while laughing at the strange inclinations of the unwashed, beer-swilling masses. Apparently, it hasn't occurred to the Times that Michigan, being right beside a great big LAKE, might have some citizens who are interested in fishing. Or that the difficulties facing the Michigan fishing industry might make people inclined to listen if one candidate is endorsed by the largest fishermen's organization in the world. Funny that a paper based in California, which in case you didn't know is right beside a big body of water (which is where fish live, in case anyone from the Times is reading this), would be so condescending about the kinds of folks who like fishing.

Hey Andy? That sushi you and your chique liberal friends love so much? It's fish, Andy. FISH. Someone somewhere probably had to go fishing for it -- maybe in a great big boat, with nets, but it's still a type of fishing, Andy. And the folks working on those great big boats that catch fish so snobs like you can suck down your dainty sushi? Those folks aren't very clean when they work, and they smell kinda bad. They also probably like beer. And they probably hate stuck-up elitist liberal intellectuals like you, Andy.

Ron Paul claims that he is not the author of racist comments published under his own name in his newsletter in Texas, back in the 1990's.  This issue has reared it's ugly head again in the last couple of days, and Ron Paul and his supporters are in overdrive trying to deny the allegations that Ron Paul is a closet racist, and that the columns in question were written by someone else and Paul wasn't aware of their bigoted content.

Well, they are right about one thing -- Ron Paul is not a "closet" racist, he is in fact a rather open one, or at least WAS until he started trying to remake himself as a good little libertarian for this election.

Here's a sample list of excerpts from news stories during the 1996 campaign, where Ron Paul and his staff DEFENDED and accepted credit for racist commentaries -- not just against blacks, but against Jews as well -- in his newsletters.

Dallas Morning News, 5-22-96:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report:  "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

Houston Chronicle, 5-23-96:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

Austin American-Statesman, 5-23-96:

"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said.  "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible.  And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views.  The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said.

"Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]

"You have to understand what he is writing.  Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said.  "His writings are intellectual.  He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

Washington Post, 5-26-96:

Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

"Ron knows our society and our nation has done some horrible things to the black community, which has pushed a majority of young black men in some areas, in Washington, D.C., for example, into criminal activities," Sullivan said.

Dallas Morning News, 7-25-96:

Dr. Paul, who faces Mr. Morris in the 14th District race for the U.S. House, dismissed the criticism as "name-calling and race-baiting." [...]

In a written statement, Dr. Paul said, "Repeated attempts by my liberal opponent to reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting is just more of the same old garbage we expect from his camp and will not deter me from continuing to address the real issues."

Dr. Paul said his opinions about Ms. Jordan, who died earlier this year, "represented our clear philosophical difference."

Roll Call, 7-29-96:

In a statement, Paul said he had "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" and charged Morris with "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting."

He called Morris's request that he release all back issues of the newsletter "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career."

Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes."

San Antonio Express-News, 9-30-96:

Paul's spokesman Michael Quinn Sullivan said the candidate does not want to "rehash" old issues. [...]

Paul has said he opposes racism and accused Morris of reducing the campaign to "name-calling and race-baiting." 

Houston Chronicle, 10-11-96:

Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."

Sullivan said it was "silly" to try to make a political issue of something written in an "abstract" sense. [...]

Ron Paul took responsibility for authoring those columns, back in 1996, and he defended their content and even attempted to explain some of the remarks to show how and why he was correct to have written what he did. His current attempts to distance himself from the newsletter columns, and to deny authorship, totally contradict his position and claims from 1996.

BUSTED, Ron. Drop out of this race now, and spare yourself more embarrassment... and spare us the spamming from your crazed fans.  (Want an example of just how crazy they are? Ask Sean Hannity...)

You can't even make it through the first paragraph of the recent Max Blumenthal column without tripping over two outright lies and one example of extreme hypocrisy.

His article, accusing Mike Huckabee of being a "radical cleric" (attempting to insult Huckabee with comparisons to terrorism), begins by claiming Huckabee "called for quarantining homosexuals".  That's a complete lie. The truth is that about 16 years ago, Mike Huckabee was speaking during the height of public fears about AIDS at a time when little was still known about the disease, and he said that in such a public health crisis it was surprising that infected persons were not being isolated from the general public the way any other serious public health risk would be isolated. His point was that standard medical and social safety procedures were not being used because of political implications. Remember the recent stories about TB infected airline passengers? They were grabbed and forcibly isolated fast. Considering the speed with which AIDS was spreading, how deadly and miserable the disease was, and how we now face a global public health crisis because so little was done for so many years to address the problem, it's hard to imagine how anyone can totally hold Huckabee's remarks against him since in fact his idea would have probably saved a lot of lives -- a lot of lives of homosexuals, too.

At any rate, Max Blumenthal's assertion is false, and he owes Huckabee an apology. Come to think of it, he owes homosexuals an apology too, since he is implying that Huckabee's desire to isolate people with AIDS automatically translates into quarantining gays. Isn't that presumptuous of Blumenthal?

Blumenthal also grossly exaggerates Huckabee's overall view towards homosexuality by expanding the "isolation" suggestion from just AIDS patients to all gay people, giving the impression Huckabee was not just concerned about a major health threat to our nation and the globe, but rather was concerned with denying all civil liberty to all gay people everywhere. Well, Huckabee's actual position has been one of opposing homosexuality as behavior, and indeed seeking to prevent granting special privileges and extending traditional benefits to people choosing such behavior. However, he has NOT tried to deny basic rights to gay people, and as he noted publicly on CNN's "Larry King Live" last month, he would allow homosexuals to work in his administration:


Being against a behavior, and being unwilling to grant special rights and privileges for that behavior, is not the same as willingness to openly discriminate against a person in all aspects of their lives. Mike Huckabee never suggested a broad intent to separate gays from all of society, the way Max Blumenthal dishonestly tries to imply.

This hack also goes on to claim Huckabee compared homosexuality to necrophilia. That's another lie. Huckabee didn't "compare" anything. He wrote a book in 1998 called "Kids Who Kill", in which he referred to "publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations" that he was speaking out against, and he listed them as "homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia." If you said that you you are against abortion and high taxes, are you comparing high tax rates to the murder of unborn children? Or a closer parallel might be to say "I oppose publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations such as homosexuality, abortion, profane music entertainment, and atheism." Well, I can tell you now that I do not consider profanity anywhere near comparable to abortion, or atheism, or homosexuality. And I don't think homosexuality approaches the aberrant nature of killing unborn children in their mothers' wombs. But are they all legitimate examples of aberrant aspects of our society that are endorsed and supported openly and institutionally? Yes. Huckabee was listing several things that are specifically related to sexual behavior, but that does not mean he is attempting to equate one with another in a literal sense. Sex with a dead body is vile in ways entirely different than raping children, folks -- and both are horrible in ways very different than someone engaging in sadomasochism with another sadomasochist.

But of course, Max Blumenthal wants to give the false impression that Huckabee actually said that homosexuality was comparable in and of itself to necrophilia, as if there was a direct equation of the two. Mike Huckabee did indeed denounce homosexual behavior, and has many times said he thinks it is sinful. However, Blumenthal is using alarmist language and lies to give the impression that Huckabee's words and intent are more radical and fringe than is really the case. Do most Americans think that consensual gay sex is literally the same as someone digging up a corpse and molesting it? Probably not. Do most Americans oppose gay marriage? Yes, they do. Being opposed to gay lifestyles is not some fringe attitude, and Blumenthal is dishonest for trying to misrepresent Huckabee's position.

Blumenthal then goes on to sling mud at Mike Huckabee because of Kenneth Copeland, one of the members of the board of regents at Oral Roberts University being investigated regarding misuse of funds. Well, first of all let's keep in mind that Mr. Copeland has not been convicted of ANYTHING, much less indicted. But hey, Blumenthal apparently has the special power of knowing someone is guilty or not without need for due process, evidence, or things like that.

More to the point, this whole "guilt-by-association" attempt he's making to attack Huckabee seems a bit surprising, in light of things like Obama's links to indicted crooks in Illinois and shady political characters in Hawaii. Might Hillary Clinton also have some potentially questionable links to a bad fundraiser that you can think of? Oh, but they are liberals, so they won't get any mud tossed on them for their "guilt-by-association", will they Mr. Blumenthal? Especially not a Clinton, eh? My suspicion is that Blumenthal's contempt for Copeland stems not from the potential fundraising scandal, but instead from the mere fact that Mr. Copeland is a televangelist. The overall tone of Blumenthal's article, attacking Huckabee primarily because of the candidate's openness about his faith and Christian views. Watch the little video that Max Blumenthal and Thomas Shomaker created to mock Huckabee's own "Christian Leader" ad, to see their disrespectful use of images of Christ's crucifixion to attack Huckabee's faith and positions. That's the real thrust of Blumenthal's and other people's disdain and repeated attacks on Huckabee -- his faith, his willingness to discuss his faith, and that Huckabee represents people in this nation who elitists like Blumenthal (and some within our own party, sadly) look down upon.

Well, luckily, Blumenthal and his ilk make our job easy. Their shamelessness leads them time and again to lie so openly and quickly, that refuting them requires little more than just pointing out exactly what they said. But it is important to do so, to point and denounce their lies, to let them know they will NOT get away with it. I hope others will spread the word, and call out liars like Max Blumenthal and any others who think they can get away with such dishonesty.