Michael Barone has a new piece over at the American titled “The GOP’s Real Problems for 2012″. He writes:

Nonetheless I still think Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a strong presidential nominee in 2012, as I reflect on their difficulty in doing so in 2008. For as I look back on that Republican nominating contest, it seems to me that none of the Republican candidates had a good strategy for winning the nomination. And if a candidate does not win the nomination, it does not really matter how strong he (or she) would be in the general election.

Sensible enough huh?  He then lays out 5 implications for 2012, based on each of the major candidates’ 2008 runs. 

1.  (From McCain):  you can’t hope to win by waiting for every other candidate’s strategy to fail unless you have an in with Lady Luck.

2.  (From Rudy):  You cannot wait too long to compete. If you bypass New Hampshire, you must compete in Iowa, or vice versa, or very soon thereafter.

3.  (From teh Fred):  Either compete strongly and early enough in Iowa to make a good showing in the straw poll or stay out of Iowa altogether (as John McCain did, to not significant detriment, in 2000 and effectively did, to no significant detriment, in 2008).

4.  (From Huckabee):  Huckabee or a candidate with a similar profile can corner the votes of evangelical and born-again Christians and, starting with Iowa, can round up a significant number of delegates…But otherwise he is in the position of Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic contests, able to run a significant second or third thanks to strong support from one of the party’s core constituencies but unable to run first.

5.  (From Romney): Run as yourself. Emphasize your strengths and avoid contests that are not suited to them. This will not guarantee victory, but it will make a victory in the battle for the nomination worth more in the general election, since you will not have to visibly pirouette from appealing to a relatively narrow primary electorate to the much broader (and potentially expandable) electorate you will face in the fall.

This is all pretty good advice, but I worry about the underlying argument; that Republican possibilities are likely to be weak general election candidates because they ran poor primary campaigns.  In the first place, I’m not sure Barone is right about his individual criticisms (and read the whole article to see exactly what he has to say).  It’s obvious, of course, that Rudy shouldn’t have held everything til Flordia.  It’s more obvious in retrospect, but it wasn’t exactly hard to figure out even then.  Plenty of folks who wished Rudy no ill (myself included) pointed out the strategic flaw months before everything broke down.  Still.  His strategy was, in large part, dictated by his circumstances.  When you’re a gun-control supporting, pro-choice, city-dwelling, hawk, you’re bound to struggle in Christian Iowa or dovish, libertarian New Hampshire. 

Clearly Romney’s attempt to position himself as THE conservative floundered, and left him wearing two scarlett F’s on his neatly tailored suit.  Still.  When you’re a Massachusetts Mormon in a party dominated by Southern Christians, playing the moderate isn’t exactly a great long-term strategy. 

Undoubtedly Mike Huckabee was hurt by the narrowness of the pastor tag.  Still.  He was a pastor.  Even when he dropped the Onward Christian Soldier stuff, and adopted the Friendly Neighbor Looking Out for the Little Guy schtick, he was still seen as Pastor Mike. 

A lot of these criticisms are not examples of flawed campaigns, but rather of flawed candidates.  No matter how you rolled the Massachusetts Mormon dice, in 2008, in the Republican Party, you just weren’t likely to hit a 7 or 11.  While candidates aren’t slaves to their environment, they can’t simply re-write their careers and lives to fit a new situation. 

So in one sense Barone is right enough: we simply don’t have many potential candidates who are in a good position to naturally do the sort of things necessary to both win over the current Republican electorate, and put together a campaign strategy which gels with the moment.  Retreads like Huckabee and Romney and Palin may be slightly better fits in 2012, but it ought to be clear by now that they won’t be perfect fits.  Heading into 2012, we need to look for a candidate who’s already, more or less, where he needs to be to meet the moment.  Our success, or lack thereof, on that front will dictate both our campaign strategy and our “problems”.

Over at Washington Whispers, Paul Bedard says “maybe” and “absolutely not.”

With regard to the 52-46-2 election of Obama over McCain in November 2008:

• Given the Western tendency (not only in the United States) for swing voters to tire of one party after 5-10 years;
• Given the poor economy; and
• Considering the level of voters’ frustration with Republicans on Iraq (I’ll argue it was somewhat deserved, though hyped big-time by a conservative-hating media looking for any issue with which to attack), I don’t think we can say for sure exactly how much Obama was aided by race and affirmative action (whether in the media or in the minds of individual voters).

Contributing author Pete Lucas at KansasProgress.com argues that America now functions as an affirmative-action nation.  And I think it’s difficult to argue against the notion that a majority of voters are tolerant (even if not actively supportive) of reverse-discrimination.  I’ll briefly digress to point out that while conservatives are rightly critical of skin-deep views of individuals, I will choose to find a silver lining:  I think there’s an element of grace involved that disproves the Left’s blame-America-first beliefs.  This country does mean well and wishes to atone for past errors; of course, it needs to proper leadership to guide us on that path, leadership that does not promote further discrimination and judicial lawlessness.

The question is, to what extent is this a fad?  “This” being both the favorable-to-Obama attitude of repeat voters and also the ”extra” voters who less-regularly vote (but who voted for Obama in 2008).  I don’t have the answers, but I do think we can begin to find answers in the 2009 Virginia race for governor, and in the 2010 congressional races.

I do think that race played a beneficial role for Obama, but I’m not convinced that it made THE difference for Obama.  I think there’s a strong argument to support the idea that any Democrat (regardless of race or gender) would have won the presidency in 2008.

It will be interesting to see when a significant number of “Obama voters” begin to tire of or turn on him, and what the issue(s) is that is the basis for the change in attitude.

I’m somewhat confident that, if the election were held today, that the McCain-Obama race would be much more competitive.  Nancy Pelosi is becoming a household name, and I’ll point to both Rasmussen’s daily tracking and Rasmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot to argue that a decent number of voters are realizing that Obama is all talk.  Yes, 56% of voters approve of Obama, but keep in mind that many of these voters won’t vote in 2010, and some won’t show back up in 2012.  Obama’s “strongly disapprove” numbers moved from 16% on January 21 to 30% on March 1, and that number hasn’t budged since; the “strongly approve” numbers started that started at 44% on January 21 now hover in the low-to-mid-30s.

David Hill writes that September is the month during which voters will begin to blame at least Obama’s administration team, even if they still remain forgiving towards Obama.

The staffing firm Robert Half Management Resources recently surveyed 150 senior executives from the nation’s 1,000 largest companies. The objective of the survey was to determine the length of time a top executive can remain unemployed during the recession before his or her career is stigmatized. The survey found that, on average, “a senior manager could be jobless for as long as nine months before their careers became adversely affected.”

In short, business managers believe that it’s the recession’s fault that a fellow manager is unemployed for up to nine months. After nine months, it’s that other fellow’s fault. This insight begs the question, “How long will it be before the Obama administration is stigmatized by the recession?” This is somewhat like the question, “How long will the Obama honeymoon last?” But I think there is a difference. The honeymoon that any politician gets is very personal and emotive, based on feeling toward an individual and his or her closest family members. I don’t think there is a honeymoon for the whole administration. The gray-suited and dour-faced members of Obama’s team of financial and economic advisers just won’t get the same love. It’s reserved for No. 44 alone.

______________________________________________________________

You can contact Ben Hodge on Facebook, through his Web site, and on Twitter.

From a PolitickerNY 2012 handicapping piece:

Mitt Romney: 2-1.

History makes him the favorite. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all finished second in G.O.P. primary races before turning around and claiming the nomination the next time it came open.

Please, someone stop repeating this meme. It just doesn’t work.

Ronald Reagan “came in second” out of two candidates in 1976 after running a go-nowhere campaign in 1968. He took on an unpopular, unelected sitting president with some measure of credibility. Yes, I suppose he “came in second” last time and used his name recognition and standing amongst the conservative movement’s loyalists — which all of the 2012 frontrunners have, to some degree or another — to bolster his 1980 bid. But it must be remembered that not only was he the consensus candidate in 1980 — something that won’t exist in 2012 — but he was the only candidate in 1976 other than Gerald Ford. This will prove important below.

George H.W. Bush didn’t win the nomination because he came in second in the 1980 primaries. He won the nomination because he was Ronald Reagan’s vice-president. Period. Without Reagan’s legacy, it’s doubtful that he would have walked into the nomination as smoothly as he did.

Bob Dole is the exception that proves the rule. He came in second in the last set of contested primaries, but using the 1976 Reagan-as-heir-apparent line of thinking, why didn’t Pat Buchanan win the nomination in 1996, given that he ran against Bush in 1992 and mounted a credible campaign in 1996? And if it’s the last set of contested primaries — that is, no incumbent — that counts, then why is Reagan’s 1976 run counted?

What was George W. Bush? How, exactly, was he the candidate “next in line”? Hell, why wasn’t Pat Buchanan the next in line? He clearly came in 2nd in 1996. What about Jack Kemp? Could Jack Kemp have won the nomination if he ran? Of course not. Give me a break. Being the son of a former president does not make you the next in line. If so, is Jeb Bush the next in line, then? Do elected family members of former presidents trump former primary winners?

John McCain’s primary trimph was by no means inevitable. A few thousand votes the other way in New Hampshire or South Carolina and John McCain would have been eliminated. He walked a tightrope to the nomination. Nobody “fell in line” behind John McCain. He never even won a majority of the votes before Super Tuesday. One different move by Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee along the way and McCain could have been denied the nomination. What if McCain had lost South Carolina, perhaps leading to Charlie Crist and Mel Martinez endorsing Rudy Giuliani? What if Mitt Romney had won New Hampshire, leading to a Michigan blowout and a siphoning of votes from McCain in South Carolina, snowballing into a Florida win? To speak of McCain’s win as inevitable is history being rewritten under our noses.

So please: stop trying to square the circle of this next-in-line myth. It just doesn’t fit the facts.

Sen. McCain has endorsed Charlie Crist in his Senate bid:

“I was proud to have had Charlie’s support in my campaign, and I am proud to support him in his campaign,” the senator from Arizona said in a release.

As the article explains, this shouldn’t surprise us.  Good Time Charlie may very well have put McCain over the top in the Florida primary last year, and Crist’s ideological leanings align more with McCain’s than do Rubio’s.

SurveyUSA has released a new poll showing that Tim Pawlenty’s budget standoff with the Minnesota DFL has not noticably damaged his standing with the public.  In fact, T-Paw leads against all the prospective DFL nominees for the 2010 gubernatorial election included in the poll.  A summary of the findings (crosstabs available by clicking link):

• Vs. former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza: Pawlenty 51, Entenza 37
• Vs. Senate Tax Committee Chairman Tom Bakk: Pawlenty 52, Bakk 34
• Vs. state senator Tom Marty: Pawlenty 51, Marty 34
• Vs. Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner: Pawlenty 50, Gaertner 36
• Vs. U.S. Senator Mark Dayton: Pawlenty 47, Dayton 43
• Vs. state rep. Paul Thissen: Pawlenty 51, Thissen 42
• Vs. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak: Pawlenty 47, Rybak 42
• Vs. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman: Pawlenty 48, Coleman 37
• Vs. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kellher: Pawlenty 51, Kellher 34

As of now, Pawlenty appears to sit in the driver’s seat should he run for a third term.

I. On What a Secular Republican Is

The Secular Republican, when in office, need not be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, or of a liberal denomination of Christianity. He may actively support figures like James Dobson, in fact. What distinguishes men like Ronald Reagan, certainly a secular Republican, and even Newt Gingrich, who is fairly secular, from men like Mike Huckabee is their ability to embrace pragmatism, party-building, and push a multi-faceted agenda that caters to more than abortion, homosexuality, and “faith in the public square.” He will never be mistaken for a “religious right” figure, even if he is able to garner support from that base.

This is not to say that irreligious men or social moderates are not also secular Republicans: Rudy Giuliani is clearly a secular Republican, as are John McCain and Fred Thompson. But overall, their credo tends to be: no litmus test. Abortion is not a litmus test. Religious belief is not a litmus test. It’s okay to believe in evolution. What unites Republicans — as even Mike Huckabee has admitted recently, if only by accident — is their belief in capitalism and a strong national defense.

II. On Religious Conservative Dominance

To be quite frank, religious conservatives are playing the party bully right now. With the exception of the Club for Growth, the party-purifying elements come solely from the religious right, which attempts to ‘weed out’ unacceptable candidates. Even John McCain and Rudy Giuliani felt compelled to suck up to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, despite their blame-America-first comments on the 700 Club shortly after 9/11. Mitt Romney felt that he needed to defend his Mormon faith in a speech in which he proclaimed that “freedom requires religion.” Mike Huckabee was catapulted to prominence after his wins in Iowa and throughout the South. Thanks to our own Aron Goldman, we know that, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee don’t believe in evolution. Huckabee doesn’t even know what it’s about (”if you want to believe you came from apes, go ahead and believe that”). Ron Paul also doubted evolution later on, contending that it was “only a theory” (yeah, like…gravity).

And let’s not forget that Tom Ridge and Joseph Lieberman were scratched off of the McCain short list for the vice-presidential nomination because of contentions by McCain aides that the social conservative base would surely revolt if a pro-choicer were put onto the ticket. Despite McCain’s consistently pro-life voting record, the religious right did not trust him on the issue, due to his lack of zeal on the matter.

And as commenter MetroIndependent pointed out: why is there a post on this site about religious belief? What does it have to do with Republican politics? The answer is clear.

III. The Coming Secular Republican Revival

Hot on the heels of the religious right’s denunciation of the secular nature of the wonderful National Council for a New America, our 2010 candidate recruitments (and prospects) are noticeably lacking in religious conservatives. George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Rob Simmons, Charlie Crist, and perhaps John Kasich — these are not religious conservatives. Even Rob Portman, arguably our most conservative recruit,  is a fairly down-the-line conservative, but hardly a religionist. He is a former trade representative, White House budget manager, and alumnus of the 1994 Republican Revolution. Pat Toomey himself was formerly pro-choice, a la our friend Mittens.

Noticeably lacking are Huckabee-style conservatives. They’re running on empty right now. Who is their leader? Well, Huckabee is the king of the hill. And Sarah Palin is queen. They’re biding their time for 2012, not looking to 2010. While the moderate and center-right factions of the party rebuild, the religious right is biding its time. And that’s just fine. We’ll be a big tent again, with new representatives for the secular right, once these fine men and women assume office.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

Some people may have already heard about this, but Chris Simcox, founder of the Minutemen, has announced a primary challenge to Sen. McCain’s seat.  Simcox faces an uphill battle, with McCain having a huge fundraising advantage and favorable poll numbers (PPP puts Mac at 53/31).

In another campaign announcement, today San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom launched his bid for governor of California.  With crowded fields on both sides, this should prove an interesting race to watch.

In an event that will anger many, many people:

A controversial doctor has claimed to have cloned human embryos and transferred them to four women prepared to give birth to the first cloned babies.

Fertility specialist Panayiotis Zavos sensationally broke the sacred taboo of human individuality by cloning 14 embryos and placing 11 of them into the wombs of four women, he told The Independent.

…The process, which is illegal in Britain and many other countries, was probably carried out in a secret laboratory in the Middle East, where cloning is not banned.

None of the embryo transfers led to a pregnancy but Dr Zavos, a naturalised American who runs fertility clinics in Kentucky and Cyprus, where he was born, said yesterday that this was just the ‘first chapter’ in his serious attempts at producing a baby cloned from the skin cells of its ‘parent’.

He said: ‘There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen.’

‘If we intensify our efforts we can have a cloned baby within a year or two, but I don’t know whether we can intensify our efforts to that extent.

We can only hope that that people will not “intensify…efforts to that extent”.

A recent poll has purported that a large majority of Cuban-Americans view Pres. Obama favorably, with 20 percent taking the unfavorable view.  Furthermore:

Sixty-four percent of respondents to the Bendixen poll said they supported Obama’s softening of the 47-year-old embargo and 67 percent said they would support the lifting of restrictions so all Americans could travel to Cuba freely.

Perhaps someone more versed in polling can provide some commentary.  This certainly surprised me.

Lastly, the CIA has confirmed reports that waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced intelligence that helped expose plans for a “Second Wave” terrorist plot to steer hijacked planes into a building in Los Angeles:

Before they were subjected to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation that included waterboarding, KSM and Zubaydah were not only uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves.

“In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah [another high-level al Qaeda member], without these enhanced techniques,” says the Justice Department memo. “Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’  Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

Sean Hannity made a great point on the radio today: how should the residents of Los Angeles feel when they see their president, who as commander-in-chief has the duty to keep us safe, publicly discount a tactic that very likely saved their lives?

H/T: Gary G. Howell

I suffered through the European apology tour, the pro-Palestinian rhetoric, the new Cuba policy and the Chavez embrace, but now I have had enough;

…delivered a blistering 50-minute speech that denounced capitalism and U.S. imperialism as the root of much hemispheric mischief. The address even recalled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, though Ortega said the new U.S. President could not be held to account for that.

What was Barry’s response? 

“I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.

Mr. President, charm is a great weapon, but we expect our President to defend our values and national interests.  President Obama continues to prove his campaign critics correct, that when it comes to foreign policy, he is not ready for the big job in the big house.  I somehow doubt John McCain would have sat in the conference silently and allowed a Sandinista to humiliate the United States.

Our nation and President were also humiliated by Bolivia’s Morales, as he used the summit to announce that his authorities have prevented an assassination plot (hint-it was an American plot). 

“Obama said three things: There are neither senior or junior partners. He said relations should be of mutual respect, and he spoke of change,” Morales said. “In Bolivia … one doesn’t feel any change. The policy of conspiracy continues.”

He said if Obama does not repudiate the alleged assassination plot, “I might think it was organized through the embassy.  I want to gain confidence,” he said. “I don’t want meddling in my country.”

Oh, and while all of this was occurring, Laura Ling and Euna Lee remain in a North Korea prison, soon to be on trial for espionage and Iranian clerics were convicting and imprisoning a US citizen.

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com or Facebook.

This insight warrants a front page post, as Race42008 had received thousands of comments on the potential Lieberman Vice Presidential nomination.

I am not sure if any of our FPP’s or second page contributors made this point (sore loser statutes) at the height of the VP debate?   

Via Ben Smith;

Former McCain veep vetter and Washington power lawyer A.B. Culvahouse made clear in remarks before a Republican lawyers group today that the campaign had investigated the legal issues surrounding putting Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman on the GOP ticket last year and determined it would be a difficult task.

“Five states have sore loser statutes … [making] it very difficult for someone who’s not a member of the Republican Party to become the vice presidential nominee if they only switch parties to become a Republican shortly before the convention,’ Culvahouse said in public remarks at the Republican National Lawyers Association annual meeting aired on C-SPAN.

Culvahouse specifically noted the example of West Virginia, a state Republicans have relied on in recent elections, saying “the constitutionality of that statute has already been litigated in West Virginia.”

“So you were looking at going to the Supreme Court, which is not particularly appetizing,” he said.

McCain’s close friend and colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham was pushing Lieberman, and McCain himself was widely thought to be intrigued by the idea.

But Republicans warned of a revolt on the convention floor.

And now we learn there were some very real procedural roadblocks in the way of a fusion ticket, as well.

Tommy Oliver, Aron Goldman,  Matt C, Kavon Nikrad and DaveG, all reported on the Lieberman VP speculation last fall.    

–

Update: There seems to be some confusion over the ’sore loser statute’.  The statute seems to be state based and from my research, it may be interpreted differently by each state party/constitution.  

Examples: Ohio, New Hampshire and South Carolina.    

Ohio Code: (A) Notwithstanding section 3513.31 of the Revised Code, if a person nominated in a primary election as a party candidate for the office of representative to congress for election at the next general election withdraws as such candidate prior to the eightieth day before the day of such general election …, the vacancy in the party nomination so created shall be filled by a special election held in accordance with division (B) of this section.

Gamecock, please assist us with interpreting this law. 

McCain leaves off Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee and others from his list

John McCain has changed his commonly used, ’I love Sarah and her family’ line in response to questions about her potential candidacy in 2012.  Senator McCain offered some names of potential candidates. 

Knowing that Senator McCain is close friends with Governor Huntsman, Pawlenty and Jindal, this may be one of our first public “tipping of the hand” that these three Governors are considering runs for the White House.  Watch the video here.  In previous interviews, McCain has not listed names. 

Update: As Tommy pointed out, McCain has mentioned some of these names last month, but Senator McCain continues to refuse to name Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee, when discussing the future of the GOP or potential 2012 candidates.  

–

Gingrich makes 2012 prediction

As Newt continues to develop mailing lists and outreach programs to conservative groups and introduces his wife to the media and voters, he made this prediction on Fox.

Well, I think it’s a rate (ph) that the left-wing Democrats are alienating America with a big energy tax, with a war on churches and charities, with a big effort to raise taxes on every successful American, with an enormous increase on the federal debt. I think the odds are fairly good they’re going to lose control of the House next year and lose a number of Senate seats. And I think by 2012, the country will be in a choice of socialism or free enterprise, which kind of future do you want.

And my hunch is the Democrats can’t win a campaign that is open, aboveboard about whether you want cronies, politicians and bureaucrats to run your life, or you want to have a choice as a citizen about what you do with your own money as a customer and not as a ward of the state.

–

Learning from Katrina, liberals use natural disasters to score political points

Tim Pawlenty is continuing to receive a lot of press, but leave it to liberals to use a crisis that is destroying the lives of thousands of Americans, to make a political point.  Chris Steller, from the Minnesota Independent wrote a post on the devistating flooding in north and the impact it may have on the 2012 primary.  The headline: “Flood gives Pawlenty a chance to sandbag national GOP rivals”

After declaring a state of emergency there on Friday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty headed to Moorhead today for an early-afternoon briefing with local officials about the looming flood in western Minnesota. Pawlenty and local officials will meet with media representatives after the briefing. It’s a chance for T-Paw to re-start the national PR offensive.    

For Mr. Steller to suggest that Governor Pawlenty is using this crisis for his own political gain, is completely absurd! 

–

For Crist’s sake, make a decision 

Governor Crist has some critical legislative decisions to make in the next couple of weeks.  The most impactful one; will he agree to raise taxes in an attempt to make up for a budget short-fall?  This decision could have a major impact on the 2012 primary.  Either way, it will provide ammunition to his opponents.  Just ask Governor Huckabee what Republican voters and conservative media thought about his willingness to sign a liberal tax bill.   

It seems as if half the Republican legislature is putting their own political careers on hold, waiting for Governor Crist to make a decision on a 2010 run for the Senate.  The Tampa Tribune, with a headline stating, “Crist Facing Conservative Rebellion”, is reporting that conservatives are looking to challenge the Governor, if he does decide to run.

“My phones have been ringing off the hook,” said DiMatteo, now a Pinellas County delegate to the state party. “A lot of people around the state feel the same way I do. We didn’t leave Charlie, Charlie left us.”

Governor Crist is also waivering on several other issues that may impact a Senate or Presidential run.  Governor Crist usually governs on principle, but you cannot help wonder if he is second guessing himself on every decision, knowing it will impact him politically in the near future?   

About 35% of the US population lives in the 20 largest metropolitan areas. John McCain got about 30% of the vote in those 20 metropolitan areas.

There are a few commonly mentioned problems in urban areas:

• Traffic Congestion
• Crime
• Failing Schools
• Failing Infrastructure
• Slums
• Insufficient Housing
• Air Pollution

I’ve only heard conservatives speak on a couple of these issues (crime, failing schools). The rest of the problems deserve some conservative attention.

Is there a program for urban renewal that conservatives could offer for cities that have been run by liberals for generations?

Finally, the moment you’ve all been waiting for… kind of…

I decided, in the spirit of Adam Brickley’s earlier post, to somewhat break my silence, per my thoughts about 2012. I’ve kept my cards close to my chest, and have said that I need to see more before I could tentatively throw my support behind any one candidate.

So, I decided to do a rating scale on each candidate like Adam asked our readers to do, via Judd Gregg. With each candidate, I jotted down a few quick thoughts and this is what I came up with, transcribed straight from my note pad:

(be forewarned… I did not edit my thoughts, these are transcribed “as is”)…

(more…)

Cartoon courtesy of GetLiberty.org.

It seems to me that Meghan McCain has failed to learn the most fundamental lesson of her father’s election defeat, a lesson that Senator McCain learned the hard way and may never recover from.

In 2000, John McCain was the darling of the media, loved not only by moderate Republicans who were drawn to his budget-slashing, earmark-bashing straight talk, but also by a large number of Democrats, including the elites of liberal media like the New York Times, Arianna Huffington, and Bill Maher.  No one got better press and more glowing approval. However, the reason for such treatment was always lost on McCain. The fawning affair had gone to his head, and he like many centrists in the party believed it was his leftward tilt on many issues that earned him so many glowing reviews, but that was not the case.  By 2008, the real reason McCain was so admired in 2000 had become clear, and it also explained why such coverage never happened in 2008.

The media did not like John McCain in 2000 due to his positions or his straight talk. They liked him because he was attacking George Bush, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. His “agents of intolerance” line was like manna from Heaven to the mainstream press.  This was the foundation of their adulation for McCain, and it would have stopped the moment be became the nominee and began targeting Vice President Gore and President Clinton.

Meghan McCain knows her father and knows he is the same man today he was in 2000.  The difference was not his positions, but rather his target.  The press loved when George Bush was deemed inexperienced by McCain but hated when that point was made about Barack Obama. Attacks that, if they were leveled at Bush, would have garnered McCain rave editorials, instead brought harsh media criticism. It was not because the attacks were unfounded, but because their target was a liberal Democrat and not the preferred “agents of intolerance”.

This brings us to this past week, and the public spat between Laura Ingraham and Meghan McCain. Ms. McCain might believe herself so wise and talented that the press can’t help but want to hear from her, but that just doesn’t mesh with the reality of the situation. Meghan, the media is not asking for interviews because they’re interested in your views. They are asking for them because you are the daughter of a famous Republican who is bashing other Republicans.  Ms. McCain, you are one “agents of intolerance” comment away from full-fledged worship by the New York Times. Don’t you get it? Are you really so gullible as to believe that the press genuinely care about comments made by Laura Ingraham about your weight? Are you such a hypocrite that you can go on The View and denounce attacks on physical appearance while sitting next to Joy Behar, who belittles Rush Limbaugh’s weight on a daily basis?

It’s time to snap out of it, Meghan. You are falling into the same trap that seduced your father, and may have ended up costing him the presidency.  The press will always love you, your dad, General Powell, and your ilk as long as you continue to bash the GOP.  The moment your attention turns to a Democratic or a liberal policy, they will come down on you like a ton of bricks. 

Imagine that in your Daily Beast column, instead of attacking Ann Coulter, you criticized Keith Olbermann and took him to task for the mean-spirited rhetoric he spewed at your father, and your mother, during the campaign. If you had ripped into him instead of Ms. Coulter, do you think you would have been asked to come on the Rachel Maddow Show? The View? Do you think the talking heads would have rallied to your defense if your target had been a liberal? Do you think the ladies on The View would have defended you against the ‘Worst Person’ label that no doubt would have come your way if you had been so bold?

Ms. McCain, until you realize that you are being used by liberals in the press to push anti-Republican propaganda, then you will fail to help bring about a renewal in our party.  Being in this party is not just something that you squeeze on a resume between internships at SNL and Newsweek, it is far more important. So if you want to grow up and start taking things seriously, then great, we welcome your contribution. However, if all you plan to do is become a prop for the left to bash us with, then will you find the criticism by Ms. Ingraham to be mild compared to what comes next. 

Just months after frequently criticizng Sen. McCain for declaring that the fundamentals of the economy are sound, Pres. Obama’s administration has assumed the same outlook:

The economy is fundamentally sound despite the temporary “mess” it’s in, the White House said Sunday in the kind of upbeat assessment that Barack Obama had mocked as a presidential candidate.

Obama’s Democratic allies pleaded for patience with an administration hitting the two-month mark this week, while Republicans said the White House’s plans ignore small business and the immediate need to fix what ails the economy. After weeks projecting a dismal outlook on the economy, administration officials – led by the president himself in recent days – swung their rhetoric toward optimism in what became Wall Street’s best stretch since November.

During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Obama’s team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: “Of course they are sound.”

“The fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology,” she said. “We know that – that temporarily we’re in a mess, right? We’ve seen huge job loss, we’ve seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we’re in a – in a bad situation.”

Just a week ago, White House Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag declared that “fundamentally, the economy is weak.” Days later, Obama told reporters he was confident in the economy.

“If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy, then we’re going to get through this,” Obama said, striking a tone that his top aides mimicked.

Correct me if my memory fails me, but McCain cited some of the same components of the economy – worker productivity, innovation and dynamism – that Obama mentioned in that last quote.  Maybe McCain wasn’t so “out of touch”, as Obama so often claimed.

Looking past the obvious bad blood between the McCain-Coulter entourages, Meghan McCain has penned a humorous and relevant editorial in The Daily Beast.  I believe this is a must-read for those interested in a ‘lessons-learned’ for Republicans.

What is becoming increasingly obvious to Ms. McCain and many other young Republican activists, is that the recycled rhetoric and the continued use of last decades communication methods and tools will continue to fail the Republican party.  Like many of you, I am a fan of Ms. Coulter and agree with her more often than I disagree, but promoting (in editorials and on networks) Islamophobia and referring to John Edwards as a “faggot”, may make Ms. Coulter wealthy and cause my father to sit up when she approaches a podium, but it will not reach or win over the multi-ethnic, ’The Hills’ watching, politically correct, generation-Y.  

Using obvious humor, Ms. McCain was making an important point.  Ms. Coulter is a brilliant and colorful conservative writer and speaker and her message has sex-appeal to the generation that listens to Donny Osmond, but her message, the same message being repeated by Republicans leaders across the country today, does not appeal to voters who listen to Katy Perry. 

Why is this important?  Because Katy Perry sells more records and has more fans (thus, more potential voters) than the ‘underappreciated’ Donny Osmond.  I am not advocating the shunning of Ann Coulter (we need her more than ever), but we also need a new, parallel message that appeals younger voters.       

Liberals have changed their message (hip, as per Meghan) and have moved beyond union newsletters and traditional big media outlets, to the new media and media not previously exposed to politics.  Most conservative writers and activists have acknowledged that that our failure to develop new rhetoric and embrace and exploit new technology, new media and non-political media, provided liberals with an upper-hand on reaching out to generation-Y.

Liberals have revolutionized social-networking components in telecom and online.  They are dominating non-political media (remember the magazine racks in grocery stores during the election?) and they have created trendy, new messages and talking points that resonate (and are common keyword searches) with younger voters (”Yes We Can“).  This is a lethal combination.     

Republicans have failed to understand that generation-Y voters differ significantly from previous generations on how they receive and absorb communication.  Generation-Y suffers from a short attention span and expect their information to be in real-time.  A single status change or announcement from the 2008 Obama campaign reached young voters via Facebook, Facebook mobile, text, general email, ping, MySpace, Twitter, automated phone call, video messaging, instant messaging and on bookmarked message boards.  Liberals are blanketing generation-Y with attractive and colorful new rhetoric, delivered through every possible communication method.  In a typical 2 hour span during the 2008 election, I would read a single Obama campaign announcement 4-5 times, through different communication methods, notified through the buzzing of my blackberry or through a pop-up on my laptop.    

The Obama/Liberal communication methodology is; Short-Catchy-Often-Everywhere

Why are we not doing the same?  

Marketing companies have also adopted the same approach as liberals have.  To sell products to a generation with an attention span of less than 30 seconds, the message must be simple, attractive and repeated enough so that when voting day occurs, or when the new Timberlake CD is released, young consumers/voters ‘line-up’.   

One of the few bright lights in 2008 was the McCainBlogette creation.  The strategy developed and hosted by Meghan McCain was more than just a daily blog update of behind the scene’s campaign fun.  The site (combining politics, music, family values, fashion, sex-appeal and comedy) was used as a launching pad by Meghan McCain to infiltrate non-political media and young voters who were casually interested in the political process.  Ms. McCain successfully introduced her fathers campaign to fashion magazines, MTV, Access Hollywood, non-political blogs and other media outlets dominated by Democrats.  Younger women visited her blog to read about Ms. McCain’s struggles to balance life on the campaign trail, with a proper diet, dating and what music to load on her iPod.  Of course, she was subtly selling her father at the same time.   

Many conservative-leaning writers have found this approach to be ‘beneath the movement’, but what they fail to understand is that Ms. McCain represents the demographic we must appeal to.  We should be listening to her and other like-minded Republicans.   

Ms. McCain has not been the only young activist warning Republicans of the need for a new message-new media strategy.  David All has been sounding the alarm for months and has suggested and developed new tools and methods for the GOP to compete for younger and tech savvy voters.  Last month, David penned a must-read on how to expose activists to more choices and how to increase their activism, through the use of new technology.

We are not suggesting that our goal should be to for teenage girls to paste Mark Sanford pictures in their yearbooks (although I am sure the Governor would not complain), but as the party of innovation, pragmatism and entrepreneurship, we can certainly find a way to reach young voters, on their terms, with an attractive and repeatable message, which will hopefully lead to a few extra ballots cast for Republican candidates in the years to come.       

_______________________________________
***Update: Anderson Cooper is now covering this story.  I will post the CNN video when it is available.

_______________________________________

***Update #2: Jay Leno and Elizabeth Hasselbeck are now questioning the views and delivery of Ann Coulter. 

Mitt Romney 49.0%
Mike Huckabee 9.8%
Rudy Giuliani 6.9%
Sarah Palin 6.9%
Newt Gingrich 5.9%
Bobby Jindal 4.9%
Charlie Crist 2.9%
Aron Goldman 2.0%
Gary Johnson 2.0%
Tim Pawlenty 2.0%
David Petraeus 2.0%
Mark Sanford 2.0%
Haley Barbour 1.0%
Rush Limbaugh 1.0%
John McCain 1.0%
Undecided 2.0%

From my Facebook update from Sen. McCain’s people…

Top Ten Porkiest Projects in the Omnibus Spending bill

10. $1.7 million “for a honey bee factory” in Weslaco, TX

9. $475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah

8. $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past

7. $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center

6. $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah

5. $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi

4. $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York

3. $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas

2. $2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii

1. $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa

Say what you will about Sen. McCain, but we wouldn’t be havin’ no “stimulus” if he were president.

Gov. Jindal spoke with Meredith Viera on the Today Show this morning:

Where was this Bobby Jindal last night? One of the biggest problems that Sen. McCain faced in Election 2008 was his ability to read from a teleprompter and present a convincing speech. Arguably, his communication skills proved to be his downfall. Last night, Gov. Jindal had the same problem. Like Sen. McCain, Gov. Jindal is wonderful on the fly. He has an extemporary speaking style that has impressed the masses and thus has moved himself to the forefront of various issues facing the Republican party and the country. Now, if Mr. Jindal has the fire in his gut to run in 2012 or 2016, he’ll have to spend many hours with a speech coach and force himself to start giving more speeches from a teleprompter. People became enamored with Mr. Obama in the most recent election because of his ability to communicate a basic message with passion and verve (even when the message was remedial or intangible). If Gov. Jindal can take the content of the speech he gave last night and learn how to deliver a speech on the level of some of our great leaders, we could have a President Jindal someday. 

Yesterday, Mr. Obama had this exchange with former rival, Sen. John McCain:

Said the president’s former Republican rival [John McCain], “Well, thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for doing this…Just one area that I wanted to mention that I think consumed a lot of our conversation on procurement, it was the issue of cost overruns in the Defense Department. We all know how large the defense budget is…your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One. I don’t think that there’s any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas have — have cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money.”

Said Obama, “I’ve already talked to (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates about a thorough review of the helicopter situation…the helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. Of course, I’ve never had a helicopter before. So, you know, maybe — maybe I’ve been deprived and I didn’t know it.But I think it is a — it is an — an example of the procurement process gone amuck, and — and we’re going to have to fix it.”

How, Mr. President, will you fix it? Mr. McCain was exactly right in asking a question like this. Government waste is rampant already and all Mr. Obama can do is give a non-descriptive answer. Go and watch the whole economic forum that Pres. Obama and VP Biden had with various senators and representatives today. It was filled with non-answers, deceptions, and excuses, not to mention a direct attack of President Bush and his policies.

In his opening remarks, Obama returned several times to criticism of past budget practices that clearly was aimed at President George W. Bush’s administration, suggesting the former president and his team weren’t candid with the American people about the scope of the budget difficulties.

At one point, Obama criticized “the casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks, the costly overruns, the fraud and abuse, the endless excuses. This is exactly what the American people rejected when they went to the polls. They sent us here to usher in a new era of responsibility in Washington, to start living within our means again and being straight with them about where their tax dollars are going.”

Let’s all be frank. Certainly, President Bush was not the fiscal disciplinarian that we all have dreamed of. He allowed congress to spend money endlessly without the use of his veto pen and he presided over one of the largest expansions of our central government in American history. Given all of that, Mr. Obama has not earned the right to criticize the previous administration over it’s mistakes when it will be presiding over an expansion of government never seen in American history; an expansion that will create vast new governmental organizations and bureaucracies, millions of new employees paid directly from the state, and thus various ways that our system can continue to get more convoluted by the minute. As Mr. McCain described it, what Mr. Obama is overseeing is akin to “generational theft.”

Republican Icon Fred Malek (who served as John McCain’s National Finance Chairman) has published the latest installment of his reflections on the 2008 campaign. In this post, Mr. Malek writes about the challenges imposed on the McCain Campaign in May of 2007 after fundraising had dwindled in reaction to Sen. McCain’s role in comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Malek writes:

Whether you loved or hated John’s position in the Immigration debate, his actions that June exhibited the quintessential get-in-the-middle, role up your sleeves, bi-partisan leadership that has marked his service to our country. Unfortunately, at the time, much of the Republican base did not see this leadership as a positive attribute. As a result, the fundraising well dried up, and it could not have come at a worse time.

Terry and John Weaver presented the situation to us. The campaign had accrued a great deal of debt due to heavy spending and the harsh fundraising environment in June. In fact the campaign was not only broke but owed money. Despite the problem, John remained encouraged and upbeat. He shared his vision for America and thanked us for continuing to support his bid. Marlene and I enjoyed the stay at the McCain’s cabin thoroughly and left with deep concerns but continued commitment.

John left Sedona and headed to Iraq with his good friends and colleagues Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. Although we left Sedona with great uncertainty on the future of the campaign, we also left with a stronger commitment to John and his vision for our country, and a deeper impression of his resolute discipline and perseverance.

Malek concludes:

It’s funny given that I run in both business and political circles, for years if not decades, I would consistently hear CEOs complain about politicians and Washington and state, “if politicians could only be for like us, Washington and this country would be a better place.” In light of our current economic crisis, I can say without a doubt if every CEO had the discipline, perseverance and sense of honor of John McCain, this economy and this country would be in a much better place.

The next installment in the series focuses on the shake-up and its resurgence of the McCain Campaign, culminating in one of the greatest political comebacks in American history.

If you followed the 2008 race as obsessively as I did, Mr. Malek’s writing are essential in understanding what occurred behind the scenes of this most historic race.

Conservative icon Fred Malek gives us the inside story on John McCain and Sarah Palin’s first post-election reunion at the both the Alfalfa Club Dinner and a private gathering at his home:

The January 20 Inauguration and the January 31 Alfalfa Club dinner brought me in close quarters again with John McCain and allowed me to bring John and Sarah Palin together for the first time since election night.

A little over a week later was the Alfalfa Club dinner. Alfalfa is a 200 member club with mostly illustrious members such as leading Senators, Congressmen, CEOs, Supreme Court Justices, and former Presidents, as well as a few such as myself, who somehow slipped past the screening. The club does absolutely nothing other than an annual dinner filled with patriotism, bipartisanship, and very humorous speakers, including traditionally the President. Each member is allowed to bring two guests and one of mine this year was Sarah Palin. The night before, last reported by Roxanne Roberts of the “Washington Post”, Marlene and I hosted a small dinner at our home for my Alfalfa guests and a few other friends. Here is what impressed me most over the weekend:

• The warmth John McCain showed toward Sarah Palin when she arrived at my home Friday night. It was the first time they had been together since the election, and their good feelings toward each other were evident.

• The gracious and engaged Sarah Palin was with everyone. It was great to see her in deep conversations with people like Alan Greenspan, Madeleine Albright, Walter Isaacson, and Mitch McConnell. For sure, nothing shallow about this lady.

• The celebrity treatment Sarah received from the highly sophisticated crowd at Alfalfa. There were as many or more people lined up to meet her as there was for President Obama.

• Sarah’s singular focus on her job as Governor of Alaska. She left Anchorage on a 2:30 a.m. flight Friday so as not to miss a day on the job, and she singled out people to meet who could be impactful to Alaska, including President Obama.

• Sarah’s grace and charisma reminded me of why she had been selected as John McCain’s running mate.

Be sure to bookmark Mr. Malek’s blog as he will be publishing his analysis of the 2008 campaign in the coming days and there are sure to be some very interesting observations in these posts.

A Rasmussen poll finds that 55% of Republicans believe that the GOP should “become more like Sarah Palin” in the future:

Coming off a shellacking at the polls in November, the plurality of GOP voters (43%) say their party has been too moderate over the past eight years, and 55% think it should become more like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the future, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 24% think failed presidential candidate John McCain is the best future model for the party, and 10% are undecided.

Only 17% of Republican voters say their party has been too conservative, and 30% say its actions and positions have been about right, with nine percent (9%) not sure.

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (64%), however, say the Republican Party has been too conservative, and 42% think it should look to McCain for the future. Twelve percent (12%) of Democratic voters see Palin as a future role model, and 40% aren’t sure what’s best for their rivals.

Fifteen`percent (15%) of Democrats say the opposite party has been too moderate, and five percent (5%) classify it as about right. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

There is one area of agreement though: Just 11% of Republicans and six percent (6%) of Democrats say the party should become more like former President Bush.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of McCain, including 15% who say Very Favorable. Forty percent (40%) regard him unfavorably, with 12% whose views are Very Unfavorable.

For Palin, her favorables are 52% (28% Very Favorable) and her unfavorables are 46%, with 26% who see her in a Very Unfavorable light.

Palin fares better with unaffiliated voters… For McCain, unaffiliateds break 10% Very Favorable and eight percent (8%) Very Unfavorable. But 35% of unaffiliated voters have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin, compared to 15% who have a Very Unfavorable view.

I’ve just got home from six weeks of working in Virginia. During my drive home, I noticed an odd phenomenon in Virginia (especially Hampton Roads, Southside and Richmond).

I saw as many Bush/Cheney ‘04 bumper stickers as Obama/Biden bumper stickers. I saw practically no McCain/Palin bumper stickers. I can’t speak to enthusiasm but apparently many Virginians didn’t have much use for McCain.

During my trip home, I heard that Michael Steele had been elected RNC Chairman. I congratulate Mr. Steele and this extremist pro-lifer looks forward to his leadership in the RNC.

I also noticed how the popularity of Obama’s pork bill has been on the decline. That makes sense given the bill is unlikely to do much good for most Americans in the next year. Even Senate Democrats are wary of the bag of flaming poop Nancy Pelosi has thrown over to the Senate.

I return home to a Republican Party that is different from the one I left before Christmas. There’s some hope and some signs of backbone. It’s good to be home.

H/T Carlos Echevarria

According to the International Herald Tribune, McCain has been counseling President-elect Obama for the last three months on cabinet appointments, national security policy and other issues. 

Not long after Senator John McCain returned last month from an official trip to Iraq and Pakistan, he received a phone call from President-elect Barack Obama.

As contenders for the presidency, the two had hammered each other for much of 2008 over their conflicting approaches to foreign policy, especially in Iraq. (He’d lose a war! He’d stay a hundred years!) Now, however, Obama said he wanted McCain’s advice, people in each camp briefed on the conversation said. What did he see on the trip? What did he learn?

It was just one step in a post-election courtship that historians say has few modern parallels, beginning with a private meeting in Obama’s transition office in Chicago just two weeks after the vote. On Monday night, McCain will be the guest of honor at a black-tie dinner celebrating Obama’s inauguration.

Over the last three months, Obama has quietly consulted McCain about many of the new administration’s potential nominees to top national security jobs and about other issues — in one case relaying back a contender’s answers to questions McCain had suggested.

McCain, meanwhile, has told colleagues “that many of these appointments he would have made himself,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a close McCain friend.

This breaking news of the secret meetings and counseling is not without controversy.  Publicly, team Obama remains adamant on their withdrawl plans for Iraq, but those involved in the meeting are now stating that Obama is finding common ground with many of Senator McCain’s positions on American involvement in Iraq. 

Emanuel said he did not remember any discussion of Iraq. “Barack has been clear that he is going to stick to his responsible reduction in forces, and he hasn’t changed from that,” he said.

But Graham, who accompanied McCain to the meeting, said Obama took a notably different tone toward Iraq than he had during the campaign, emphasizing the common ground in their views.

“He said that he understands that we had differences but he wanted to let us know that he also understands that we have got to be responsible in how we leave Iraq,” Graham recalled. “What the Obama-Biden administration has talked about is not losing the gains we have achieved. ”

He added, “Obama does not want to be the guy who lost Iraq when it is close to being won.”

For many Republicans, this news brings mixed emotions.  During the campaign, Republicans understood that Senator McCain’s positions on foreign policy were the correct positions to take to ensure the safety of our nation and we should now be satisfied that President-elect Obama is adopting many of those positions. But at the same time, how could we not be frustrated at the lack of honesty shown by the Obama campaign? According to exit polling, Obama won on the issue of Iraq, even though polling during the campaign had shown McCain winning the issue.

We should not hold any animosity towards Senator McCain for providing counsel to the President-elect.  McCain is doing this for two reasons.  First, he is putting (and always has) his country first.  Secondly, McCain is accepting the hand of friendship in hopes of influencing the policy positions of our next President.  Although some may see this as too non-partisan, our soldiers fighting for our safety will appreciate the conviction of Senator McCain.  

For liberals, expect them to turn a blind-eye, again, on another slap to their face from a candidate who exploited their anger, fear and expectations. 

It was all ching-ching and bling-bling, my lefty friends.  It was not about hope, but about power.  

My Friend,

In the time since the 2008 presidential campaign ended I have had a chance to reflect on many things. And as I said on election night, I truly cannot adequately express how indebted I am to you, my entire campaign team and my running mate, Governor Sarah Palin

The road was a difficult one from the outset. Yet, your faith, your support and friendship never wavered. Just as I have proudly served my country for more than half a century I am as committed as ever to helping see our mission through.

So to continue the movement, I have decided to launch a new grassroots organization called Country First.

Today, I’m asking you as a friend and supporter to renew your commitment to our common goals by becoming a Charter Member of Country First with an online contribution.

Country First will allow us to strengthen our Party, better define our Republican ideals and message, recruit and back strong, dedicated candidates and continue our efforts to bring real reform to government by always putting our country and the noble ideals she stands for first.

Together, we can make government more responsive to today’s problems and more answerable to the people. That’s why I hope you will become a Charter Member of Country First and support our cause by following this link to make a generous contribution of any amount today.

With your help we can work to elect these new leaders to Governorships, Statehouses, the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 and beyond. Once in office they will become fierce advocates for limited government, economic opportunity, personal responsibility and strong national security.

On Election Night last year, I called on all Americans not to despair of our present difficulties but to believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here.

Today, I am asking you to join Country First to continue fighting for the worthy cause of revitalizing both our democracy and our Party.

Our goals will never be realized if your voice falls silent. You are the best hope for our country’s success. Please stay in this fight with me; our country needs your service now as much as ever.

I know that together we can make a difference – we already have. Again, I thank you for your unwavering friendship and support.

Sincerely,

John McCain

P.S. Country First will serve as a powerful voice for the American people. It will allow us to get our Republican message out to the voters and elect a new generation of Republican leaders who can go to Statehouses and Congress to fight for all we believe in. Please join as a Charter Member of Country First by following this link to make a contribution today. Thank you.

Some conservatives have been somewhat annoyed by McCain’s lackluster defense of Sarah Palin. In an interview with the Tucson Citizen, McCain goes much further than he has prior interviews:

Q; Sarah Palin went around telling people that Obama palled around with terrorists. Why weren’t you able to control what was coming out of her mouth?

A: First of all, he did. The second point is in political campaigns, sometimes there are very rough things said and done. And I resent enormously some of the things that were said about me.

And what I most resent was John Lewis, a man that I admired and respected and have written about, accusing me and Sarah Palin of being racist. And Sen. Obama refusing to repudiate that. John Lewis associated Gov. Palin and me with the bombing of a church in Birmingham. That’s not acceptable. And in the debate I asked and challenged Sen. Obama to repudiate those remarks by John Lewis and he wouldn’t.

So if you want to review all of the injuries and statements and comments that were made, I would be glad to do that. Overall, it was a very honorable campaign.

I am proud of Sarah Palin. I am proud of the way she ignited our party. I am proud of her family. I am proud of her reform agenda. I could not be more proud and happy with the selection of Sarah Palin.

But I resent enormously these allegations that Sarah Palin was, quote, unqualified and many of the other things that were said about her and that she was subjected to. It really was painful for me to observe that.

I really believe she will be a big factor in the future of our party.

I’m sorry about me being harsh about me controlling Sarah Palin, but it is a little bit of a sore subject with me when I don’t think she deserved some of the criticism she got from people who didn’t even know her or hadn’t had any contact with her.

And I think that she is a wonderful person and one that I appreciate and admire and have grown to respect more and more over time.

John McCain was on ABC’s This Week and was asked if he would support Sarah Palin in 2012 if she runs for President:

“Listen I have the greatest appreciation for Gov. Palin and her family and it was a great joy to know them,” McCain said. “She invigorated our campaign and she was just down in Georgia and she invigorated their campaign.”

“But I can’t say something like that,” McCain said, “We’ve got some great other young governors, Pawlenty, Huntsman.”

McCain said he thinks the Republican governors are going to assume a leadership role in the future of the Republican Party.

When I pressed him on why he selected Palin as his running-mate, he said, “Well sure, but now we’re in a whole election cycle,” he said. 

“Have no doubt of my admiration and respect for her and her viability,” McCain said, “but at this stage my corpse is still warm!”

Red State is flipping out over the comment, igniting a 91 (so far) comment war. I’m no fan of McCain’s and a big fan of Palin’s.  That said, I can’t object to McCain’s answer. For one, 2012 is a long time away and it’s not at all clear that Palin is running.  Palin told CTV in Canada:

As for her own political future, Palin was less clear, saying “some days politics make me roll my eyes and say ‘I don’t know if politics are in my future’” and “it’s certainly not the be-all, end-all for me personally.”

“If there are platforms, opportunities for me to be able to effect positive change in people’s lives, whether that’s political or another venue I will embrace that,” she said.

“But I don’t know if it’s going to be in politics or running for president in ‘12.”  

McCain is being a politician and hedging his bets on what happens over the next few years and whether Palin is actually running. I know of no political leader who is throwing their support to phantoms (which is what all of the potential Presidential Candidates we talk about here ultimately are.) That said, I think the reaction to McCain’s statement illustrates the fervor out there for Palin that I’ve never seen for anyone else.

Finally, some may wonder why Pawlenty and Huntsman were mentioned first by McCain, I’d point out these Governors endorsed McCain early in the process while Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford didn’t.

Joe the Plumber nailed the feelings of many conservatives in his interview on the Glenn Beck program:

GLENN: Well, okay. Let’s take them one by one. Tell me about John McCain, something that I don’t know.

JOE THE PLUMBER: Well, something you don’t know, actually it’s probably stuff that you’ve already guessed and has already been painted in the different media spotlights. Just, well, you know, the bailouts. When I was on the bus with him, I asked him a lot of questions about the bailout because most Americans did not want that to happen, yet he voted for it. At the same time he’s talking about how he’s going to make somebody famous if they even think about putting pork in the bill? We all know how much pork was in the $700 billion bailout package. And why did he vote for it? And I asked him pretty direct questions and some of the answers you guys are going to receive, you know, they appalled me, absolutely. You know, I was angry. In fact, I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him.

GLENN: Really?

JOE THE PLUMBER: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Why didn’t you get off the bus?

JOE THE PLUMBER: Honestly because the thought of Barack Obama becoming President scares me even more…

I mean, you know, hopefully I wasn’t too big a proponent of that, this — what do you call it — tripping post, if you will. There isn’t somebody. Neither campaign put out a — no, I’m not going to speak for the Democrats but I mean, the Republicans didn’t put out a candidate for us to really vote for. It’s the lesser of two evils.:

I have to say that the bailout vote did it for a lot of Republicans. I’d resigned myself to expecting just three things from McCain: fiscal conservatism, judges, and energy. Making a big deal out of earmarks and then supporting a bill that had 40 years worth of earmarks in it was way too much for me to have much confidence he’d be any type of a fiscal conservative. I didn’t make calls for McCain for a couple weeks after that, and I think it was probably the moment that McCain’s ultimate fate was sealed.

(Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

MB: Earlier in the year, you wrote a letter to Rush Limbaugh defending John McCain’s conservative values. In response, Mitt Romney added, “Well, it’s probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me. I think there are a lot of folks that tend to think that maybe John McCain’s race is a bit like Bob Dole’s race — that it’s the guy who’s the next in line; he’s the inevitable choice and we’ll give it to him, and then it won’t work. I think that the right course for a winning campaign against someone like Barack Obama is going to have to be somebody who can speak with energy and passion about the future of America, not another senator who can say, ‘Well, here’s what I did on bill H. 1234. Here’s what I did on my committee assignment.’” Unfortunately, do you think Romney was right in this belief?

BD: No. You can go back in any campaign and it’s always, “If you win, you are a genius, and if you lose, [you] are an idiot.” For Democrats and Republicans, [the above] is true. In addition, I thought Gov. Romney was more qualified than McCain. I was not defending John McCain. In fact, I said in that letter that I disagreed with John McCain on a number of issues. Romney did call to apologize and admitted that he had not fully read what I wrote. (emphasis mine) Link

This definitely wasn’t Romney’s finest moment of the campaign, but it’s interesting to hear Romney’s argument about the problem with McCain (emphasized in quote). Very prescient. What’s funny, the once so harsh so harsh castigation of a former party leader, now seems to be a very cogent analysis.

On the flip, I imagine if Mitt read this interview, he might feel a bit silly with the line he laid on Dole, especially when Dole claims he felt Mitt was the more capable.