111 posts tagged “conservative”

This morning, I came upon a piece on the American Thinker blog in which Rocco DiPippo did an absolutely tremendous job of assessing and characterizing liberals. Unfortunately, he didn't stop there, and so after he'd profiled today's essential liberal, he launched into a rant in which he seemed to hold the left solely responsible for all the trouble America is in today. I wrote a short comment about how he'd failed to hold Bush and the Republicans accountable, but I can't get Pippo's commentary out of my head because it and the other readers' comments it drew are exactly what's wrong with the conservative movement today.

Hold on, my last sentence is what's wrong with conservatives today - they don't represent a movement. They represent a "standing still." They point fingers at the left and fail utterly to hold their own accountable. Not that they don't know there's a problem, they just believe that the left with its media and education system are all-powerful and conservatives are the hapless victims. They're blind as bats. They're lemmings. That's it, they're blind lemmings. Interestingly, conservatives have created a self-fulfilling prophecy

Even now (or especially now), Republicans haven't learned one lesson from their defeat , and if anything, they've become even more closely aligned with Democrats. And all the right does is whine a bit and shift their focus to those terrible liberals.

Don't get me wrong, "terrible" is far too kind a word to describe liberals, even the best of them, but the right seems, for all intents and purposes, vanquished. McCain is the "standard bearer," Gingrich is doing climate ads with Pelosi (and where's the outrage?), and to my knowledge, there are only two conservative radio hosts who show no desire or inclination to be friendly to liberals, and one of them, Rush Limbaugh, was told by several listeners this past week about how he was letting them down by not showing stronger leadership. Last night, I saw Laura Ingraham substitute for O'Reilly, and she was sickeningly friendly and accommodating toward one liberal "guest." Look, you don't berate people without reason, but the instant a liberal starts the litany of lies, he has to be shut down.

I personally won't be friends with, or even friendly toward, even the nicest of liberals if he refuses or is unable to be rational. Irrational people are, in my book, worse than animals because you don't have to try to reason with animals, and they can't vote... at least not yet.

So I urge you to read the American Thinker commentary, but let's get a few things straight once and for all: The Dems and the left are our, meaning America's, most dangerous enemy. You may not see it, but you have more in common with Muslim radicals than you do with liberals, and so isn't it ironic that the only people who don't think Islamists need to be destroyed are... that's right... liberals. Michael Savage says they're diseased. I say they're depraved.

But conservatives and Republicans are not well by any stretch. people love to reference McCain-Feingold as John McCain's signature mistake and probably the defining moment in the start of Republicans' decline, and who am I to disagree? Except that as I keep saying, McCain's bill was a blunder, and he should have disassociated himself from it as it took final form, but in the end, McCain was merely one member of the Congressional majority that passed it, and not the one responsible for it becoming law. But there was one person responsible for that. And he's a Republican. And my own mistake was in not, many years ago, labeling the bill by it's proper name and order of blame. It's Bush-McCain-Feingold, and it shall be forever thus.

Which reminds me, can you name one thing George Bush has done since? And don't say "the Surge." Not only did Bush not initiate that, he was dragged into it as a last resort, yet one I and others had been demanding long before Bush finally had to do something, anything, to counter not just the withering criticism, but what would possibly have become a movement for impeachment had he continued to allow our troops to die without reason or reward.

And have you seen any Republican shouting from the rooftop that Democrats are totally and solely responsible for the current fuel crisis? It's a no-brainer... except to brainless Republicans.

One last thing, and I blame Scio for this since he alerted me to the Vox politics page. I now check it every few months, the latest being today, and I was struck by what a bit of liberal propaganda it's become. It may have been forever thus, but today it was in-your-face liberal garbage from the referenced commentaries right now to the descending size of the keywords. To say that I won't be part of that is ludicrous since I'm not already, but I can't be part of any service that holds liberal views in high regard - or any regard for that matter. If only I could just find some conservatives who would place brutal honesty above ideology, perhaps we could start, say, The Cold Light of Reason, or maybe buy a frozen yogurt franchise?

Fie on it.

What A Stunning Accomplishment

In a very warm concession speech tonight, Mike Huckabee finally made me a kingmaker.

OK, he didn't, but he proved me right about "No one named Huckabee is going to be President," and he vindicated me as one of McCain's earliest lukewarm supporters.

But suddenly, the focus is on John McCain, and his is an utterly amazing achievement. It was all over for him more times than I can remember, and yet he kept on (just as Hillary is doing, I might add), and here he is now, the Republican nominee.

This is the very sort of thing that only happens in America

Congratulations,Senator, I wish I liked you more. But I respect you a lot. If ever someone deserved the nomination, you're that man.

Whether the lights are on or off, is anybody home?

It should be billed as the Battle of the Lightweights, although Hillary Clinton is clearly right at the top of their weight class, and the question should be, not if Barack Obama is fit to answer that hypothetical 3am phone call (it could come at 3;10), but whether he can rise above the ranks of amateur. He's clearly the least qualified candidate ever to make a serious run for the Presidency in modern history (mine), and that means he's the least qualified ever, because no one as inexperienced as he would have even dared run in earlier times.

Of course, that says even more about the electorate than it does the candidate.

But the cracks are stating to show.

In an Ohio debate, Obama vowed to change NAFTA. Later, it was alleged that he had pre-qualified his remarks with Canadian officials when a CTV report said Obama told the officials well ahead of time that it would be just "campaign rhetoric." Obama denied doing such a thing.

Except that he did.

It turns out that some Canadians do something that's a bit old-fashioned - they take notes and write memos. Now the Obama campaign is saying that Canadians misinterpreted what they were told.

What happened to that grand eloquence?

And today, the Canadian Prime Minister, whose name is being withheld pending official lookup, told Parliament directly that Obama is sending mixed signals.

So clearly, they were told something. And we can assume that it wasn't "I'm going to scrap NAFTA forthwith so get used to it," because, well, that would be real news in Canada's capital, Snowville, Ont. (I think).

So from there, it hardly matters what was said (except to Canadians), because at the very least, it was ambiguous, and intentionally so. Is this the sort of new diplomacy Obama is going to bring to the Presidency?

And lest you think that's only one minor mistake, consider the following from the Associated press:

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.

Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.

Rockefeller called Obama "brilliant" and "well grounded" and prepared to take the reins as commander in chief.

Just one slight problem with that brilliant preparedness, Jay, and it's a problem which the AP's Tom Raum outrageously failed to report: Rockefeller not only voted FOR the authorization of force, he urged his colleagues to do so in a speech.

Now it's true that Rockefeller urged that war be the last resort after all other avenues have failed, but that's a judgment call on the part of the President, and there can be no doubt that Jay Rocking authorized force.

And there's a new Clinton ad which alleges that Obama, as chairman of a Senate subcommittee set up to monitor al-Qaida activities in Afghanistan has never convened it - because he's too busy campaigning, and Obama appears to confirm it.

There's something about Barry

Finally, the new buzzwords in the Clinton camp are "buyer's remorse." Those words will become a battle cry if Hillary manages to win both Ohio and Texas. I'm not sure her double victory would be a good thing because it would certainly restore a lot of her footing, but the thrill of contemplating what would happen next is alluring.

Now I leave you with this question: Has Gloria Steinem always been insane?

I've been thinking about Obama's response to John McCain that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq before Bush and McCain invaded, and the more I do, the more juvenile and dangerous it seems. Now Angelina Jolie, writing in the Washington Post has done a great service while at the same time proving that not all liberals are blinded by ideology.

Jolie: "Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?"

Obama can. He's said so - that even genocide wouldn't deter him from his cut and run strategy. Can the United States afford to gamble that Obama will know the right thing to do and actually do it? He was looking to the past to save him from McCain's sarcasm because his initial faux pas was so glaring. More important, he was desperate to avoid having to deal with the implications of saying that he'd pull the troops and send them back in if and when it became necessary.

How is it possible that Angelina Jolie understands what Obama can't?

The thing that has long troubled me about Obama is not his lack of experience or his liberalism or his possible allegiances to the wrong people, all of which is terrible enough. But it's his immaturity that is so very ominous since it may portend a boy-President making critical decisions for the greatest country on Earth at a time that, it could be argued, is as precarious as any in our history.

A recent poll had 84% of respondents saying that they did not think Obama was too young to be President. What amazed me is that someone would ask that. They didn't for Kennedy or even Clinton. There's something about Barry. He seems much younger than his years, and not in a good way.

Obama's reply to McCain not only focused on his weaknesses, it magnified them by several orders of magnitude. Suddenly, the thing that every rational person feared about him was there on display. He really is clueless - his intelligence can't cover for his naiveté. He's a dangerous man, and now that danger is multi-faceted.

This serves as a wake up call for those on the right who say they can't support McCain, or worse, would consider voting for Obama. Things may be bad, but they can get a lot worse, and if you helped make an Obama Presidency possible and things went inevitably downhill, how could you live with yourself?

I know conservatives will continue to mutter about how un-conservative McCain is, and that's fine. It should actually help McCain. But when push comes to shove, I hope you'll be pulling that lever for the little old Senator from Arizona who, by the way is younger than his years in that good way and despite his torture wrenched body..

Obamanonsense is a product of loony left hysteria, youthful stupidity and alcoholic stupor. Here's hoping we won't have to rename the Democratic Party, the Democratic Cult.

When the campaign begins in earnest, barring some Invasion of the Body Snatchers action, the general electorate should be far more grounded..America has proven that a black man and a hideous woman can run for President and be taken seriously. There's no need for the country to commit suicide in order to prove it's not bigoted.

Mrs. O. hasn't been proud of her country until now, and Mr. O can't answer questions about the here and now. After the election, the name, Barack Obama, should retain no greater significance than as one of the sounds your parrot makes.

I'll leave with this edited version of what Joseph Farah recently had to say about Obama:

Let's examine some of Obama's key votes:

On May 24, 2007, he voted against continued funding of our troops in Iraq.

On Jan. 11, 2007, he voted against reform on earmarks

On May 17, 2006, he voted against an increase in the amount of fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border...again contradicting the majority of his fellow Democrats.

On Sept. 29, 2005, he opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

On Aug. 3, 2007, he voted against expanding the power of U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects.

On April 26, 2007, he voted to set dates for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

On March 29, 2007, he voted to start withdrawing troops from Iraq last summer.

On May 11, 2006, he voted against extending President Bush's tax cuts.

On Jan. 31, 2006, he opposed confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

What is the single, solitary, lone vote Barack Obama regrets?

(That) he tried to save the life of a poor, handicapped woman who was being victimized in the most inhuman way by her estranged husband and a rogue local court.

This should give you some insight into the character of Barack Obama. It should give you a glimpse of his dark soul. It should give you a look into his hardened, politically correct heart. It should give you a picture of what this country has in store for it when he is elected president later this year.

It's not enough that the two candidates for the Democratic nomination would never even be there were it not for the fact that one is black and one is a woman, but now Howard Dean has put his foot back in its customary location -  his mouth.

Dean says the Republican field "looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s."

Interesting. In the 1950's, the Republicans were the party of civil rights, and in the 1850s, the Dems were the party of slavery. The Republicans were founded to combat slavery.

Not to be outdone, Obama has said he'll get tough - with Canada - over NAFTA. WOW! He'll court Iran and Venezuela, but our friendliest ally and one of the only NATO members fighting alongside us in Afghanistan, that one he's gonna rough up a bit.

I've always felt that closer scrutiny would cause Obama to unravel, but now I'm getting a little worried that his unraveling will take place before he's sewn up the nomination.

Meanwhile, other black politicians continue to demonstrate that they'd be a better candidate than Obama. They are being pressured to endorse Obama, and they are even receiving threats, but they aren't bending

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter, said:.

"I’ve gotten threatening mail" of the nature: "Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change."

Representative Watson continued: "But I don’t intimidate.... I would lose my seat over my principles."

And Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) is perhaps even more interesting. Also a Clinton backer, he's a superdelegate who says that other black superdelegates are receiving "nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

Now here's the best part:

Cleaver states, "This is the politics of the 1950s."

And coincidentally, the Cleaver name was also prominent in the 1950s, and it was virtually synonymous with principle.

Good luck, Howie, the race you're in puts you at a disadvantage.

And speaking of race, if you're like me, you usually really enjoy Black History Month, but I gotta say, this one's the best ever! If only it didn't have to end tonight, but at least we got an extra day this year. I know that may not seem like much, but every day counts when it comes to Obama's maturity.

Lesson learned, Senator?

The New York Times smear of John McCain is a perfect example of the old saying: "When you lay down with liberals, you come up smelling like garbage."

OK, that's not exactly the old saying, but let's make it the new one, shall we?

Conservatives have ethical constraints that liberals don't, and you've seen it right here as personified by, but certainly not limited to, Lenny and Snowy who will say anything that supports or justifies their beliefs and ideology regardless of whether or not it's true.

People on the right can't get away with that. If a conservative makes a dubious charge or commits a breach of ethics, other conservatives will call him on it. As they should. In politics, when a Republican does or says something that reflects badly on the party, and an apology just won't do, he's forced to resign. Not only is that not so with liberals, but Democrats can commit acts of criminality and still retain their seats. And the more liberal, the bigger the criminal act you can get away with, as if "talking while liberal" isn't criminal in itself.

And of course, the other side of that coin is that when people aren't constrained by a system of moral values, "the end justifies the means" becomes their rule of law.

Such is the case with the New York Times today. In one of the most overt displays of bias and a  most blatant attempt to undermine a Republican candidate and indeed, the party itself, the Times ran perhaps the weakest hit piece ever. Not only are the sources anonymous, but the charges aren't even the least bit substantial, much less substantiated.. In addition, it has come to light that the Times had, and failed to even mention, evidence and sources willing to go on record, both of which would mitigate the accusations, such as they are.

Now this is certainly no surprise. It was done to George Bush days before the 2000 election, but one wonders why then didn't the Times wait on this in order to plant doubt about McCain closer to election day? I say it's because the Times felt it could effect maximum damage right now.

You see, because the story is so weak, it might not have the intended effect in November, but right now, well, that's another story. First the Times endorsed McCain when it already had the smear in the works. Why? Conservatives groaned that the Times endorsement only proved what people on the right already felt about McCain. But that certainly wasn't who the Times wanted to reach. It wanted to encourage moderates, independents and liberals to help cement the McCain nomination so they, the Times, could then undermine it once he was the guaranteed winner.

That's only speculation on my part, but have you got a better scenario? The Times' idea: McCain secures the nomination - then he's toast. With a mortally wounded candidate and a loss in November guaranteed, why try?

And if McCain's not down for the count, at least the Times thinks it has laid the groundwork for others to expand on the charges and level new ones. I've said that I've never seen an election like this one, but I also have to say that once the liberal viciousness came out of the closet circa the Clinton impeachment, said viciousness has been on public display ever since, and it continues to grow and become more bold.

I see little difference in tactics between American liberals now and those employed by the leaders of the old Soviet Union. Pravda has nothing on the New York Times.

But the Times effort could backfire, both on the paper and the election - there is a golden opportunity for John McCain. For the first time, I believe conservatives are slightly sympathetic, even if they needn't be. I mean it's the perfect time to say, "Senator, we told you so." That's why McCain needs to seize the opportunity. It's not enough for him to call the Times story a smear. He has to understand that the Times represents all liberals. That the Times is liberalism at its finest.

McCain must (but I doubt he will) regard the Times attack as a gift. He has a window that won't remain open for long. If he were to move even slightly more right, he might accomplish what was previously unthinkable. Conservatives won't embrace him, but they might stop attacking him.

However, McCain, being far more like George Bush than conservatives are willing to admit, will probably do what Bush continues to do - he'll regard liberals as human, and he'll not only be civil to them, he'll still 'work" with them. I don't know about you, but I've found hyenas to be more approachable.

I was originally going to make this subject one or two sentences long as part of a number of offhand comments I'd planned to post today, but it has just expanded into a full-fledged subject of its own, and the other comments will have to wait. I only hope you can.

Earlier this week, I was surprised to find that our very own Lenny (URL withheld due to insignificance) appeared to think that Barry-O was rising above racism. If he'd stopped there, I wouldn't have taken note, but Lenny's young and stupid, and he implied (at least that's how I saw it) that this racism was somehow emanating from the right. That couldn't go unanswered, even if it was Lenny who thought it.

You see, you can point to a number of racists and racial incidents from years past, and of those that can be attributed to a specific party, well, let me ask you, can anyone name anything that a Republican said or did that was distinctly racist?

Let's see, George Wallace was a Democrat... Robert Byrd is. So is Ed Rendell. Meanwhile, President Eisenhower tried and failed to get a civil rights act through, and his failure was due to one man - Lyndon Johnson. And Harry Truman used that dreaded word to describe black people long after he'd left the Presidency.

So did you hear the one about the half a black guy running for President?

The Democratic bigots are coming out of the woodwork. But lest you think this is about the Clintons and their supporters, it isn't. In fact, that's well documented and there's no need to beat a dead horse, even a white one, and no, I'm not referring to Hillary... she's now the dark horse, anyway.

Let me put it this way: remember who our first black President was? That's right, Pasty Bill. Black people loved him. But black guys marry white women more often than the reverse, and Bill is apparently one of them,.because have you heard anyone hailing Hill as the first black woman presidential candidate?

Well, before you think I'm just being silly, consider this: in every election cycle (and many times in between), some jackass in the liberal news media asks the question, "Why can't Republicans attract the black vote?" What does it run, about 90-10 Democratic? The implication is, of course, that Republicans are bigots. No matter that there are other reasons why the Dems get the black vote which I don't need to go into here, other than to say they involve dependency and false promises.

But this has nothing to do with Republicans. It's all Dems, all the time. Now I ask, can't both Hillary and Barry be expected to be FOBs? No, not friends of Bill, blacks! Then why is Obama getting that same disproportionate share of the black vote now when it's two Democrats they're voting for? Now can you say, "Racism?" "Bigotry?" OK, how about "Bigism" or "Racistry?"

No, then consider what James Taranto presented today in a column delightfully titled, We Shall Be Overcome:

Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee is a rarity in Congress: a white lawmaker representing a majority-black district. First elected in 2006 to fill the vacant seat of Harold Ford Jr., Cohen faces a primary challenge this summer from a black candidate, Nikki Tinker. The Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers reports that the campaign against Cohen has gotten unusually ugly:

"Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus," blares the flier, which Cohen himself received in the mail... Circulated by an African-American minister from Murfreesboro Tenn., which isn't even in Cohen's district... the literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to "see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election."

Akers quotes a Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial:

Last summer Cohen came under attack from black ministers for (supporting) federal hate crimes legislation to protect gay rights. The paper wrote that the "real motive" behind the ministers' attacks... revealed later by Rev. Robert Poindexter...: "He's not black and he can't represent me, that's just the bottom line."

Poindexter (has) a misconception about the nature of political representation in a democratic republic... that his congressman's job is to represent him "as a black" rather than as a citizen.

Yet it is this same misrepresentation that has led to deliberate efforts to draw "majority minority" districts like the one Cohen now defends.

As for the anti-Semitic flier, it is evidence of the folly of thinking that a society can practice identity politics without opening itself up to the ugly side of such politics.

So I can understand Hillary getting a lesser share of the black vote than Barry, but nine to one? Is one candidate getting ninety percent of the vote of any other group? Are black women paying Hillary back for stealing one of their men?

Or are blacks voting for Obama because he's almost black like them?

And speaking of that dreaded word, Al Sharpton just said "misconscrewed" on Glenn Beck. I swear! Catch the replay, damnit, why are you always doubting me?

Now c'mon, let's sing, "Sittin' on the dock of the bay... wastin' ti,,i,i, ime..."

Coulter & Co... Leading The Lemmings

Is John McCain beyond the age of reason? Some people barely beyond the age of consent seem to think so. And they are being influenced by people whose outlandish statements are beyond words and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that older is not necessarily wiser.

I mean, it's perfectly legitimate to press one's case against John McCain, but is it too much to ask that you be rational? Am I being too demanding to expect that? None of the candidates still standing on either side are without serious flaws, but only one is being scrutinized at the molecular level and vilified by his party, and it's not even the one who should be.

That one is Mitt Romney.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Romney to be the nominee, but first he has a lot of explaining to do, and he has to be able to show that he can not only answer charges but level them. So far he's an abject failure. I don't expect Super Tuesday to be a disaster for Mitt, and it could even have a good outcome, but it doesn't matter if the candidate himself is fatally flawed.

McCain isn't. That's why conservatives are abandoning reason and resorting to T & D - threats and decibels. And they should be blaming the very guy they want - Romney. He could have had the nomination in a cakewalk. Instead, he's doing what he's done to keep himself from getting it - Not much. Did you see his add in which he takes on Hillary. Did you ask yourself why? Can the guy do anything right?

I read a travesty of a column this morning in which the writer literally threw reason out the window, and that column appeared in a highly regarded conservative publication. I'm used to seeing such things come from the left, but when it comes from the right it's shocking.

I've already said many times that you can't criticize McCain if you overlook Bush's failings in the same areas. yet conservatives still shamelessly do it, and nothing McCain has done is as bad as what conservatives make it out to be - or more importantly, what Bush has done, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than because of the relative powers of the two offices.

But it gets worse when you bring Romney into the mix. For example, is Romney a better conservative than McCain? At best, anyone being honest can only say, "Probably." And Romney hasn't even spent many years in office where a record might be better determined.

Now I don't like to be defending McCain, and I would much prefer the Republicans had a good, strong, charismatic conservative. unfortunately, they don't. There's not even one on the horizon.

So you know the admonishment; when you're in a hole, stop digging? Well, conservatives are digging furiously - mindlessly. After nominating Reagan and Dole, some conservatives are actually advancing the idea that McCain is too old - and blaming it on his POW ordeal. Incredible.

Here's what makes that even more absurd, outrageous, astounding, shocking, preposterous - they don't even understand what things were like when the constitution was written. A President has to be at least 35 years of age. Would anyone elect a thirty-five-year-old today? God, I hope not!

But the problem is, while we might regard that as absurdly young and inexperienced, do you know what the average lifespan was in 1787 - 15. You hit puberty, they gave you a wife, you had a kid, then you both celebrated by dying... and the grandparents raised it... and they were already dead for years. Without indoor plumbing, you didn't want to live any longer anyway, and people used to sit on their front porches and wonder when the toilet would be invented.

At night, they could only dream of microwaves, and when comedians used to say, "You're goin' to the moon, Alice," no one would laugh because they needed a refrigerator before Tang. At least war finally brought us something useful - M & Ms.

OK, anyway, maybe it was like 26, but the fact is, 35 was an advanced age back then. I'm sure if the average person had lived to be 78, the founders would have set the minimum age for a President at 60 so they could get the midlife crises out of the way first.

I keep hearing about all the damage John McCain has done in the Senate. The fact is, he did very little, although maybe not for having tried? But doesn't that only make the case for getting him out of the Senate and into the Presidency where he won't be signing bills he introduced the way Bush did? And isn't it a worst case scenario if McCain is still in the Senate and Billary or Barama is President?

So if you want your teenager to be going on field trips to gay bathhouses, vote for Hillary. Although I can see where voting for Obama and having your children learn how to be slumlords might be OK, but all I ask is that conservatives demand meticulously reasoned argument - you know, like mine. And if you're not sure about what you're reading and believing, ask me. I'm always happy to help... unless you think I'm too old?!?

What's the biggest problem Republicans face?

You want it in a nutshell? The problem Republicans face is; they have no face.

We're all familiar with the "Reagan Republican:" Does anyone reading this regard him or her self as a Romney Republican? If so, would you kindly describe than animal?

I've been characterizing Romney with words like: mechanical, rehearsed, robotic, stiff, mannequin-like, and probably a few others that aren't as flattering, but there's a fellow named Green (sorry I didn't get the first name) who was talking about the "heated" exchange between McCain and Romney in last night's debate when McCain accused Romney of backing a timetable for Iraq - the irritated Romney, Green says, "spoke in the same tone he'd use when ordering fine wine in a restaurant."

So there it is, would Reagan even order fine wine? A Martini with a jelly bean, maybe.

Republicans haven't embraced McCain, but they haven't embraced Romney either. And he hasn't embraced them. In fact, I dare say John McCain has made more overtures to the base than Romney has, and with time growing short for Mitt to turn things around, he still doesn't seem to understand what he needs to project. He's actually more like Fred Thompson than Ronald Reagan.

I keep hoping Romney will take that spark he showed after his Michigan win and turn it into a wildfire, but as Charles Krauthammer put it, he hasn't up to now, so there's no reason to think things will change.

What's even more interesting is how right-side commentators have responded to the McCain surge. I didn't hear anyone savage the Senator the way they did in 2000 except, well, Savage himself, which could only mean that for whatever reason, pundits felt they needed to keep their options open.

And now that John McCain is the clear frontrunner, those options have narrowed considerably. Rush Limbaugh has been more tempered than I've ever heard him. Sean Hannity still doesn't accept McCain, but he's sure not mounting a counter-offensive. Only Ann Coulter got tougher, and her column yesterday was one of the worst she's ever written, utterly devoid of humor and as shrill as a Hillary stump speech.

So Republicans had better not just resign themselves to McCain if he's still on top after Super Tuesday, they'd do well to swallow hard and embrace him in the hope that he'll embrace them.

Why? because they'll need him more than he needs them. Some people have said they won't vote for McCain, that they'll just stay home. What a great way to render yourselves irrelevant. McCain hasn't needed you much to win what he already has, why would he need you at all if he wins the election?

I like to talk about the conservatives who are being driven mad by McCain's success, but when I do, I'm really referring to one in particular. She's an otherwise lovely young woman who quite literally becomes insane when talking about John McCain.

We parted company two years ago when Missy labeled McCain a traitor, not to conservatives, but to the country. I felt badly because one has to be crazy to say what she said, but I didn't want to entertain that kind of talk, much less indulge her on it.

So here we sit with no perfect candidate. The Dems think they have two - but that's another liberal illusion. The fact is that John McCain simply cannot be worse than George Bush, and 70 percent of Republicans still think the President is just fine which makes the case that Missy may have been merely the most visible crazy conservative.

Let's get some things straight once and for all, since I'm just as tired of right-wing nonsense as I am left-wing nonsense. John McCain's name is on the title of McCain-Feingold, but the name that appears where it really counts is that of George Bush. McCain introduced a bill. That bill had input and agreement from a majority of the Congress, and they are every bit as responsible as McCain is. But again, in the end, the sole responsibility lies with Jorge Whatsaveto Bush who signed it - and every other bill that came across his desk save one rather insignificant bone he tossed to conservatives.

And regarding McCain's lack of support of the Bush tax cut, what part of McCain's "Hey, where's the spending cuts" question don't you self-described conservatives understand? Especially because seven years later, your President still hasn't seen an expenditure he didn't like? And why aren't you outraged that Bush now threatens to veto spending when he never did it even once before?

The bottom line is that if John McCain is the nominee, if you don't get behind him at least as much as you did and continue to do for George Bush, McCain isn't the traitor, you are... and you can add "hypocrite' to that.

I know that's tough, but it's about time you heard some straight talk.

A very sincere gentleman by the name of Kevin just called into Rush Limbaugh, and identified himself as a veteran who served in Lebanon.

From the beginning and throughout the course of the conversation, Kevin expressed his contempt and disgust for the Democrats but the whole thing really started to build to a crescendo when he said that by his own private poll which he made up because that's what the major media do and he is, at least, close to the people he's "polling," he said that by his estimate, 99% of veterans support Republicans.

But Kevin's grand finale had just started. Rush then asked him what he thought of Harry Reid, and Kevin said that Reid was "the dirtiest of the dirty" and that he couldn't understand how such a great city and a great State like Nevada could elect such a dirty person.

Then Limbaugh asked Kevin what he thought of Nancy Pelosi...

Kevin (approximate): "She's the dirtiest of the dirty too. She and Dirty Harry ought to get married and have a dirty baby!"

Rush then thanked Kevin for his passionate comments, and this wonderful veteran left after one final plea to Rush not to let Hillary, whom he called the anti-Christ, be elected, and Rush assured him he would see that she wasn't.

Now you and I know that Rush can't really make that guarantee, but I wish you could have heard Kevin speak. He was intensely earnest, but not nasty. He was forceful, but he sounded gentle. He was, in short, what you picture one of America's finest to be.