A blog for America's neighbour to the north that support Mitt Romney and what he stands for. As the U.S.'s closest friend and ally Canada is greatly affected by U.S. policy and politics.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Update on the Race for GOP, Delegate Count, Medal Standings


Today Romney won gold in the Silver State, Nevada, and John McCain took a gold in the Palmetto State, South Carolina. Next up, Florida. Here are the latest stats to look at:

Delegate Count/Score board: (as per CNN)

  • Romney - 72
  • McCain - 38
  • Huckabee - 29
  • Thompson - 8
  • Paul - 6
  • Giuliani – 2
  • Hunter - 1
Medal Count:

1) Romney - 3 golds, 2 silvers
2) McCain - 2 golds, 1 silver, 1 bronze
3) Huckabee - 1 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronzes
4) Thompson - 1 silver, 2 bronzes
5) Paul - 1 silver
6) Hunter - 1 bronze



Read more!

Mitt Places Gold in the Silver State

Mitt Romney wins another Gold medal in Nevada with more than 50% of the vote, absoulutely overshadowing the next closest candidate. We shall see what happens tonight in South Carolina, but this is a major win for Mitt in the Silver State. With more delegates at stake there (34, 3 of which are unpledged), and only 24 in South Carolina, many think that Mitt's strategy could pay off. I recently read an article from the Boston Globe entitled "Lower Profile, But More Delegates", touching upon why Romney concentrating on Nevada instead of S.C could pay off. Here is an exerpt.

"While his main rivals slugged it out yesterday across South Carolina, fighting for an edge in today's hotly contested primary, Mitt Romney hopscotched around Nevada, angling to win a lower-profile contest today that could bring a bigger reward.

Focusing on Nevada and downplaying South Carolina is a gamble, but one that appeared more savvy yesterday with the publication of a new poll indicating that Romney has a 15-percentage-point lead.

Romney says he is focused not on the glory of winning a major battle in the first Southern primary, but on the less glamorous task of collecting the delegates needed to win the nomination at the Republican National Convention in September. South Carolina, he frequently points out, awards just 24 delegates to Nevada's 31.

"I want the nomination," Romney, who has been in Nevada since Thursday, said during a campaign stop at the Claim Jumper restaurant in Henderson. "I'm not just looking for a gold star on the forehead."

On to Florida!




Read more!

Romney Finds Himself in an Excellent Tactical Position

Despite the media making it sound as if Mitt Romney is destined for sure failure, and that McCain and Huckabee are God's gift to America (besides the Democrats of course), he is in a great position right now. He is like the guy on the Risk board who has huge armies built up in Australia, just waiting for everyone else to kill each other off so he can make his move to sweep the board in one fell swoop. For those who are unaware, the current delegate count (what really matters) is as follows (according to CNN). Notice that Romney has more than double the next guy (ya, the media is really smart alright, saying that Romney is doing poorly - what a bunch of biased morons they are, with an obvious goal in mind to prop up the weakest, most liberal Republican candidates).

  • Romney - 48
  • Huckabee - 19
  • McCain - 15
  • Thompson - 6
  • Paul - 2
  • Hunter - 1
  • Giuliani – 1
With Romney polling well in Nevada, he should win there, taking a good portion of the 34 delegates up for grab there (10 more delegates than even South Carolina). Although it is doubtful that he'll win South Carolina, hopefully he'll have a good showing there, that will help him as he moves onto Florida on January 29th.

The following article entitled "Place Your Money On Romney", written by Noam Sheiber of New Republic, does a superb job at showing the excellent strategic position that Mitt sits in right now. With, Noam's words in mind, let's all start doing everything we can to help Mitt win Florida, which will propel him to victory on Super Tuesday. Here is the article.

You hear a lot these days about the chaotic state of the GOP race, which is obviously true insofar as lots of candidates still have a shot at winning. But I don't think it's true in the sense that several candidates have an equal shot of winning.

My sense is that Mitt Romney emerges from Michigan with some pretty clear advantages. For one thing, the first kind of chaos ("type 1") makes it pretty tough for Romney's rivals to raise money, which will, perhaps more than anything else, influence the outcome of the 21 February 5th contests. As this Politico piece notes, the GOP's general fundraising environment was already tough. Type 1 chaos doesn't make it any easier--both because people are reluctant to bet on a potential loser, and because the bettors end up splitting their money among several candidates. Romney's personal fortune is obviously a huge help here.

Second, Romney doesn't need enough money/momentum to win the nomination outright. He just needs enough money & mo' to survive a winnowing of the field down to two candidates. Should he make it into a one-on-one scenario with any of his four plausible rivals (I don't consider Fred Thompson plausible at this point, though he could prove me wrong Saturday), I suspect the GOP establishment will rally around him with lots of money and support.

The reason is that each of these rivals inspires much discomfort in some significant corner of the party establishment. There is deep suspicion of McCain among lobbyists (hard feelings over Jack Abramoff), anti-tax people (particularly Abramoff pal Grover Norquist), and the various interest groups (gun-rights, anti-abortion, etc.) whose lives McCain made more difficult with campaign-finance reform. And that's before you get to the evangelical leadership, which hasn't forgotten his "agents of intolerance" diss in 2000. (See this recent Washington Post piece for a complete list of establishment McCain-haters.)

Meanwhile, Huckabee provokes all sorts of fear and loathing among security hawks and supply-siders (whom he derides as part of the Wall Street-Washington axis), while Giuliani obviously has his share of problems with the social-conservative industrial complex.

Romney has no such problems. While grassroots evangelicals may have their doubts about him, the elite portion of the movement likes him just fine. Supply-siders seem swayed by his businessman cred while the hawks take comfort in his obsession with doubling Guantanomo and jihadist caliphates.

Now run through the practical scenarios:

If McCain wins South Carolina, Huckabee and Fred Thompson are finished. (Thompson for obvious reasons, Huckabee because the state is about as ideal demographically as it's going to get for him. If he can't win there, where can he win?) I suspect Rudy is done, too, since he and McCain appeal to similar voters--security hawks, social moderates--and McCain will have all the momentum. That means a Romney-McCain playoff.

If Huckabee wins South Carolina, Thompson is done and McCain is damaged goods, while Giuliani and (obviously) Huckabee are still alive. With his war chest, Romney should be able to sneak into the top two in Florida, and the person who falls to third--Giuliani or Huckabee--is probably done, too. That means a Romney-Huckabee/Giuliani playoff.

If Thompson somehow wins South Carolina, Huckabee is done, McCain is seriously damaged, and Romney has a great shot at first or second in Florida, since Thompson will have a steep hill to climb there.

The biggest risk to Romney is a fourth-place finish in South Carolina, which raises questions about his viability and sends him limping into Florida. That's probably why you see Romney continuing to run ads there even though he's ostensibly conceded the state.

Short of that, I'd say his prospects look pretty good--or as good as they can in a race this wide open.

All that being said, let's not get too over confident. Mitt has an excellent ground team in so many states, supported by volunteers, internet bloggers, generous donation givers, and many pundits endorsing him. This is all great, but we can always do more. Let's get too it.


Read more!

Friday, January 18, 2008

Romney Owns Unprofessional Journalist Glenn Johnson

South Carolinians For Romney did an excellent article and posted a link to this video, showing an ignorant journalist, Glenn Johnson, accusing Mitt Romney of having Washington lobbyists. Mitt shows us yet another reason why he is the best person to be the next president. He handles the media extremely well, even though they have an unhealthy, unfair, and un-called-for biased against him (and all true conservatives). To read the rest of the article, visit Carolinians For Romney.


Read more!

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Ross Perot Endorses Romney ... and Slams McCain!

Some poignant excerpts from the article "When Ross Perot Calls…" from Newsweek.

The author starts, "The phone rang and it was Ross Perot , who hasn't given an interview in years. Perot, who won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election, making him one of the strongest third-party candidates in American history, got straight to the point."Remember what you wrote about John McCain in the March 13, 2000, NEWSWEEK?" 'Sure,' I lied."

He then goes on to talk about his days back in 'Nam' with McCain.

The Texas billionaire, now 77, still has some scores to settle from the Vietnam era, and his timing is exquisite. Just days before the South Carolina GOP primary, he wants me to know that McCain "is the classic opportunist--he's always reaching for attention and glory. Other POWs won't even sit at the same table with him."

"Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."


After rippin' on McCain, he then goes on to praise Mitt Romney:


"Perot says he intends to vote for Mitt Romney in the Texas Republican primary on March 4, citing Romney's experience in business and his family values. "When I went to the Naval Academy and met my first Mormons I asked why so many were excellent officers," Perot recalls. "I learned it was because of their strong family unit."

Even though I don't share the same view with Perot on every issue, I totally think he nailed this idea right on the head:

The founder of a data-processing empire is still sharp in diagnosing what ails the United States. "The situation in 1992 was not nearly as bad as it is now," he says. "If ever there was a time when it was necessary to put our house in order, it's now." And he believes that the best person to do that is Mitt Romney.


Read more!

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

It Looks Like McCain’s Straight Talk Express Made A Surprise Stop in BSville

How much more double talk, lies and deceit are we supposed to take from John McCain before we stop hearing how much of an honest “straight talker” he is (about as straight as a question mark … and no, not in that way)? When will we start hearing the truth that he claims to ALWAYS tell? McCain, like Huckabee, keeps getting a free pass whenever something negative comes up about him, mostly due to the left-wing media loving him (aka – setting either him or Huck up to get demolished by the Dems in the nationals).

The media, for the most part, simply ignores these stories and talks about what a great candidate he is. They say just a few negative things about him, enough to convince the public that they are not biased (which is a bold-face lie).

Yesterday the straight talker McCain who, according to…..hmmmm, let’s see….oh ya, HIMSELF (the guy who ripped Mitt up for making ‘negative’ ads), send out negatives mailers in South Carolina accusing Mitt Romney of not supporting president Bush’s tax cuts early enough (even though he himself VOTED AGAINST those same tax cuts and even told Tim Russert last week that he was proud of his vote). As Joe Scarborough said “this smells of DIRTY POLITICS and DIRTY CAMPAIGNING!” Not to mention that the mailer contains several misleading claims (click here to see them). So much for straight talk “my friends” ("my friends" is something McCain say about every 3 seconds in his speeches).

The other thing I don’t understand is why McCain would attack Romney, who is actually polling fourth in SC? Why would you attack a competitor running fourth? I thought the media said that Mitt Romney was done after Iowa and then again New Hampshire (note -they were just kidding about Iowa). Well the answer is that his attacks wouldn’t make sense, unless … he is an angry, ill-tempered, cranky old man who is seriously hating on someone. I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to target the other frontrunners (like Huckabee for example – oh wait – I forgot, he’s practically your boyfriend)? I guess the city of Common Senseville is one place the straight talk express didn’t visit.

So what are we to make of his changes and repeated lies on immigration and taxes? John the way you describe the immigration thing still sounds like amnesty to most people. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

I guess it all boils down to this: If one of the BIG reasons people are supporting John McCain is that he is “honest” and is a “straight talker”, they really need to do their homework because, to the non-ignorant, McCain is being less than honest with people and to believe otherwise, well, your only fooling yourself and you must be an absolute McCainiac.


Read more!

McCain - A Sore Loser

Can I speak bluntly with you guys? Thanks. John McCain is REALLY starting to get on my nerves. He is SUCH a sore loser, SUCH a big baby, SUCH a friggin' angry man, and can't graciously accept defeat.

In his speech tonight after losing Michigan to Mitt Romney, McCain congratulated him on his victory, just as Mitt humbly did for McCain in New Hampshire. However, his congrats didn't come without a negative a negative jab attached, as he attributed Romney's success to being the "native son" of Michigan. That is complete B.S if I've ever heard it, and ironic, because John McCain's success can only be attributed to democrats and independents pulling for him in N.H. The real reason that Romney won is because he cares about what Michigan (and America for that matter) needs and wants and is basing his platform around it (when you listen to the people John, that called de-moc-rac-y .... do you need me to talk slower for you?) Mitt focused on the economy (currently the number one issue in America) and other important issues and his message simply resonated with voters...End of story...none of this "native son" crapola. Hugh Hewitt reported these numbers from tonight and more on his website:


  • Romney won conservatives 41-23%, with 20% for Huckabee. ALMOST DOUBLE
  • Romney won Republicans 41-27%. AGAIN ALMOST DOUBLE
  • Romney won Evangelicals 34-29% for Huckabee. McCain took just 23%. WOW, EVEN AFTER HUCK ASKED EVERY PASTOR IN MICHIGAN TO GET THEIR CONGREGATIONS TO VOTE FOR HIM.

  • It looks to me like Romney won with Republican voters again, just as he did in New Hampshire (remember who voted in McCain - that's right, the independents)

    So who voted for the other guys tonight?

    • McCain won Democrats 41-33%. WELL DONE. GEE, WHO DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO SLAUGHTER IN THE ELECTION?
    • McCain won pro-choice voters 39-35%. CAUSE HE'S BASICALLY HALF LIBERAL
    • He won among those who never attend church by 11 points — 39-28. HE DOESN'T FAIR WELL WITH THE RELIGIOUS VOTE
    • The “architect of the surge” won with Iraq war disapprovers 36-29. BECAUSE HE'S A FLIP-FLOPPER ON THE ISSUES
    Hugh said "Cue the fat lady for Huck and McCain. The former can’t get above 15% with a huge effort, and McCain can’t win in an open primary state, one crucial to the fall, even when the Dems take a bye?"

    It looks like McCain and Huckabee's love affair might have to end, as their tag-team effort against Romney just ended up making them look like complete fools (they remind me of the two burglars on Home Alone that get absolutely smoked by the kid). Plus, South Carolina is a key state for both of them and they are both in each other's way. They will be two hungry dogs fighting over the same bowl. Although I'd hate to see them break up, as it's just getting entertaining, it's inevitable. They are probably on the phone right now "Mikey, baby, this just isn't working out"..."Ya, Johnny, you've change, you're not the influential man you used to be".

    Bottom line, Mitt won tonight, fair and square, and McCain has the right to shut his jealous yapper until he can actually pull out some real Republicans and Conservatives to vote for him on a consistent basis. Remember Johnny boy, this is the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION you are going for. One positive thing about McCain and Huck though is that they will make a great villains for Mitt's "How I became president" story.

    ADDED:
    Great article Dave! I just wanted to add that in leading up to the election McCain was down playing Romney’s connection to Michigan as if he (McCain) had a bigger connection. He said during an interview on his bus that he was on an automotive industry committee and so on and added that Mitt hasn’t lived in Michigan since he was a kid years ago. Now he credits that shallow connection as being the main reason Mitt won. You can’t have it both ways Johnny boy if you want to ride the straight talk express.-Ken


    Read more!

    Tuesday, January 15, 2008

    Race Update - Mitt Romney Wins Michigan by a Hefty Margin

    Mitt Romney did an awesome job in Michigan convincing voters that he is the best man to fix the economy, secure the border, fight the war on terror, and strengthen families. I'm am extremely proud that Mitt is finally getting the recognition that he deserves. Even though Mitt had the most delegates, more pure votes than any other candidate, and was WINNING the race, the liberal media made it look like he was doomed to lose, while lovin' up Mike Huckabee and John McCain (who were actually losing). I think it absolutely crazy how negatively they can spin things against Mitt even as he is ACTUALLY WINNING. You watch the commentary after Mitt's win and I'm sure you will pick up on some of the negative things they say. For example they just let a caller say tell her perspective on the race, and she said that she was sad that Huckabee didn't win, and that Mitt won only because he was a Michigan native (John McCain also said that in his post-speech). This lady must be pretty ignorant, since almost ALL of Huckabee's supporters only vote for him because of his religion, ignoring his obvious slimy demeanor (he should be a used car salesman). They will probably say that Mitt only won because of democrats and independents voting for him, even though they didn't say that for John McCain in New Hampshire (no, no, for him it was because he's great - even though Mitt kicked his butt if you only count the Republican vote). They'll probably say that it was because of his money, even though both Obama and Clinton both have more (and they love those guys). You look at the stats after though, and you will see that Mitt not only won Michigan, but would have also won if it was just Republicans voting (actually, it just came on CNN, Romney won 2 to 1 against McCain for only conservatives). Mitt Romney is going to win Nevada and then has a really good chance at the nomination since he is one of the only ones who has enough money to continue. Oh, and by the way Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Mainstream media, why don't you just shut your dirty mouths about Mitt Romney having money. Republicans should be glad that SOMEONE has enough money to compete with the Democrats. Mitt now has two gold medals and two silvers.

    Here is the Medal Count

    1) Romney - 2 golds, 2 silvers
    2) McCain - 1 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze
    3) Huckabee - 1 gold, 2 bronzes
    4) Thompson - 1 silver, 1 bronze
    5) Hunter - 1 bronze

    PS - The way I knew that Mitt would win, even before the polls started coming in, I saw that CNN was sent Dana Bash to cover the story at Romney headquarters and she always covers the candidate that wins (or at least so far).


    Read more!

    Monday, January 14, 2008

    McCain Booed By Michigan Crowd While Talking About Illegal Immigration

    I agree with Mitt Romney that "immigration" is necessary to strengthen America, but "illegal immigration" brings America down. As sad as it is to deport people illegally living in the US, it is equally sad that thousands of others who are legally trying to immigrate are denied because of those who basically budded in line by breaking the law. John McCain, no matter what he tells you, basically will give amnesty to illegal immigrants if they pay enough money ($5000) and meet a few other conditions. Considering that it costs money to legally immigrate anyway, that's like telling someone "if you steal, you better watch out because we'll make you pay for the stuff you took", without any other action or punishment taken. Obviously if this happened, theft would be far more rampant. Evangelicals for Mitt pointed out that in the video McCain "uses his tired old line about how he's not going to deport the mother of a soldier serving in Iraq. Seriously -- how many soldiers have moms that are here illegally? Come on, Senator. Let's deal with the issue without trying to manipulate the patriotic feelings of Michiganders." Mitt Romney is the strongest on this issue. He understands that making exceptions to the rule only sends a message that it is okay to try to sneak into the country and if you happen to get caught you'll get a slap on the wrist. John McCain, despite his claims, is weak on this issue so important to many Americans. Here is McCain getting booed by Michiganders who understand how much of a true hypocrite he is. At the end there are a few cheers, probably from his democratic supporters!


    Read more!

    Romney - Fixing the Economy is the Name of the Game

    According to the most recent poll conducted by CNN, the state of the US Economy has surpassed the war in Iraq as the top issue in America. This might be attributed to the US is doing better in Iraq than they were a year ago, coupled with the fact that many Americans feel that the US is either in or soon heading into recession. If you think about it, the economy is an integral issue, as so many other issues are directly related. Take the war on terror for example. How is the US going to support billions upon billions of dollars of spending on the military if the economy is weak? As it is, the US is getting deeper and deeper into debt at an alarming pace to fund it now. What about better education, tighter border controls, and other important and much needed improvements and upgrades? These things are far from free, although the Democrats will make it seem like paying for them is not a big deal. All these things are directly impacted either positively or negatively by the strength or weakness of the economy.

    Mitt Romney is by far the strongest candidate, Republican or Democrat, when it comes the economy. Why you ask? Well to answer that we must ask another question? How do we get out of a recession or at least prevent one? Without getting too deep into economic theory, the most obvious way is to bolster consumer confidence and spending. We know that one dollar spent in the economy turns into about six through what is called the 'multiplier effect'. It works like this ... you make 100 dollars running your restaurant and go and spend it on a new watch. The watchmaker spends the profit he makes from the watch on landscaping. The landscapers take her profit and spends it on lunch at your restaurant. Now you have not only purchased things you needed and wanted, but also have a portion of what you originally spent returned to you to go spend again (plus others have made money as well). The cycles starts over again. When hundreds of millions of consumers spend money, it stimulates growth and creates prosperity in the economy. What is the surest way to crush consumers' desire to spend? Taxes! Enter Mike Huckabee and all of the Democrats, who either have an irrefutable record of raising taxes or have expressed desire to do so if elected. Mitt Romney is the polar opposite of these guys.

    Mitt's strengths regarding the economy are many, but I will focus on the three points that I feel are the most important and expand on each:

    1) He wants to cut taxes. This will put more money in the pockets of consumers who will then spend it in the free market. This is far better than the government taxing them and then spending it themselves, as the government is spends money WAY less efficiently than consumers, and much of our hard earned money that is taxed ends up in their own corrupted pockets through scandals and such (see Mike Huckabee to find out more). However, the thing that separates Mitt from the rest is that he still wants some of the things that Democrats hold dear, like universal health care, better education, and other social programs, but plans to accomplish them without raising taxes. How can he do this? The answer is that he, unlike many of the other Washington politicians in the race, is an extremely successful and savvy businessman and executive. If businesses ran themselves like the government they'd be bankrupt multiple times over (they don't have the luxury of raising taxes whenever they want to save themselves). Businesses are masters of cutting out inefficiencies, unneeded spending and superfluous departments to maximize profits for shareholders. Romney would do the same in Washington, but in this case the shareholders are the American people who pay taxes and expect the best possible return on investment. We all know that there are much needed cuts in the government who is notorious for having eight departments that all do the same thing. The government is running an embarrassingly large trade deficit and debt. Less taxes and better quality social programs, sounds pretty good to me.

    2) Mitt wants to invest in technology and innovation. Wait a minute ... that's government spending money ... isn't that a Democratic thing to do? Well, one thing Mitt knows how to do is get a good return on his investment. The US and most other wealthy nations can not compete with other countries when it comes to labour costs and other expenses related to production. That is why many things are "Made in China". But they don't have to compete with these countries if they can make innovative products that lead the marketplace. Take Blackberry for example (I'll use it since it's a Canadian company and I'm Canadian). Research in Motion (RIM, the maker of Blackberry) is the world's leader in producing innovative, high-quality devices. They don't have much major competition around the world yet because they have the best technology, and their growth in stock price reflects this. The US needs to create more products (even though they already have a lot) like this, that are impervious to competition due to their superior technology, quality, and uniqueness. Mitt has said time and time again that if he were President, he would invest in technology and innovation, especially for the automakers in Michigan who are struggling against foreign competition. This will cost a lot of money, but will produce a healthy return and help American in the long-run.

    3) Mitt wants to eliminate the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains for Americans who make $200,000 or less (which obviously include the middle-class). Currently, when you invest money and make any kind of return, it will fall into one of the three categories mentioned above and will be taxed accordingly. Tax on investments does two things. First, it discourages people to save and invest money, as they will have to give a hefty chunk of their return to the government. Two, it creates class inequality, as rich people have money to access high level accountants and financial planners who know every trick in the book to help them pay little to no tax on their investments. So who ends up paying the tax? That's right the little guys - the middle class. Romney's strategy would benefit the little guys and offer no special treatment to the ultra-rich. This would help the economy in several ways. It would encourage people to save more money for retirement or for a rainy day, putting less stress on the government to provide social security and welfare programs in times of recession. It would also stimulate more investment in the stock market, which would put more money into the hands of American companies who would expand and create more jobs, which would create more income, which would increase both consumer spending and investment and further fuel the upward cycle of prosperity.

    It is obvious that the economy is not only a hot topic these days, but a genuinely important one. It affects so many other issues that voters are concerned about. Mitt Romney is the best man for the economy by a long shot. Choosing who to vote for shouldn't be a difficult decision. Although, on second thought, you could vote for John McCain who said "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" and "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

    Here are a few links that show why Mitt and a strong economy mix:
    Staples founder tells us why Huckabee would be bad for economy and Mitt good
    Romney talks about the economy and about Michigan
    McCain and economy not a good match

    A video of Mitt talking to Michigan voters, about the economy and other issues.


    Read more!

    Sunday, January 13, 2008

    Movie 'The Princess Bride' Endorses Romney!

    Evangelicals For Mitt just posted this video and I think it's hilarious. I loved this movie. Check it out!


    Read more!

    Oh, and While I'm at It, Here's the Real McCoy...I Mean McCain

    The liberal media loves John McCain and makes it seem like he can do no wrong, only to butter him up to be slain by the Democrats if he wins the GOP nomination (tricky, eh?). According to pundit, Rush Limbaugh, the media and even McCain supporters hate talking about his record (gee, I wonder why?). In his article, "Rush Recaps the GOP Debate" he speaks of "the media's unwillingness to actually report, for example, on Senator McCain's record". It's is an excellent article and I recommend it to anyone who wants to know what is actually going on in this race (and to explore his website in general). Here is a video that does something no one else will....talk about John McCain's record.


    Read more!

    No One-Liner Can Hide Huckabee's Record of Corruption and Liberalism

    Since Mike Huckabee will A) NEVER admit he's wrong, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, B) duck any issue he's confronted with using a lame joke or one-liner, and C) almost never actually talk about his policies (or at least in any kind of detail, no one really knows what he's actually all about. One thing I will give the Huckster is that he is a good speaker who can be captivating to listen to at times, although the more you know about him the faster his charm wears off and eventual just starts to make you sick.

    This video is just a friendly reminder that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. As Fred Thompson said, "He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy in the tradition of blame-America first. He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that banned smoking nationwide. So much for federalism, so much for state's rights, so much for individual rights. That's not the model of the Reagan coalition. That's the model of the Democratic Party."


    Read more!