Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

The recent Republican Debate in Dearborn, Michigan featured a spirited exchange between front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, but over the weekend another fierce and feisty candidate joined the fray with a devastatingly effective broadside corresponding to his recent surge in the polls.

John McCain, riding his “No Surrender” tour into the very heart of the GOP competition, spoke on Saturday in Manchester, New Hampshire, and blasted Mitt Romney with a well-aimed fusillade.

McCain began his speech with a slight apology and then, as Al Gore might put it, “let ‘er rip!”:

“Thank you for that kind introduction. It is an honor to speak to you.

I don't usually do this but I'm going to depart for a moment from the issues I want to talk to you about today. One of the other Republican candidates made an extraordinary statement yesterday. Former Governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself the only real Republican in this race. As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts being a Republican wasn't much of a priority for him. In fact, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he said he didn't want to return to the days of Reagan-Bush. I always thought Ronald Reagan was a real Republican.

When Governor Romney donated money to a Democratic candidate in New Hampshire, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he voted for a Democratic candidate for President, Paul Tsongas, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he refused to endorse the Contract with America, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. And when he was embracing the Democratic position on many major issues of the day, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans.

So you'll understand why I'm a little perplexed when Mitt Romney now suggests that he's a better Republican than me, or that he speaks for the Republican wing of the Republican Party.

I think I've gotten to know the people of New Hampshire pretty well. I know that before I can win your vote, I have to win your respect. And to do that, you expect me to be honest with you about what I believe. You might not always agree with me on every issue, but I hope you know I'm not going to con you. The most important thing we have in this life is our self-respect. And I'm not going to trade mine for anyone's vote or for any office. I'm going to tell you what I believe and let the chips fall where they will. I'm confident New Hampshire Republicans feel the same way about your self-respect as I feel about mine.”

After that rousing opening, McCain rambled on about other issues, following an all-too-familiar pattern in which his campaign speeches tend to run too long. He scored important points concerning the fact that “Americans have lost trust in their government to do the essential things and to get out of their way in enjoying the freedom to make their own choices in their everyday lives. We Republicans have been slow to offer bold solutions in the areas of health care and the environment, and our silence has eroded American's trust in our party and made Democrat solutions that would do more harm than good seem attractive.”

He also spoke about his signature issue, national security and the war on terror, and concluded with a personal recollection about one of President Reagan’s most important speeches:

“In 1974, Ronald Reagan gave his famous "Shining City Upon a Hill" speech and concluded by saying:

"We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us in the little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all the stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, 'The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.'

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth."

It was my privilege to hear Governor Reagan deliver that speech. I had recently been released from a long involuntary captivity and was seated as Governor Reagan's guest. His words ring true today when, once again, it falls to America to lead the world against a global threat, to remain the last best hope of man on earth.

It is a privilege beyond measure to live in a country that has sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom. I have lived a long, eventful and blessed life. I have had the good fortune to know personally a great many brave and selfless patriots who sacrificed and shed blood to defend America. But I have known none braver or better than those who do so today. They are my inspiration. And I pray to a loving God that He bless and protect them. Thank you.”

All in all, McCain’s Manchester address counted as one of the more effective stump speeches of the campaign to date – and deserved more attention than it received. Above all, he scored serious points against the Romney campaign, zinging the former Massachusetts governor not just on his famous “flip flops” but for a tendency toward slippery pandering, and frequent efforts to tell audiences whatever they want to hear, that has begun to trouble increasing numbers of the GOP faithful.

No wonder that Monday’s USA TODAY announced the results of the latest New Hampshire polls with the conclusion: “Among Republicans, Mitt Romeny has an edge that seems increasingly precarious while Arizona Sen. John McCain has rebounded to a strong third.”

A new Marist Poll shows Romney backed by 26% of likely primary votes, with Rudy Giuliani at 20%. McCain now stands at 17%, with Fred Thompson collapsing to 10%.

Moreover, some of the details of the polling provide even better news for the McCainiacs. “McCain’s support was the most firmly committed of the GOP rivals while Romney’s was the softest,” wrote USA TODAY. “More than half of McCain’s backers said they strongly supported him, compared with just over a third of Romney’s supporters.”

At age 71, John McCain is, as he admits, “as old as dirt” and he’s made innumerable enemies in the Republican Party. Nevertheless, anyone who counts the Arizona Senator out of  the running isn’t paying attention to the latest trends – or rhetoric.

Ann Coulter might be allowed back on NBC's Today Show on a "case by case basis."   Case by case -- as in if Matt Lauer and company need ratings.

TVNewser:

Matt Lauer tells TVNewser, "I think we're going to make that decision on a case by case basis. I mean, if there's something in the news that she has a vital view on, then I think we would consider having her back on.

"In terms of having her back on just to be outrageous, that probably wouldn't happen. She's a tough call, because you have to kind of walk a fine line. She is someone that a lot of people find outrageous, and as a result, don't want to hear her voice. And yet she does reach a lot of people, and she gets people to react. At some point you have to make a decision whether it's quality or quantity or whether it's just volume or quality. And I think we should make that on a case by case basis."

A recent report in the Seattle Times revealed that several Washington lawmakers are in the business of doing favors for campaign contributors and raising money at the expense of the Navy and Coast Guard.

According to the article, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.), Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wa.), and Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wa.) are responsible for both funneling $17.65 to a small boat company in Washington State and forcing the Navy and Coast Guard to buy boats for which they had no use, and this has been going on for years.

In 1999, Reps. Dicks and Baird added a line to the Defense appropriations bill to requiring the Navy to purchase a $4 million dollar high speed boat from Guardian Marine, a small maritime manufacturer.  The Navy had no use for it then and, not surprisingly; this boat has never been used in a combat role.

In 2002, Sen. Murray added a $4.65 million earmark in the Defense Appropriations bill and forced the Coast Guard to buy a boat that was “Currently-developed 85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in the United States”, you guessed it…Guardian Marine was the only manufacturer of such a craft.  Subsequently, the Coast Guard evaluated the boat several times and determined that it would not be useful as their mission changed after 9/11.

Once again, in 2002, the article reports that plans by Sen. Murray and Reps.  Dicks and Baird were under way to have the Navy buy two boats, one being in the experimental stage, called the ‘Sealion’.  The two boats combined were worth $8.4 million. However, even before the prototypes of these ships were completed, the navy determined they were unnecessary.  Attempts were made to give the Ships to the University of Washington, but they didn’t want them either. Until recently, they sat unused and are now sitting at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.

If they hadn’t learned their lesson, in 2004, Sen. Murray, Reps. Dicks and Baird cosponsored an earmark worth $4.5 million for a fourth boat. It was designed for torpedo retrieval at the Naval Base in Keyport, Washington.  It has since been reassigned to a base in California for evaluation.

These Members of Congress have kept Guardian Marine in business since the 1990’s, thanks to taxpayer dollars.  I bet you didn’t know that your tax dollars were being used to keep a company in business. What’s more is that in the past 4 years, executives of Guardian Marine and their subcontractors have made $125,000 in campaign contributions to Congress members. 

Speaking, as a conservative and as a New Hampshire voter, before we are expected to believe Go. Romney is the only 'real Republican' in the race, I would like some assurances that he will never again contribute money to a liberal Democrat running against a conservative Republican, as he has done in the past.

He added:

Gov. Romney once called the tax pledge 'government by gimmickry,' but perhaps someone should extract a different pledge from him: A pledge that he will not actively work against Republicans again.

In response to the McCain attacks, the Romney campaign has circulated this video today, which shows McCain heaping praise on Romney back in 2002:

MCCAIN: "We've got a great team here but it's led by a man of honesty and integrity. It's led by a man who is prepared to serve and a man who I have grown to know for his honesty, his decency and his commitment to America. I am proud to be in his company. Aren't you?" (John McCain, Romney For Governor Fundraiser, 10/30/02)

So while Romney has flip-flopped on social issues, McCain has flip-flopped on Romney.  (Of course, moms always warn us of the dangers of talking bad about other people -- but they never warn us of the dangers or praising a future enemy ...)

Regarding McCain's past praise of Romney, Hynes points out to me:

All this video demonstrates is that John McCain supports and endorses fellow Republicans, unlike Mitt Romney who worked hard to elect Rocky Anderson—who supports impeaching President Bush—Mayor of Salt Lake City.

... And maybe he's right.  Maybe this should be filed in the "no good deed goes unpunished" file.  Or maybe this illustrates the fact that candidates are free to change their minds on issues (and people), over time.  Romney's point is that, if he's so liberal, why did McCain support him on 2002?  McCain's team would probably argue that Romney was fine for Massachusetts, but too liberal for the presidency.

Still, this latest game of "gotcha" is nothing new to the YouTube era.   Sadly, it seems the deeper one looks into the backgrounds of any of the candidates, the more one finds them all to be inconsistent, opportunistic, and, yes, liberal.

"Some think the way to beat the Democrats in November is to be more like them. I could not disagree more," the one-time Tennessee senator says in remarks he is to deliver before the Conservative Party of New York. "I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in," Thompson adds. […] "With me, what you see is what you get. I was a proud conservative yesterday, I remain one today, and I will be one tomorrow," Thompson says.

"Only John McCain would criticize a fellow Republican one day and then campaign with a Democrat the next," said Romney's New Hampshire Director Jim Merrill.

"I'm not going to con you," McCain said, attempting to differentiate himself from Romney in a speech to the Republican State Committee.

He was reacting to a Romney claim of representing the "Republican wing of the Republican Party."

"It makes one a bit frustrated to hear someone say that he is the only real Republican," McCain later told reporters.

"Every four years, we let the Republican Party members decide who they think can be the best representative of the party, who we think can be the strong fiscal conservative, who we think can defend the country the best, who represents their values the most. Let the party decide that," Giuliani said after greeting voters at a restaurant.

"Everybody wants the nomination. You point out the things that are most important to you," he told reporters Sunday. ... (Reagan) used to have an 11th commandment, that was thou shall not attack another Republican.

"I'm going to try to follow that commandment as much as I can," Giuliani said.

Coulter obviously did NOT say Jews should be wiped off the planet, that was her host’s interpretation and the left, of course, will run with it. I don’t think she is an anti-semite at all, she is simply trying to express an idea, and doing it very badly, in an environment that is not going to help her do it better.

If you read that transcript to the end, you can see where Coulter tries to clarify her meaning, but she can’t, partly because a sound-bite forum is NO PLACE for that sort of deep and too-easily-misunderstood discussion, and partly because her host is, from his perspective as a Jew, unsurprisingly appalled by what he is hearing, by what he thinks Coulter is saying. This is a discussion best left to someone with a gift for diplomacy, a deft tongue and a loving, civil and collected mien. It is is absolutely not a discussion that should be undertaken by someone who has the deftness of a hammer and the mien of a German Shepherd. Coulter tries to explain, but keeps sinking further because she’s in deep waters, weighted down by time constraints and her own clumsiness; rather than rescuing herself, she’s taking down a whole ship!

Hasn't it occurred to anyone other than myself that God has a very vested interest in maintaining faithful Jews as a people set apart by Him, for Himself, until the very end of time?  Whether it was a plan from the very beginning, who knows?  But we do know that God is constantly having to call up new recruits and adopt new battle plans to work out His divine will for a human race that uses its free will to run things amuck again and again -- and again.

You all would know better than I but that is, basically, what the New Testament says, isn’t it? She’s not talking about forcible conversion; she’s saying Christians believe the Judeo-Christian tradition is The Way and those who don’t follow the path all the way to the end aren’t quite where they need to be. (There are even Catholic prayers to this effect.) The word “perfected” is dicey insofar as it implies Christians’ superiority to Jews but she’s only referring to doctrinal superiority as far as I can see, which isn’t exactly a bombshell assertion coming from a Christian

First of all, there's only one answer to willful obtuseness like "are you seriously saying right here in public that I should convert?" or "are you like the head of Iran because you're saying we should wipe out Israel?" And that answer is obviously "yes, you moron, that's exactly what I'm saying."

What else are you going to say to this guy? "No, you're obviously and intentionally taking the single dumbest interpretation of my argument - albeit an interpretation suggested by your own pathological obsession with never saying anything even mildly controversial - and making it even dumber?" Honestly - how else can you begin to untangle this level of incandescent stupidity? Plus, the line about how she wants to bring him to church is objectively funny (at least as you're a confident Jew who's not afraid to have someone poke fun at you). Our gut check would have been to try to reraise with something like "thanks, but we'd rather stick with a Messiah who's powerful enough to get the whole 'peace on earth' thing right the first time." But then again she'd crush us like a bug in a game of take-it-there, so maybe not so much with the whole battle of wits thing for us.

So, basically, the Jews say that “He didn’t arrive yet” and the Christians say “He did, but y’all just missed it” and both say “we’ll see who’s right later.” But both also say (now) that “it’s not worth killing each other over or not worth being enemies over, since the Lord in whom we both believe has long had a plan for all of us” and “let’s be friends, etc.”

These ideals are what make us different from them.

"I'm running against an actor, and you know who killed Abe Lincoln, don't you?” 

Those were the words California Governor Pat Brown used to attack Ronald Reagan, forty years ago.  Unfortunately, he was speaking to a group of school children at the time ... 

While harsh, this was, perhaps, not the most egregious attack politicians have launched against actors (or the relatives of actors).  In one of the most famous political attacks of all time, George Smathers allegedly accused Florida Congressman Claude Pepper of having a sister who was once a “thespian” in New York … Of course, the goal was to confuse people about what a “thespian” was – so that one doesn’t really count.  Still, it represents the tension between politican and those effete, immoral actors. 

In Reagan’s case, he went on to beat Brown, and ultimately to become President of the United States.  But while ridiculous, Brown’s attack underscored the fact that many in America – especially the political elite – rejected the idea of a movie star becoming a politician.  Of course, this was no typical movie star -- or politician, for that matter ...

Even after being elected president, Reagan was criticized by his political enemies for being “just an actor.”  Liberals assumed (wrongly) that he was just a pretty face who wasn’t up to the intellectual challenges (being underestimated helped him).  Of course, we now know that Reagan was well-read and had deep philosophical moorings, but most Americans didn't discover the extent of that until after his death and the publication of his letters and diary ...   

Others accused Reagan of using his acting skills to manipulate the public.  His defenders often argued that if being a great actor automatically translated to electoral success, then why didn’t liberals like Paul Newman – better, more famous actors, for sure – get elected president?  (This defense reportedly upset Reagan who prided himself on his acting ability).   

… Of course, all of this leads me to talk about Fred Thompson, the man who was supposed to be the next Ronald Reagan.  So far, of course, he has failed to live up to expectations (it is ironic that the two most successful political movie stars have both been Republicans).   

And while this certainly has a downside (we are still lacking a conservative savior for ‘08), it may also have an upside.    

One of the reasons given for Fred Thompson's failure to catch fire has been his lack of ambition and vision – both ingredients Ronald Reagan had in surplus (after all, he ran for President twice before winning).   

Should a fine actor such as Fred Thompson fail in his quest to be elected president, it will at least further buttress the argument that Ronald Reagan was, indeed, a special man whose vision – not his acting ability – made him great.

In a state where Patrick Buchanan upset Bob Dole, the front-runner for the GOP nomination, more than a decade ago, anything is possible, says Andrew Smith, a pollster and director of the University of New Hampshire's Survey Center ...

(I'm quoted on page 2).