Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 15, 2008
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
On Calling it Wrong Every Time
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


We the Punditry have had this presidential campaign figured out for some time:

Only last summer, John McCain, that stalwart defender of the war in Iraq and on terror in general, was finished. Down and out. Kaput. Another victim of the Bush malaise. His presidential campaign had been sunk by the country's frustrations with an unwinnable war. He was out of money, his chief honchos had quit, and the only question remaining was why he didn't seem to realize it.

But some guys just never get the word. The war is turning around, thanks in large part to the Surge that John McCain had been arguing for long before it had a name. He's staged one of the most remarkable comebacks in American political history mainly on the strength of his own dogged determination to stick by his guns, literally.

Sen. McCain's comeback owes less to any political savvy on his part than to the valor of the men and women of the armed forces of the United States - and the imagination and flexibility of a new commander in the field named David Petraeus. Not to mention a president and commander-in-chief who refused to give up, and may have finally found his Grant.

Soon after Super Tuesday, which prompted Mitt Romney to throw in the towel, Sen. McCain became the Republicans' presumptive nominee. And presumption it was, since Mike Huckabee has refused to give up and keeps rolling up impressive vote totals - not just in the South, border states, and among evangelicals everywhere, but in places like Kansas and Washington state. Like John McCain, he doesn't seem to know when he's beat, either.

Here's the big reason for the Huck's staying power: Now that Mitt Romney has "suspended" his presidential campaign, Arkansas' native son has become the default candidate of the kind of Republican voters who can be counted on to resist supporting a winner. They'd rather lose this year's presidential election than win it with a candidate who's got a mind, and will, of his own. But that's no problem for John McCain, the opinion-makers concluded. If he can't unite the country behind him, then, once Hillary Clinton cinched the Democratic nomination, she'd unite the GOP quickly enough - against her.

Oops again. Senator Clinton now has been forced into a long, exhausting fight with an attractive young comer who has the power to inspire in a way Clinton femmenever could. At this point the Clinton camp seems to be drifting, bereft of any real ideas about how to stem this political tide.

This weekend the suddenly former frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination was shifting some of the chairs on the foundering ship S.S. Clinton. She fired her campaign manager after Barack Obama swept a round of primaries and caucuses - Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington state, Maine, the Virgin Islands.

Hillary! may yet pull this thing out of the fire, but it won't be easy. For one thing, there's her Bill problem. William Jefferson Clinton used to have the surest of political instincts. Now every time he speaks up for the Mrs., he alienates more voters. He seems to have lost his touch. All those post-presidential years hobnobbing with the power elite from Davos to Kazakhstan may have taken their toll. It's as if he'd turned into one of those corporate fat cats he used to inveigh against.

Obamamania mounts across the country, and the Clintonistas still struggle to counter it. Catch phrases (Experience! Ready to do the job from Day One!) may not work against a self-possessed candidate the likes of which Democrats haven't seen since Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy back in 1968. Barack Obama seems to combine the appeal of both, not to mention the grace of JFK in 1960.

Once again a new generation is insisting on being heard, and it's being joined this election year by the generation still suffering from Clinton Fatigue and eager to, yes, move on.

The real drama this year has not been the fall of Hillary Clinton but the rise of Barack Obama. He's got the touch of the great politician, which isn't easy to define but is immediately evident on the campaign trail. Call it charisma, magnetism, charm.

Camus once defined charm as "a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear questions." Any slight policy differences that Barack Obama may have with Hillary Clinton may be unclear, but the two couldn't be more different. She seems charmless, he irresistible. The personal, as it turns out, really is the political.

Who would have thought it? Eloquence still seems to matter in American politics. So does a dogged insistence on victory, however improbable it may seem at times. See the surprising strength of both Barack Obama and John McCain.

One of the surest signs of a free country is that it'll surprise you. A lot. By that standard, there's no doubt that this is still the land of the free. More surprises doubtless await in what already has been a most surprising year.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
An unwinnable war?
Bah!

They tell me...
...the fishing is pretty good in November in my part of the country.I'm cleaning my gear now.

Can't Do It
I'm a Vietnam Vet. I respect the service and what McCain went through but I can't with a clear conscience vote for him. Regardless of what he says he is for amnesty for illegals, doesn't like tax cuts because it is for the rich whic is total BS. Oh yeah, he is for a tax on energy whith Liberman which will cripple this country. Let's not forget McCain-Feingold. he also has reached out to that bonehead Kennedy. Didn't he consider moving to the Dims several times. If I wanted to vote Dem I'd vote for Al Gore. Yeah right!!!!!!

Yes...
McCain stuck by his "guns" to succeed as he has. I'm afraid he'll be pulling those guns out if he's president and aiming them at whomever displeases him. I'm sorry I can't share your fond fascination with these political candidates. They are all loathsome.

John McCain Shelter for Abused Conservat
John McCain has offered refuge for thinking conservatives - those folks who are reasonable and realistic - McCain offers a shelter for abused conservatives.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/31/the-john-mccain-shelt er-for-abused-conservatives/

Rino
Another RINO heard from

you fascist neo-cons got the Iraq war
wrong, too.

Pundits still calling it wrong
There's only one candidate out there with any real ideas for good change. Obama may preach hope and a future but he's selling the bankrupt ideas of liberals. McCain has shown his true colors in his pre-candidacy record and when he promises what conservatives want to hear today (conservative judge appointments, for example) I just can't believe him. Mike Huckabee on the other hand, besides an impeccable record on social conservative issues, has REAL ideas for the economy and foreign policy. We need the Fair Tax! Not only will it prosper our economy and ability to compete in the global market, but will discourage illegal immigrants who will pay the sales tax without any prebate. And this is no fairy tale; there are already a multitude os sponsors in the House. We need energy independence, not only for the economy, but to liberate our foreign policy, as well. Don't waste your vote on the pundits' favorite flavor today. Vote for the best: Huckabee.

Valentines Day
Hillary needs to say, I've been under a lot of stress lately so Bill and I just relaxed last night and it was wonderful, you know what I mean.

Later in the day Bill will say, I did not have sex with the woman, Hillary.
Oh! Oh!, yes,yes, I did have sexual relations with that woman, my wife.

Ferbie
Did anyone besides me notice the Newsmax poll for McCain did not make any inclusion of Mike Huckabee? Gee you suppose the media may be trying to force votes for the backstabber?

The only way this works
is if McCain chooses Romney for his Veep. ONLY THEN will we consider him.

Given that no sitting senator has ever been elected to the white house and survived his first term, who knows??....

Nobility, did you just notice that?
The MSM have been doing their level best to make sure that either a marxist or a socialist win in Nov. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, and we are toast for it. Many seem to think that we can survive the next 4 years like we did with Carter, but we barely survived that and we weren't at war then. I wish that I could be more optimistic, as I usually am, but this is very depressing.

Paul Greenberg writes:
Sen. McCain's comeback owes: Let me finish this line a little different than yours, from a conservative point of view,
Sen. McCain's comeback owes due-in large part to newly registered Dems, err Republicans.

I see this line in that link you provided Ohg Rea Tone.
John McCain has set up a shelter for abused conservatives. He is saying, come with me, I will protect you, I will help you regain your dignity,

How much “dignity” can one have when he votes almost 100% of the time with the opposite party, when you are suppose to have way different views than they do. This man walked across the aisle way to many times, and he was not doing it for his health.

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean
Write in a name folks, it is still a free country! Well, until McQuack comes up with more ideals on how to kill free speech.

Doc
You talk a good game my friend but the website that you keep linking is nothing more than a propaganda website the likes of Michael Moore would be proud of. I also was very angry at John McCain for suppressing the info on POWs. But then someone pointed out that maybe he was protecting other, maybe even dozens of other, POWs that may not be quite proud of what they may have told the enemy under the duress of inhuman torture. I'm not a great fan of Sen McCain, but I will not, I repeat, I will not dirty the name of a fellow veteran who wears the scars of a lost war on his face and body. Disagree with his policies and his ideas, but leave his sacrifice alone. And for those that say that he's not different than Kerry, take a look that McCain hasn't dredged up his "fellow" vets. I'm sure that he could but to his credit he hasn't. One other thing, the security of the nation and winning the war is far more important to me than being called a conservative. I will not surrender this nation to a closet Moslem in Barack Obama. NEVER!!

Ditto.
MlDoggg--you took the words out of my mouth. Good post.

The Loser Ploy
I for one am becoming more than irritated at being referred to as a "loser" because I don't like John McCain. To repeat my sentiments from an earlier post, John McCain spit in the conservatives' faces before he realized he would need them to win in November. Some people don't like to be spat upon. So, pardon us for holding an animosity with respect to the more liberal than conservative political leanings of John McCain.

What is telling from the primaries is just who in pundit-land are conservative and who are groupies. If you support John McCain that is fine, it is your choice to make, but hold your disdain for those of us who don't, your readership just may count on it.

I love you guys!
You liberals are the best! I just love when you continue to claim the surge was a failure, and we're really losing in Iraq. Great stuff! And it justs gets funnier as it gets more demonstrably false every day!

I hope you guys hold on to this global warming baloney just as hard. What was it, 30 years ago that we were supposed to be headed for a new Ice Age? Just remember, every single day that goes by without Manhattan under water makes you more and more the fools.

Thanks for keeping me smiling.

Jesse...
Irag had nothing to do with 9/11. No weapons of mass destruction. Not the slightest credible military threat to us. Saddam was anti-Iran. We have got 4000 troops dead, 30,000 wounded, a trillion bucks down the drain, and for our efforts we have a Shiite government naturally aligned with Iran, Turks attacking from the North, Pakistan destabilized. Oh, and we never did catch Osama bin Laden, probably because of all the resources we wasted in Iraq. And you think--what--we're doing great because we finally have enough troops over there to keep the sounds of death down to a dull roar, at least until we finally do pull out. Where is your head, man?

Doc W
And all of that has *what* to do with the success or failure of "the surge" as a strategy?

We could argue the relative pros and cons of invading Iraq--except that would be a completely different conversation, irrelevant to the question at hand, and, frankly, boring. I already know the Democrat talking points.

Hindsight is indeed 20-20, "man", and I can see that your head is pointed backwards. Since you have "the gift", you want to go ahead and tell us the outcome of the next few wars ahead of time?

By the way, to be engaged in a war where the sound of death is ONLY a dull roar, is a blessing indeed. Of course, to grasp that point, one would have to have some bare minimum of historical perspective.

Obama for What He Is...
Enough of the awe and prattling on by Reps regarding the charm and oratory skills of Obama. This is an empty suit, socialist windbag who seeks: open borders amnesty, class warfare wealth transfer, oppressive government, weak defense and foreign policy, citizen of the world capitulation on American sovereignty, and the murder of the innocent unborn (partial birth abortion and live birth aborted infant Op Room table deaths). Shame on Americans who would even consider putting this morally bankrupt trainwreck in the Oval Office. I understand Mussolini could be charming over tea. Wake up America!!

Doc W
Don't forget that Iraq is also an Islamic Republic now, with a line in their constitution that states "No law shall be made that contradicts the teachings of Islam." Women are far worse off in Iraq now, than they were under Saddam. Half the population of Iraq is now nearly invisible. Thanks, America! Spreading freedom and democracy (for men who manage not to get blown up) around the world!

Jesse
Anyone who can feel "blessed" by a war where the sound of death is ONLY a dull roar, has a pretty warped world view in my opinion. Remember, we're not even hearing about the civilian Iraqi deaths anymore. If this level of death is only a dull roar, then by extension we should be grateful that we "only" lost a few thousand civilians on 9/11.. which, when compared to Iraqi losses, is practically nothing.

The warmongering from conservatives continues to boggle my mind. The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 has EVERYTHING to do with the success or failure of the "surge." If my country were invaded for no reason, I'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? Why did everyone who supported this war predict that the Iraqis would be gratefully showering us with flowers? Why should any voter trust anything those people say, ever again?

And yeah: If the neocons continue to get their way, I can confidently predict the outcome of the next few wars will be thusly: more theocracies, less freedom, more national debt, and a ton of money getting made by defense contractors. Oh and lots of deaths. Whee!

fotini901
Like I said, to appreciate the "dull roar" would require some historical perspective. Get some, then get back to me. (p.s. Google "Antietam".)

(sigh) This part gets tiresome. We did not invade for "no reason". We invaded for a number of reasons, some better than others. And that's about all I need to say about that.

As for your trust issue, you make a valid point. How do you feel about all those politicians who voted for the war when it was expedient, then proceeded to stab our troops in the back when it became expedient to do that? (p.s. Those would be the "Democrats".)

And I'll send you a check for $5 if you can post a coherent definition for the term "neocon" within the next 5 minutes. No looking it up on the Internet; that would be cheating.

Jesse
Ahhh, so it's not really bad unless it's as bad as Antietam. Gotcha.

A number of reasons. Okay, then let's try it from an Iraqi's perspective: If my country were invaded because a bunch of guys from ANOTHER country flew planes into buildings, I'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? If my country were invaded because the country who installed my dictator decided he was a bad guy, I'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? Etc.

No, I'm none too happy with the wimpy Democrats who can't even stand up to this baldly criminal administration. The whole lot of them must have way too many closet skeletons.

Let's see... a "neocon" is a corrupt conservative who doesn't mind being fiscally irresponsible, as long as the money is spent on endless war. It helps if he or his buddies directly benefit from that spending as much as possible. Eh, probably not coherent enough. :) (p.s. Google "Project for the New American Century.")

fotini901
Regarding your first paragraph: That is not what I said or implied, and you would have to be disingenuous or illiterate to claim otherwise. Now that we've put your straw-man away...

Regarding your second paragraph: Are you really--seriously--going to suggest that the Iraqis are "pissed" because we disrupted their peaceful life under the beneficent Saddam Hussein? Well, that sure is the opposite of nuanced. And it would probably be pointless to instruct you that the United States did not "install" Saddam.

Regarding your third paragraph: You are much too hard on your Democrats. They fought the President tooth-and-nail anytime they thought they could gain political advantage by it. And as too your "baldly criminal" claim--would it be terribly gauche of me to ask for even a shred of proof?

Your definition of "neocon" is coherent enough. Accurate, well, I guess I didn't ask for that. I owe you $5.

(Note: None of this has any bearing on whether the surge was or was not an effective strategy.)

McCain a traitor to the troops
As American troops fight in Iraq McCain insures that their jobs be taken by an invading army in their own country. He cares not for the culture of this country as he let's his hispanic,asian and muslim squatters defile the very country they claim to admire. McCain has a much personality as a fruit fly, and an ego as large as most useless politicans. When the surge troops leave and the country maintains itself , then and only then can you say it is working. Envelope any country with more troops and you can appear civilized. His plan insures we must stay forever in yet one more country , spending billions we don't have while our country spins down the drain faster and faster. The fix was in to get another Bush-like President committed to building a North American Union and resolved to ignore the will of the people. There is no reason to even vote anymore, this country has been taken over by Greed mongers whose agenda in no way is good for the American people.

Thank you Meg for the transcript
What good is his promise for what he'll do if elected? He could convince a few, perhaps, if he were to demand TODAY that the double fence at the border be rushed NOW, to be completed by mid-2009. As a sitting senator, he could right now, stop the flow of terrorists and Mexicans by the thousands daily, bankrupting our treasury, medical care and education systems, killing our police officers and citizens driving legally on our streets. BUT HE STOPS NONE OF THIS TODAY, nor does he intend to stop it next year! In four years, the US as we know it will not exist.

As for having border governors "certify the border is secure"- what a farce! That would be RINO Arnold, Janet (D-AZ), Richardson (D-NM) and RINO Perry-TX, all pro-illgals.

No matter who he chooses for VP. I will never vote for this angry, arrogant, bitter little man.

Another neocon
Let’s see, a neocon sympathizer writing statements about Iraq under the title “On Calling it Wrong Every Time.” If that isn’t the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.

Never mind the fact that an authoritarian Shiite democracy similar to Iran is forming there. (The Administration is trying to delay this as long as possible because people are going to become increasingly angry that we spent this much blood and treasure to create something that was not in our interests.)

Never mind the fact that such a government was utterly predictable in a place that has no history of property rights or constitutional breakthroughs (unlike Germany, Japan, and Korea which had histories of economic reforms and constitutional formation)

Never mind that there is no political or social consolidation among the “Iraqi” people (again unlike Germany, Japan, and Korea).

Never mind that stability and violence match the same levels as a number of other periods during the last 5 years.

Never mind that the Sunnis and Kurds will continue to resist becoming subjects of such a regime.

In short, never mind this article -- its pointless.


for Blake
Blake,
you need to separate two issues:

1. Was the Iraq war worth fighting?

2. Now that we're fighting it, what do we do?

Unlike some other conservatives on TH, I don't even attempt to justify Bush's original decision to invade Iraq. It was based on flawed intelligence, a misreading of enemy intentions, a cockamamie theory of terrorism, a whole bunch of mistaken assumptions and theories. If Congress had known all this in advance, it would never have authorized the invasion.

But I keep explaining: WE ARE ALREADY THERE. Whether we should have gone to war is moot, except for those far-lefties seeking vengeance against Bush for putting us there. What matters now is to bring the war to a successful conclusion, if at all possible.

No war in U.S. history was more misbegotten than the Spanish-American War. Spain was never a strategic threat to America. But once the war began, do you think we would have been better off to LOSE that war, and leave the Spanish Empire in charge of much of the Americas?

Losing wars is NEVER good for you. NEVER. No matter how misbegotten the purpose of the war was in the first place.

McCain deserves a lot of credit for understanding this and staking his entire political career on it. As Charlie Brown put it in the comic strip:

"Winning isn't everything.
But losing isn't anything."

We are forced to finish what we chose to start.

SteveL
My only problem with that is who exactly are we “losing” too?

Between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, we aren’t taking anybody’s side.

A civil war was predicted by anybody with a basic knowledge of the area. The invasion made that inevitable.

You would have had this exact same break-up if Saddam Hussein had fallen as the result of a country-wide revolt back in 1991 in which case we would have sat back and watched the sectarian violence from without.

Incidentally, when Bush41 told people in Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein, he was very careless in the way he said it, as many of his aides admitted later.

He was hoping that elements within the Baath Party apparatus would rise up and kill off Saddam Hussein and his two sons and make somebody else the head of the party.

That way there could be a change in rulers without a break-up of the country.

He was very aware that a Kurdish Shiite revolt was not in our interests precisely because of what is happening now.

I have to tell you, your posts are interesting, actually helpful. In a number of instances, I have been trying to say the same thing, but have not written it as well.

I used to be extremely comfortable within the Republican Party. And I don't know of a single post I have written that is remotely liberal, yet here at townhall, I get called a Democrat. This is not the Republican Party I used to be in.

Steve - a liberal agrees
I think you are right that just pulling out of Iraq now is not the answer, but I also feel that it will not make any real difference if we stay -Iraq will probably collapse into civil war whenever we go. What we are realy trying to do is make a departure that will not look too bad for us, pretty hard to do at this point.

On the other hand, There has been very little in the press about the actual details of the multi-billion dollar embassy that we are building in Iraq - it is literally a city within a city, sort of like China's Imperial Palace. It's pretty clear Bush has prepared for our 100- year war, which we will keep paying for with American blood and taxes.

When Colin Powell said about invading Iraq, "If you break it you will own it" he couldn't have been more prescient.

Bush 'may have finally found his Grant'
--
Just as a historical note, doesn't it seem that Republican presidents always seem to have a harder time of that than have Democrats?

With the exception of Lyndon goddamn-his-eyes Baynes Johnson (who was determined never to allow his military commanders to do anything effective in Southeast Asia), Democrat Party commanders-in-chief seem to have been able enough - or lucky enough - to lay their hands on good strategists and field commanders from the get-go.

Saint Woodrow and Pershing; fascist FDR and not only Marshall but also King, Nimitz, MacArthur, and Eisenhower; Truman and MacArthur *AND* Ridgeway.

Lincoln had to fumble away years of lost opportunity and buckets of American blood, and Dubbya hasn't yet "found his Grant."

Instead, Bush got himself a Sherman - a man willing to fight *smarter* than his predecessors, without tolerating either higher casualties or inefficiently promiscuous force - which is much, much better.

Admittedly, this has helped McCain to rise from the sloughs of his despond, but it hasn't hosed any of the slime off.

McCain is still a deadweight on the Republican Party, unlikely to win in any general election and a disaster if he *DOES* win, thus disarming Republican congressional opposition to the Herbert Hoover-ish idiocies he's bound to push if he gets to squat in Dubbya's seat for the next four years.

The only thing worse than a Democrat administration in the White House between 2009 and 2013 is McCain masquerading as a Republican president during those same recession-plagued years.

--

Touj
Before we leave there will have to be numerous statements that are a change in rhetoric from what the current administration says.

But we cannot change what the invasion made inevitable.

Implied in a number of statements and articles is an equation that goes something like this:

If Iraq forms a constitutional democracy, Al Qaeda loses.

If Iraq does not form a constitutional democracy, Al Qaeda wins.

This is perverse. Talk about giving a free propaganda victory to the enemy.

I don't think Bush would actually lie on purpose to the American people. But as Mark Twain said: you can't deceive other people unless you first deceive yourself.

Bush and others have strong psychological reasons to grasp at certain explanations in order to avoid admitting or taking responsibility for some things.

Even though I don’t think Bush would intentionally lie, I have lost a lot of respect for him. Giving Al Qaeda credit for something it did not cause, credit that it is all to willing to accept along with the propaganda victory that comes with it, comes dangerously close to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

This whole bit about Al Qaeda developing a base of operations in a country that is 60% Shiite, 20% Kurd and 0% Taliban, is fanciful thinking. And there are a number of military options for dealing with Al Qaeda should they develop training camps anywhere in the Middle East including Iraq.

Statements will have to be put out that accurately reflect reality. Something like:

"It is time for our military to redeploy and allow the “Iraqi” people to determine their destiny. We will be relentless in dealing with Al Qaeda operatives wherever they are found."

And those statements will have to be repeated over a period of time.

The good news is that we are hardly going to lose to Al Qaeda.

The bad news is that we must accept a very painful realization. That lives and treasure were lost for a strategic error.

Okay
I agree with what you all are saying regarding
McCain's numerous betrayals but what about the troops? Do we leave them at the mercy of B. Hussein Obama? Or to the two Hilbills who left our guys to die in the streets of Moghadishu?
What do we do? I'm no fan of McCain by any means, and don't want to vote for him and reward him for his betrayal. BUT we have to think of our troops? Already the drugged up, LSD burnouts
trying to relive their 60's glory daze are increasingly getting bolder (with demonRat political help) going after our recruiters? Will we see them even bolder with a B. Hussein
Obama or Hilbill presidency? We really have to think about them before anything else. I confess
I don't know what I will do, it won't be staying home that's for sure because that's cedeing the territory to the marxists. I will vote down ticket for my conservative GOP candidates, but
POTUS???? Do you seriously want to give someone with his early background, middle name and a member of a socalled Christian church that give
Farrakahn an honor the power of the Presidency?
We face a very troubling time; which of the three
losers would retaliate fiercely against an enemy that attacks on our homeland? Which will sing Kumbayah? We know that they are just awaiting the right time to hit us, and we know they are here no thanks to Bush, and McCain and the spineless Republicans. Unless we have a miracle,
we will have to suffer one of them. Which brings me to my last point, the only chance we have of coming out of this is prayer, nothing is
impossible with God and if we need a time of prayer it's now. 2 chronicles 7:14.

Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee has done himself (and all Americans) proud and garnered a HUGE grassroots support base that reaches far outside the Evangelical base the media wants to limit him to. He is everything we could ask for in a leader. Strong, consistent,great ideas and, quite possibly the best communicator I have ever seen. It amazes me why the media chose to push Romney and to suppress Huckabee. It is because of this that we are left with McCain for a nominee instead of Huckabee. While John McCain is a good man and would be my second choice after Huck, I believe that Mike Huckabee would make a president to go down in history as one of the best ever. I also believe he would unite republicans and democrats in a way we've never seen. I hope, that if Mike does not somehow, capture the nomination, (Im still hoping) McCain will unite the party by putting him on the ticket as VP. He has certainly earned it. I know that Huckabee will be president, I just don't know if it will be this year.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.