Let’s say you’re attacking someone every day, criticizing some perceived enemy in a tone that is bitter, highly personal, spiteful and relentless. Now imagine, for the sake of argument, that at the very climax of your over-the-top abuse, the object of your assaults makes a point to defend your right to continue to slime him.

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to interrupt your derision for a few moments at least, to acknowledge the other guy’s courage and integrity—and to salute his support for the First Amendment?

Why, then, no acknowledgement by the most prominent conservative talkers on the radio of John McCain’s principled – and appropriate – efforts to block Democrats who seek to reinstitute the awful Fairness Doctrine?

Please check out this brief, but hugely important piece by Mike Sunnocks for the Phoenix Business Journal from June 29, 2007:

McCAIN INTRODUCES TALK RADIO LEGISLATION

Arizona Sen. John McCain has introduced federal legislation to protect talk radio shows from the reinstatement of past rules that required dissenting voices be given equal time on their shows.

McCain and fellow GOP Senators John Thune of South Dakot and Norm Coleman of Minnesota have put forward legislation preventing the reinstatement of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’

The Fairness Doctrine was done away with in 1987 but previously required political radio shows to offer equal time to opposing viewpoints as part of their Federal Communications Commission licenses.

A number of Democrats and liberal advocates want the Fairness Doctrine put back in place. They do not like the fact talk radio is dominated by conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.

McCain said imposing such rules would stifle free speech and there are plenty of political viewpoints in the marketplace.

Conservative radio talkers have criticized McCain for his stance in favor of immigration reform.

Reasonable people will agree, I think, that this last line is an almost comical understatement. Conservative talkers didn’t just “criticize” McCain on immigration – they ripped him, reamed him, smeared him every hour of every day, particularly in the middle of last summer (with immigration hysteria at its height).

In other words, at the very moment that talk show hosts concentrated their angry fire on McCain himself (more than any Democrat), the Arizona Senator introduced legislation to defend them from big-government/liberal interference. (A similar bill to block the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the House by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana—himself a former radio host—and passed easily).

I became aware of McCain’s role in this issue as part of my efforts to defend the Senator from the ridiculous charges that he has no respect for free speech or the Constitution. It occurred to me that he could counter such current attacks by standing up strongly against the Fairness Doctrine. I planned to communicate with the Senator to convey my bright idea, but after researching the issue I discovered he was way ahead of me: he’d already introduced his Free Speech Protection legislation some six months ago.

There are two important points that need to be made about this issue:

1. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD BE A DEVASTATING ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH; McCAIN-FEINGOLD, FOR ALL ITS FAULTS, WAS NOT. Everyone in talk radio knows that imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would destroy our industry overnight. You can’t operate a radio station if you have to “balance” a successful show with another show of the opposite point of view that may or may not be successful. The whole idea makes as much sense as requiring country music stations to “balance” Toby Keith with Mozart and Kanye West. It’s no accident that the whole conservative talk industry, led by El Rushbo, only emerged after the Fairness Doctrine disappeared (under Reagan). McCain-Feingold, on the other hand, has hardly destroyed or stifled free-wheeling political expression in the United States. The six years since the bill’s passage have have produced a shortage of political advertising, or imposed formidable difficulties in spending money to debate issues. The impact of the bill has been so insignificant that none of its critics actually advocate its repeal. It matters far more, in other words, that McCain continues to battle the Fairness Doctrine (that would seriously damage political debate in the media) than that he cosponsored a silly and ineffective piece of legislation (that left vigorous debate vigorously intact).

2. THOSE RADIO HOSTS WHO CLAIM THAT McCAIN AND HIS DEMOCRATIC RIVALS ARE “INTERCHANGABLE” SHOULD NOT IGNORE THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE. Leading Democrats (including John Kerry and Senate Whip Dick Durbin) have publicly supported the idea that a new Democratic president should seriously consider “reigning in” talk radio and gagging leading talkers with the Fairness Doctrine. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have said nothing to contradict them – indicating that they are, at the very least, open to the idea. Top talk show hosts have warned repeatedly that Hillary Clinton as president would attempt to wreck our industry. Why no corresponding acknowledgment that McCain has placed himself firmly, courageously on the other side—our side? If our industry counts (and it surely does), then it also matters that Mac means to defend talk radio, while prominent liberals pledge to destroy it. Contrary to all those who insist that McCain, Clinton and Obama are virtually identical in their “liberalism,” this issue (along with at lest two-dozen others) shows a world of difference between Mac’s conservative values and record, and the fatuous “progressive” leanings of the leading Democrats.

It’s important to me as a talk show host and as an American that John McCain has already stood up to defend conservative talk radio even while its most prominent practitioners used their microphones to defame the man every day. A lesser politician might easily succumb to the temptation to deploy government power – or even the threat of government power – to silence the chorus of hysterically strident voices raised against him. McCain’s refusal to do so says something powerful about his character.

And the fact that leading talkers have never acknowledged the Senator’s integrity and leadership on this issue also reveals something significant about the character of his critics.

My colleagues on talk radio have employed considerable creativity in coming up with derisive nicknames with which to attack Senator John McCain.

As a regular talk radio listener, I’ve heard “John McLame,” or “John McVain,” or, for that matter, “Senor Juan McCain.”  Then, of course, there’s the ever-popular designation “Senator John McAmnesty.”

I hate to interrupt all the merriment and wit, but I would suggest that my colleagues get used to a new title---

Mr. President.

Or, at least, “Mr. GOP Nominee.”

After the Florida victory, with prospects of an even more sweeping victory a week from tonight on Tsunami Tuesday, a McCain nomination isn’t just possible, but probable.

Rather than spending the next nine months whining and moaning about the fact that their guy didn’t make it (despite outspending McCain in Florida by nearly 10-to-1), wouldn’t it help our medium, our party, and our country, if some of the indignant and outraged talkers who’ve been slamming and sliming the Arizona Senator (with daily “Big Mac Attacks”) finally came over to the side of light – acknowledging that he’s an imperfect conservative (like many of the rest of us) but a beacon of common sense, decency and small government values when compared to either of the possible Democratic nominees?

Mac is Back – and the angry leaders of talk radio need to bring our stations and our programming back from the fringe, rejoin the mainstream, and come to terms with some new realities. 

   For years we’ve been hearing George W. Bush described as “the worst president in history,” “a failed leader,” and “a disgrace,” but I guess the pundits and pooh-bahs forgot to tell the president. In his final State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush neither looked nor sounded like a beaten man. As always on these occasions he came across as energetic, determined, principled and substantive.

   That’s not to say it was a great speech: in his final chance at this great national ritual, the president may have seemed a bit less ambitious, a bit less historic than on previous occasions. Despite his reputation as a clumsy speaker and inept communicator, he’s actually done a consistently first class job with his SOTU addresses. He speaks in comprehensible yet occasionally soaring terms, with none of the windy laundry lists that characterized Bill Clinton’s approach to these occasions (in his last SOTU, Bubba droned on for an excruciating 89 minutes).

   Liberal commentator Jacob Weisberg wrote today in the New York Times about the AWOL “Compassionate Conservative” featured in all the previous State of the Union Speeches in the Bush presidency: despite re-assuring rhetoric about cooperation and bi-partisanship, the Commander-in-Chief never managed to build the sort of cooperative relationship with Democrats he so conspicuously enjoyed with the Democratic legislature when he served as Governor of Texas. Even before 9/11 transformed him into a war President, even before the decision to strike against Saddam made him look like a “war criminal” to the loony left, Bush had secured the sort of implacable enmity that made bi-partisanship not only unattainable but unthinkable.

   Ironically, Ronald Reagan – with a much stronger and clearer ideological commitment – managed to work with Democrats far more effectively(despite a Republican Senate for six of his eight White House years, Reagan faced a hefty Democratic House majority throughout his presidency).

   I would submit that circumstances, as much as personality or policy, contributed to both Reagan’s success and the frequent failure of Bush at reaching across party lines for support.

   In many ways, Bush never managed to overcome the fiery resentment associated with the allegedly “stolen election” of 2000. For the first time in 112 years (since Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland) a candidate lost the popular vote but won the presidency. From the beginning, Democrats (in Congress as well as the country at large) saw Bush as illegitimate, a usurper, an unworthy interloper. They schemed against him fro the beginning: remember the case of “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffors, and the flip of the Senate to Democratic control? Despite the multiple olive branches Bush tried to wave in his State of the Union some seven years ago, despite the initial collaboration with Teddy Kennedy on No-Child-Left-Behind, the Democrats never accepted the hand extended to them.

   With Reagan, by contrast, no one questioned his mandate: he had defeated Carter in a sweeping landslide. Moreover, within four months of his inauguration a would-=be assassin wounded him in the chest, and the entire nation rallied to the gallant, stricken president. While the first months of Bush’s term (before the terrorist attacks of September 11) featured surly Democrats who felt they’d been cheated, not defeated, the first months of Reagan’s term showed Democrats joining Republicans in wishing and praying for a wounded president’s speedy recovery.

   Noting these circumstances isn’t meant to deny the failings and stumbles by Bush and his aides that contributed to polarization in Washington, not is it intended to suggest that John Hinckley had more to do with the triumphs of Reagan’s first year in office than Reagan himself.

   It is, however, always appropriate to remind ourselves that in politics and all other aspects of our lives, context counts.

   Tonight, the members of both houses of Congress, and of both parties, seemed to greet the president with undeniable warmth, even an edge of nostalgia over the realization that the Texan won’t be back for another such occasion.

    Could even hardened Democrats feel some inner yearning for the cooperation and joint efforts they’ve spurned for many years? Probably not, because the hyper-partisanship has brought them House and Senate victories for the first time in twelve years.

    Nevertheless, you could discern the atmosphere of a high school graduation in the House chamber tonight: where the knowledge that you’ll never return to precisely these classmates, never again share either with them either  camaraderie or competition, makes even the class bullies you always loathed look suddenly like bosom pals you’ll deeply miss.

  In their debate in Florida on Thursday night the five remaining Republican candidates passed up repeated opportunities to attack one another and instead concentrated their fire on Hillary Clinton

   That means it was a great night for the GOP.

   Voters should make a direct comparison between this debate – which was substantive, serious, genial, even friendly- and the recent Democratic brawl in South Carolina. Instead of sniping at each other with derisive and highly personal attacks (Hillary’s citation of Obama’s ties to a Chicago slumlord; his suggestion that she sat on WalMart’s board while he was organizing poor people on the streets), our guys each looked good. The Democratic debate made both leading candidates look smaller, meaner, less presidential. By contrast, every one of the Republicans on the Boca Raton stage (yes, including Ron Paul – who made considerable sense and emphasized his own party loyalty) looked bigger and better than before.

   Above all, their demeanor and their responses should assure people that the currently divided Republican Party will come together behind a strong candidate in the fall. In place of the current acrimonious debate about who’s a “true conservative,” the candidates themselves each seemed to acknowledge that they were all committed to Reaganite, conservative principles, even as they differed on ways to apply them.

   Mitt Romney (who surely helped his already surging campaign) played a key role in establishing the positive tone when asked, near the very beginning of the debate, whether he trusted McCain and Giuliani as tax cutters. Without hesitation, he graciously affirmed that he trusted both “these two gentlemen,” suggesting to sort of collegiality and common cause that’s previously seemed lacking in GOP debates. Given the chance to question opponents, the candidates resisted the temptation to play “gotcha” with the kind of cheap-shot challenges (remember “sanctuary cities” vs. “sanctuary mansions”?) that marred their previous interchanges.

   Only Mike Huckabee (willing to give some edge to his nice-guy public persona) threw a few elbows: he shot Mitt Romney a zinger concerning his mixed record on gun rights (supporting the Brady bill and assault weapons bans) and Romney provided an empty, muddled, deeply confusing answer. But he did so with such gee-whiz eagerness to please that he probably reassured most defenders of the Second Amendment. Huckabee also tried to make a silly joke about Mitt’s five sons: suggesting that since Romney said he was spending his own money on the campaign in order to leave a better America to his children, he should support Huckabee for president to deliver both a better America and an undiminished family fortune to the kids. The gag line seemed to fall flat with the audience (and certainly on TV) and offered one of the few whiffs of intra-party hostility in the evening’s proceedings.

   Those who insist on selecting winners and losers on such occasions will no doubt see Romney as the contender who helped himself the most. He came across as smart, capable and polished, as usual, but with less palpable pandering and one-ups-manship, and more earnestness and authenticity, than ever before. His accomplished performance should solidify his status as the front-runner in the close race in Florida (a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll just before the debate showed him 4 points up on McCain) but more importantly it should provide the template for approaching future debates—especially if he’s the Republican nominee.

    McCain was McCain, using mostly familiar lines and stressing, on three different occasions, the prominent Reagan conservatives who’ve endorsed his campaign. He also did a solid job in explaining and defending his approach to global warming – a position which surely puts him closer to the Florida mainstream than the insistence that the whole problem is merely a hoax that safely can be ignored. Above all, the Arizona Senator seemed to be enjoying himself, and looked and sounded conspicuously vigorous. Compared to his grumpy, uncomfortable demeanor in previous, more contentious debates, he came across as ten – maybe twenty – years younger, a big plus for his campaign. Above all, listening to him talk about winning the war, cutting government spending, and cutting taxes, and watching the appropriately respectful treatment he received from his colleagues, he probably helped to undermine the charges by many voices on talk radio that he’s actually a wild-eyed leftist.

   Giuliani gave solid answers to every question and came across like the thoughtful, thoroughly capable leader that he is, but he seemed somewhat forlorn by the end of the evening—battered by obnoxious questions from Tim Russert and Brian Williams about hostile New York Times editorials against him, and the national collapse of his campaign. The odd decision by the moderators to concentrate hostility on “America’s Mayor” proved so obvious that Senator McCain, in a conspicuously gallant and generous gesture toward the very end of the debate, devoted some of his precious time to out-of-context praise for Giuliani as a “true American hero” who helped unify the country after 9/11.

   As for Mike Huckabee, he’s always great in this setting – always. When historians write the story of this campaign, unblended by partisan rancor, they will mark down the Arkansas governor as the most effective performer of either party in the whole history of television debates—unfailingly likeable, folksy, warm, eloquent and self-assured. The guy is such a natural in the debate format that he managed to overcome a total lack of name recognition and a broke campaign treasury to become a top tier candidate on the strength of his TV performances alone. As noted above, he may have slipped by betraying some of his lingering hostility to the Mitt-ster—who, after all, spent millions to assault Huckabee with over-the-top negative ads. Nevertheless, Huckabee hit a complete home run in defending his fair tax proposal – even in the face of skeptical, dismissive follow-up questions from Tim Russert.

   The opportunity to address the issue came from John McCain, in a fascinating bit of campaign strategy. When given a choice to ask any question of any rival, Mac decided to ask Huck the most respectful and friendly possible query about the Fair Tax – and common concerns that it would fall too harshly on the poor. The tone and wording of the question suggested – strongly – that McCain himself took the proposal seriously, and might even consider it as the party’s nominee, or as president. He noted the huge support the idea has attracted across the country.

   Cynics may wonder what strategizing lay behind the question. Was McCain deliberately planting a set-up question to strengthen Huckabee, assuming that any votes Huck gained would come from Romney, not him? Or was he tantalizing Huck supporters by displaying their obvious affection and respect for one another (they have become, in fact, fast friends) and feeding speculation about a potential Mac-and-Huck ticket?

   I spoke today about precisely that ticket with Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, who’s said previously that McCain-Huckabee represents the most likely combination when the dust settles after this long, exhausting campaign. On my radio show, he back-tracked a bit and speculated instead on a potential Mac-and-Mitt ticket.

   In one obvious way, that might prove a better bet. I know from my callers and correspondents that the bitterness toward Huckabee from members of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) is very real, and burningly intense. Mormon votes will be important in several close states like Arizona and Nevada, not just in Utah and Idaho (which look safely Republican). LDS leaders I profoundly respect say they could never support a ticket that included Mike Huckabee before of perceptions (many of them unfair, I believe) that he appealed to anti-Mormon prejudice to win in Iowa.

   In any event, Mac-and-Mitt probably works better for unifying the party than Mac-and-Huck--- and the same could be said for Mitt-and-Mac, by the way.

   Before the recent momentum for the McCain campaign, I wrote a lengthy explanation on Townhall  of Mac’s ideal qualifications as a Vice Presidential candidate, whatever one thought of his presidential candidacy. If Romney wins the nomination (an entirely possible outcome) he should definitely deploy his salesman’s abilities to persuade John McCain to join him on the ticket.

   Twenty-four hours ago, that sort of combination looked unlikely, almost inconceivable, considering the unmistakable hostility in the McCain-Romney relationship.

   After the amiable and positive debate tonight, it should be much easier to imagine these two very formidable guys working together for the good of the party and of the country.

   Regardless of your candidate, every Republican should go to bed happier tonight. The respect the candidates displayed for one another, and the eloquent contempt they all displayed for Hillary Clinton, should raise new hope that the Republicans may yet reassemble Reagan’s durable coalition as a unified and victorious party.

The obnoxious term “RINO” stands for “Republican In Name Only” and suggests that those who draw the designation aren’t loyal to the party; they identify with the GOP only for convenience or personal advantage, not out of conviction or commitment.

It is with great sadness that I therefore report that some prominent conservative commentators, who threaten to withhold support from the party’s nominee if their candidates don’t win top spot on the ticket, now deserve the dreaded label “RINO.”

Anyone who says he couldn’t make a choice between John McCain and Hillary/Obama is a RINO – a nominal and disloyal Republican. Worse than that, he’s an idiot.

From a conservative perspective, it’s easy to come up with, say, twenty-five issues areas in which McCain would be preferable to Barack/Clinton. How about the war on terror, taxes, socialized medicine, school choice, cutting government, gays in the military, tort reform, curbing abortion, second amendment rights, nuclear power, pork barrel spending, support for Israel, confronting Iran, affirmative action, appointing strict constructionist judges, and many, many more.

Above all, the question that should dominate this election cycle was well-formulated by Roger Simon: In the not unlikely event that Islamists come to power in Pakistan, placing a pro-terror regime in charge of at least 60 nuclear weapons, who would you like to see sitting at a desk in the oval office?

Anyone who pretends that it makes no difference whether Hillary or McCain is sitting at that desk is so blinded by self-righteous ire that he’d risk the survival of civilization to make some arcane political point.

If McCain wins the nomination (by no means a sure thing), all true Republicans and sane conservatives will support him. Those who do not are RINO’s—Republicans In Name Only—with no true commitment to our party and its principles.

Those who abandon the GOP because they don’t get their way will follow Pat Buchanan into irrelevance and embarrassment. In 2000, the three-time GOP contender insisted that he couldn’t choose between George W. Bush and Al Gore. His Reform Party campaign drew only one-sixth the votes of Ralph Nader – and less than 00.3% of the total. His efforts didn’t succeed in “purging” the Republican Party, but they did purge Pitchfork Pat himself of all political influence.

In the midst of a heated fight for the nomination, smart and good people may say silly things they will later regret. No, I don’t want to drive them from the GOP (which is why nobody really deserves the insulting title, RINO) but I do hope to drive out the childish notion that you build a majority party by narrowing (or “purifying”) its base.

Winning elections (which is the only way you ultimately influence policy) is based on drawing people into your coalition, not driving them away.

All true Republicans should therefore consider the four excellent candidates remaining in this race and make their own choices of the best of them. For some party loyalists, there will be disappointment in the process: it’s always possible that your favorite fails to win a place on the ticket. That happened to supporters of Ronald Reagan when he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford in 1976. Reagan, however, never wavered in backing Ford in the general election, and nearly all his supporters followed his example.

A threat to quit the party, or “sit this one out” if you don’t get your way, undermines any future claims of loyalty or leadership. A big movement deserves big leaders (like Reagan), not childish sulkers. As with the kid who threatens to hold his breath if his mom refuses to give in, the current tantrums will no doubt pass. The hysterics must eventually take a deep breath and, before long, begin to think more clearly.

LIE #1: John McCain isn’t a loyal Republican.

TRUTH: McCain has been a stalwart Reagan Republican since he first entered politics in 1981.

He has never backed Democratic candidates for president or lesser posts – other than supporting his friend Joe Lieberman in his Independent campaign for US Senate in 2006. Over the years, he has campaigned tirelessly for Republican office-holders in every corner of the country – including vigorous campaigning that helped win elections for his former rival George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. McCain has earned a lifetime rating of 83 for his Senate voting record from the American Conservative Union; his friend, Fred Thompson, won a very similar lifetime rating of 86 and appropriately dubbed himself “a consistent conservative.” While some of McCain’s harshest critics regularly talk of abandoning the GOP for some third party option (and some did so to back Pat Buchanan’s embarrassing run in 2000), McCain has never abandoned his party. On three crucial items in the Bush agenda – taking the offensive against terrorists, cutting wasteful government spending, and comprehensive immigration reform – no member of Congress has provided more loyal or significant support for the President of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party.

----------------------------------------------------------

LIE #2: McCain represents a betrayal and rejection of the Reagan coalition.

TRUTH: McCain is a consistent, passionate Reagan Republican who, like the greatest president of recent years, is unabashedly pro-life, pro-second amendment rights, pro-military, pro-peace through strength, pro-small government, pro-spending cuts, and pro-tax cuts.

Many leaders of the Reagan Revolution – Jack Kemp, Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Dan Coats, General Alexander Haig, George Shultz and many more – proudly back Senator McCain. The conservative Senators who know McCain best – John Kyl, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott – support his presidential campaign after working with him in the Senate for years and seeing his commitment to Reaganism. During the six years he served in Congress under President Reagan, McCain supported the administration as one of its most effective “foot soldiers.” Unlike many of his critics, McCain echoes the Reagan approach – not the Buchanan approach – to free trade and immigration reform.

--------------------------------------------------------------

LIE #3: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to Block the Confirmation of Conservative Judges.

TRUTH: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to win- not to block -the Confirmation of Conservative Judges, and his efforts succeeded in the Senate.

This group of seven Republicans and Seven Democrats (representing a full 14% of the US Senate, obviously) ultimately broke the logjam that had delayed confirmation of some of the most conservative nominees of President Bush. Because of McCain’s leadership, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito won Supreme Court confirmation without filibuster from the Democrats. He also secured the previously blocked confirmations of Appellate Judges William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Brett Kavanaugh, previously filibustered by Democrats. At the same time, McCain and his “gang” managed to protect the right to filibuster – an important tool with obvious value now that Republicans find themselves in the minority. McCain has never opposed a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court; unlike some of his prominent fellow Republicans, he actively supported the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. His disagreement with Senate Republican leader Bill Frist on the “Gang of Fourteen” issues involved questions of tactics, not the goal of securing a judiciary that honors the principles of strict construction.

-------------------------------------------------

LIE #4: John McCain supports higher taxes.

TRUTH: John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates in 25 years in Congress—never – and clearly and consistently supports cutting and simplifying taxes.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has acknowledged that even though McCain refuses to take the “no new taxes” pledge he has kept that pledge with his voting record, throughout his service in the Senate and the House. Yes, he did vote against Bush tax cuts – but did so because no cuts in spending accompanied the cuts in taxes. Unlike some of his colleagues, he insists that tax cuts and increased revenues won’t be enough to close the deficit – there must be spending cuts as well. It’s increasingly obvious that he’s right: tax cuts without spending cuts won’t shrink the national debt or trim the size of government. He currently supports making all the Bush tax cuts permanent before their schedule expiration in 2010 to allow individuals and businesses to plan their futures without uncertainty. He also backs an immediate cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% (second highest rate in the world) to 20% (one of the lowest in the world) as a means of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. He also backs instituting new rules requiring a super majority – a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress-- rather than simple majorities, to approve any tax increases. This would make it vastly more difficult for future Congresses (even under Democratic control) to take more money from hard-working Americans.

-----------------------------------------------------------

LIE #5: McCain is an advocate of “amnesty” and “open borders.”

TRUTH: As Senior Senator from Arizona, McCain has fought for years to tighten border security, stop illegal immigration, increase workplace enforcement and to resist “amnesty” for those who entered the country without authorization.

McCain’s rival for the nomination, Mitt Romney, unequivocally and rightly acknowledged that his opponent’s position in no way amounts to “amnesty” or “open borders.” In the Fox News debate in South Carolina on January 10, Governor Romney declared: “All of us on this stage agree… that we secure the border, we have the fence, and we have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the border; and that we have an employment verification system of some kind….We all agree that anybody who’s committed a crime should be sent home.”

As Romney pointed then out: “The place of difference between us is what we do with the 12 million people who are here illegally.” Romney’s answer? “Those who are here illegally today would be looked at person by person, given a specific time period by which they arrange their affairs, they stay here during that time period. When that time period is over, they go home…”

Alone among Presidential candidates, McCain has shown the courage to stand up against such simplistic sloganeering. No President will ever succeed in driving out all 12 million illegals – the greatest forced migration in all human history. Illegals represent more than 5% of America’s work force and the cost of firing and, ultimately, deporting for forcing out every one of those people would cripple the economy far worse than any recession. The immigration bills McCain supported (along with President Bush and the Senate Republican leadership of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott and John Kyl) never granted “amnesty” or automatic citizenship for undocumented aliens. Instead, McCain’s idea of immigration reform always emphasized “earned legalization” and assimilation– not automatic privileges – in an effort to separate the immigrants who wanted to begin playing by the rules and to enter the American mainstream, from those who continued to defy those rules and have no long-term stake in the country. It’s not amnesty to charge $6,000 in fines and payment of back taxes, to require background checks and mastery of English, and to demand registry with the government and acknowledgment of wrong-doing before an immigrant received legal status. Before an illegal could become a citizen, the process required at least nine years (and in most cases fourteen) of cooperation, commitment and patience. Moreover, two crucial elements of last year’s immigration bill received almost no attention: under the bill any immigrant who attempted to enter America illegally after the passage of immigration reform would be apprehended, identified, finger-printed and biometrically recorded, and forever banned from receiving legal status to work or live in the United States. Second, the unfinished (and ultimately unsuccessful) compromise bill included a “trigger provision”: no illegal immigrant would receive legal status until after Congress certified that the border had been effectively secured. McCain emphasizes this provision in his current proposals: insisting we secure the border first, before we make arrangements for future guest workers and give a chance to some (but by no means all) current illegal residents to earn legal status in the U.S.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIE #6: McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform represents a devastating assault on free speech.

TRUTH: McCain-Feingold was a piece of useless, misguided legislation but it’s done no serious damage to the country, the constitution or the conservative pro-life cause. After nearly seven years on the books, robust and impassioned discussion of political issues and candidates is more vibrant and free-wheeling than ever. The pro-life movement (with McCain’s enthusiastic support) has made substantial progress in the last seven years, changing minds and hearts and driving abortion rates to their lowest point in 29 years—unimpeded by McCain-Feingold. More people are involved in donating to candidates and causes than before the legislation, and there’s been an increase in the broadcast of campaign ads and distribution of political materials, not a reduction. Does any American – particularly those in key primary states – honestly believe we now have a shortage of political ads on TV? Those who say that McCain-Feingold took away free speech make no more sense than leftists who claim that the Patriot Act destroyed civil liberties or crushed dissent: their arguments remain utterly disconnected from the real world experience of every American. Hard-hitting, free wheeling debate is alive and well in the land of the free. McCain favored counterweights to lobbyist influence and the corrupting impact of money in politics because he saw that commercial involvement as a powerful force toward corporate welfare and government expansion—betraying the small government ideals he has always embraced.

Of course, this discussion only begins to scratch the surface when it comes to the smears and distortions against Senator McCain from some of his long-standing foes in the Republican establishment. Fortunately, the Senator himself is getting more opportunity to speak directly to the American people, above the heads of the talk radio hosts who are leading the hysterical charge against him.

On the night of his primary victory in South Carolina, for instance, McCain gave a concise, eloquent summary of his conservative philosophy:

“I seek the nomination of our Party,” he said, “because I am as confident today as I was when I first entered public life as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution that the principles of the Republican Party – our confidence in the good sense and resourcefulness of free people – are always in America’s best interests. In war and peace, in good times and challenging ones, we have always known that the first responsibility of government is to keep this country safe from its enemies, and the American people free of a heavy-handed government that spends too much of their money, and tries to do for them what they are better able to do for themselves. We want government to do its job, not your job;; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes ot us and not make promises it will not keep. We believe government should do only those things we cannot do individually, and then get out of the way so that the most industrious, ingenious, and enterprising people in the world can do what they have always done: build an even greater country than the one they inherited.”

McCain’s critics have every right to prefer other candidates, or to reject his increasingly powerful bid to unite the party and defeat the Democrats in November.

They are wrong, however, to lie about his policies, his principals, his record and his character. Instead of the endless concentration on distorted reasons to dislike McCain, the complainers should concentrate on the basis for admiring the candidates they do support. The Republican Party would benefit from an open, honest debate about the virtues of the various candidates that make them worthy of support, rather than incessant and self-destructive focus on alleged vices of the front-running candidate that make him worthy of contempt.

Again and again in his 25 years in politics, John McCain has risked his career to provide straight talk to the American people. Those who claim to cherish the integrity of the conservative movement owe it to their party and their country to talk straight about all four of the excellent candidates remaining in this race.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich is maddening, brilliant, irresponsible, mean, reflexively liberal, eloquent, unreliable, obsessed with gay rights and an inveterate Bush-basher (and frequent Medved-basher too, I’ll acknowledge). As the old saying goes, however, even a stopped clock is right, twice a day. And in his column this weekend, the opnion-leader once known as “The Butcher of Broadway” is most certainly right about one aspect in the current GOP nomination fight---

…The Republican candidates have largely clung to illegal immigration

> as Domestic Crisis No. 1, to no particular point beyond alienating

> Hispanic voters.

>    The election is more than nine months away, and already this obsession

> is blowing up in the GOP's face with non-Hispanic voters, too. Far from

> proving the killer app of 2008, illegal immigration is evaporating as a

> national cause. In the nearly identical findings of the New York

> Times/CBS News and ABC News/Washington Post polls this month, it ranks

> near the bottom, the top issue for a mere 4 to 5 percent of voters. The

> economy (at 20 to 29 percent) leads in both surveys, closely followed by

> the total of those picking some variant of "war" and "Iraq."

>    As if it weren't crazy enough for Republicans to lash themselves to

> the listing mast of immigration, they are non-players on the issues that

> do matter most to voters....

>    But might some Republican still win, especially if the Democrats are

> ultimately divided by race, or by the Clintons, or by their own inane new

> debate about Reagan? Conceivably, but only if someone besides Ron Paul is

> brave enough to break out of the monochromatic pack.

>    That contender would seem to be John McCain.

>

>  

SOUTH CAROLINA’S BIG LOSER: TALK RADIO

It’s obvious that the big winner in South Carolina was John McCain (grabbing 33% of the vote in a hard-fought win and 19 of the 22 awarded delegates), but it’s also worth pausing for a moment to identify the primary’s biggest loser.

That loser wasn’t Mike Huckabee (who ran a strong second with 30% of the vote and will certainly continue his underdog campaign), nor was it Fred Thompson (who placed third with 16%, despite talk of his last minute surge) or even Mitt Romney (with a feeble fourth place finish, despite investing more money in the state than any of his rivals).

The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight.

For more than a month, the leading conservative talkers in the country have broadcast identical messages in an effort to demonize Mike Huckabee and John McCain. If you’ve tuned in at all to Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others you’ve heard a consistent drum beat of hostility toward Mac and Huck. As always, led by Rush Limbaugh (who because of talent and seniority continues to dominate the medium) the talk radio herd has ridden in precisely the same direction, insisting that McCain and Huckabee deserve no support because they’re not “real conservatives.”  A month ago, the angry right launched the slogan that Mike Huckabee is a “pro-life liberal.” More recently, after McCain’s energizing victory in New Hampshire, they trotted out the mantra that the Arizona Senator (with a life-time rating for his Congressional voting record of 83% from the American Conservative Union) is a “pro-war liberal.”

Well, the two alleged “liberals,” McCain and Huckabee just swept a total of 63% of the Republican vote in deeply conservative South Carolina. Meanwhile, the two darlings of talk radio -- Mitt Romney and, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson—combined for an anemic 31% of the vote. 

How conservative was the electorate that cast ballots on Saturday (in a big, enthusiastic turnout despite inclement weather)? Exit polls showed 69% of GOP voters described themselves as “conservative” (as opposed to “liberal” or “moderate.”) Among those self-styled conservatives, an overwhelming 61% went for Mac and Huck; only 35% for Mitt and Fred). 

The exit polls even sorted out voters who described themselves as “VERY conservative” –a group that represented a full 34% of the primary day electorate. If any segment of the public should have been influenced by all the apocalyptic shouting about “the end of conservatism” if Huckabee or McCain led a national ticket and defined a new direction for the GOP, it would have been these folks. Among “Very Conservative” voters, however, Huckabee won handily (with 41%).  Again, the Huck-and-Mac duo, representing talk radio’s two designated villains, swept 60% of the “Very Conservative” voters in very conservative South Carolina while Mitt and Fred combined for only 38% (22% for Thompson, 16% for Romney).

In other words, even among the most right wing segment of the South Carolina electorate, talk radio failed – and failed miserably – in efforts to destroy and discredit Huckabee and McCain.

As the campaign moves forward, my colleagues in talk radio (along with program directors, general managers, advertisers and the other segments of our industry) ought to reconsider the one-sided, embittered negativity toward two of our four surviving candidates for President (Fred Thompson’s departure from the race is reportedly imminent, after he “consults” with his hospital bound mother).

McCain and Huckabee are both decent and principled conservatives --and so, for that matter, are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter (who’s due to leave the race within twenty-four hours).  Isn’t it about time for the nation’s other high profile talkers to join me in acknowledging that we’ve got a group of outstanding candidates each of whom, in his own way, represents different aspects of the Reagan legacy?

There’s no need to pretend that the candidates are identically conservative (they’re certainly not), or equally qualified, or similarly appealing. But they’re all solid Republicans, dedicated public servants, and worthy contenders for the party’s nomination. Most important, each of them is vastly preferable to Clinton or Obama.

Heading into Florida (on January 29^th) we need to acknowledge that one of four remaining contenders will almost certainly head the Republican ticket. He (whoever he turns out to be) will need a united party and a revived, renewed conservative coalition.

South Carolina demonstrates the utter ineffectiveness of concerted efforts by the conservative media elite to derail the campaigns of two popular candidates. Continued efforts in that direction will prove no more effective, and will hurt both our industry and the Republican Party.

In other words, the talk radio jihad against Mac and Huck hasn’t destroyed or even visibly damaged those candidates. But it has damaged, and may help destroy, talk radio
 

  Who gets to define which candidate counts as a “real conservative”? 

   Should we listen to talk radio titans and sharp-tongued pundettes who’ve never held public office?  

   Or does it make more sense to listen to idealistic elected officials who toil every day to put conservative principles into practice?   

   Who knows more about the true character and credentials of a presidential contender like John McCain? 

    Leaders of the conservative media establishment like Rush and Sean and Ann who, if they’ve met the Senator at all, know him only from interviews? Or is it safe to say that you can place more trust in the evaluation of embattled conservative stalwarts in Congress, who’ve worked with McCain every day for years to give the people less government and more freedom?  

  When it comes to evaluating McCain, I don’t expect Republicans to trust me – any more than they should trust my fellow talk hosts and commentators. But they should listen carefully to heroes like Tom Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma who’s universally esteemed as one of the strongest conservative voices in Washington. Coburn has earned a lifetime rating of 97.8 from the American Conservative Union (McCain himself drew an admirable lifetime number of  83—virtually identical to Fred Thompson’s 86.) And earlier this week the Oklahoman endorsed his Arizona colleague for President. 

   Notably and appropriately, Senator Coburn explained this decision by praising McCain, without dismissive or negative references toward anyone else.  

   “Since I came to Congress in 1995,” Tom Coburn declared, “I have met one true reformer- John McCain. He has the unique blend of character, guts, and experience needed to transform Washington from the inside out. He is beholden to no special interest. He is guided by strong conservative principles, and committed to doing what he believes is right without concern for political consequence. 

  “John McCain has never been afraid to take the road less traveled, and he has fought wasteful spending at every turn along the way. He’s saved taxpayers untold billions, and he has rightfully earned the reputation as the Senate’s number one fiscal hawk. I trust that as president, John McCain will veto any pork-barrel bill that crosses his desk, and will make the authors famous.” 

    At this point in his announcement, Senator Coburn turned to an issue of profound concern to most conservatives – but of special interest to him, as an obstetrician who has personally delivered more than 4,000 babies. 

   “When it comes to ensuring the sanctity of human life,” the good doctor declared, “you will find no one stronger on the issue than Senator McCain. For twenty-four years, John McCain has been an unwavering voice in Congress for the rights of the unborn.” 

    In the face of this testimonial from the most honorable and principled member of the Senate, do you still want to accept the claim that “McCain’s not a conservative” from herd mentality radio commentators who’ve never worked a day of their lives in the U.S. Senate? 

   The truth is that some of the most outstanding conservatives in recent Senate history have come together with Senator Coburn to campaign for McCain – including Phil Gramm of Texas (co-chair of the national McCain campaign), John Kyl of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakota, Dan Coats of Indiana, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Slade Gorton of Washington, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and a dozen others. 

  Several of the most dynamic Republican and conservative governors of our time are working actively in the McCain campaign – including Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Jon Huntsman of Utah, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Frank Keating of Oklahoma, Tom Kean of New Jersey, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and more. 

  In other words, conservatives who know him best attest to McCain’s consistency, his character, and his Reaganite world-view. Those associates, enthusiastically promoting McCain’s candidacy, count for more than strident and angry talkers who know McCain not at all.  

  Most impressive to me is the way that even Senators who’ve disagreed with McCain can attest to his integrity and effectiveness in their battles.  

   Senator Coburn, for instance, did not support the comprehensive immigration reform bill so passionately promoted by Senator McCain and by President Bush. Nevertheless, after the push for reform collapsed in the Senate, Coburn wrote an admiring blog on National Review Online about McCain’s role. 

   “As the American people, elected officials, and the commentators reflect on the heated immigration debate that came to a temporary close in the Senate this week, many will ask, and have asked, why U.S. Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) staked out a position that may in retrospect be seen as devastating to his presidential ambitions. I hope the American people, at least, step back from the obsessive play-by-play pre-season election analysis and reflect on Senator McCain’s actions for what I believe they were: One of the purest examples of political courage seen in Washington in a very, very long time.”  

   Few of McCain’s innumerable critics will be able to emulate such political courage, but they ought to be able to recognize it. 

   In the course of 25 years in Congress, the Arizona Senator has taken his share of positions that seem quirky, annoying, even illogical. With no effort at all, I could list a half dozen issues on which I disagree with his stand. 

   Nevertheless, after a quarter century in the House and Senate in which he’s voted the   conservative position some 83% of the time, it’s idiotic to label him a “liberal” or a “moderate” or, heaven forbid, a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Unlike Rudy Giuliani, he’s never supported a Democrat in any campaign (though he did help his friend, Joe Lieberman, when he ran as an Independent in 2006). And McCain’s enthusiastic campaigning for President Bush in 2000 and particularly in 2004, played important roles in securing GOP victory.     

   In this context, McCain’s leadership towers over the misguided and mean-spirited media mob that questions his conservative credentials. In terms of stature and straight-talk, the Senator from Arizona will be remembered as a hero, patriot and legislative leader long after everyone’s forgotten about some shrill radio shouter.  

   Whether or not he wins in South Carolina on Saturday, and whether or not he goes on to claim the nomination, McCain’s already earned his place in history. Yes, he’s earned respect for his conservatism but, even more than that, for his courage.  

Mitt Romney won a big victory in Tuesday’s Michigan primary, thumping John McCain by the unexpectedly comfortable margin of 39% to 30%. In his victory statement, however, the former Massachusetts governor utterly undermined all those loyal supporters who insist that he’s a “true conservative,” Reagan’s rightful heir, and a solid, loyal Republican.

I’ve watched tape of Romney’s carefully crafted and exuberant speech three times now, and repeatedly reviewed the transcript.

One point comes across inescapably: nearly everything he said last night would have fit comfortably in a Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama victory speech (except for invoking the names of Reagan and, oddly, “George Herbert Walker Bush”). More than 90% of his remarks made Mitt sound like a Democrat – and a demagogic one at that.

Before all you Romniacs out there start shooting off your angry comments about that observation, please read the speech yourself. In fact, I will reproduce it below, in its unedited entirety, but with occasional comments from this observer.

First, I’ll acknowledge that Mitt did a good job of delivering these words, and that this little talk was blessedly brief— tighter and more focused than Huckabee’s victory speech in Iowa, or McCain’s in New Hampshire.

From the first, however, the Mittster sounded a note of arrogant showboating – the kind of ugly and inflated self-important that would help seal his defeat in a general election if he ever won the nomination.

Tonight marks the beginning of a comeback – a comeback for America! (Applause and Cheering)

Does Romney honestly maintain such a messianic view of himself that he suggests that his first inconclusive primary victory (with less than 40% of the vote) signifies the beginning of  “a comeback for America”?

You know, only a week ago, a win looked like it was impossible, but then got out and tald America what they needed to hear. 

You said we would fight for every job. You said that we would fight to get health care for all Americans. You said we’d fight to secure our border. You said we’d fight for us to be able to get lower taxes for middle-income Americans and Michigan heard and Michigan voted tonight. Congratulations. (Applause).

Please read over the paragraph above. Try to find one word that would make Clinton, Obama, or even John Edwards uncomfortable if they delivered it. Don’t say that they’re against a “fight to secure our border.” All Democrats – and all Republicans – want border security, and say so.  The emphasis on fighting for jobs and to “get health care for all Americans” is vintage John Edwards. So is the promise to get lower taxes for “middle income Americans.” Republicans want radical simplification (flat tax or fair tax, anyone?) and lower rates for everyone, including lower corporate rates. Democrats make a point—as Romney does, repeatedly – that the tax cuts he wants are only for “middle income Americans.”  A true conservative? Did you ever hear Reagan talk that way?

Tonight proves that you can’t tell an American that there’s something they just can’t do, because Americans can do whatever they set their hearts on.

And tonight is a victory of optimism over Washington-style pessimism. Now, tonight, we are celebrating here in Michigan. I’ve got to tell you that. Guess what they’re doing in Washington. They’re worrying, because they realize, the lobbyists and the politicians realize, that America now understands that Washington is broken. And we’re going to do something about it.

This new Romney theme (Romney 4.0, as his political personality continues to evolve and mutate) is “Washington is Broken.” Doesn’t that come very, very close to the Democratic theme that won them both houses of Congress in 2006? Don’t those words fit more comfortably with a liberal candidate than a Republican —especially after eight years of a (mostly) heroic Republican president, and six years of combined GOP rule in the White House and Congress?. As Romney continues, he harps on the theme “Washington is broken” and he promises to fix it – to make government work more efficiently, not cut it back. Reagan made clear that “government is the problem, not the solution.” To Romney, the solution is still government –  a more effective government, not a smaller one. With his new emphasis on “competence, not ideology” he sounds like another doomed Taxachusetts governor who ran for president: Michael Dukakis.

You see, America understands that Washington has promised that they’d secure our borders, but they haven’t. Washington told us that they would live by high ethical standards, but the haven’t. Washington told us that they’d fix Social Security, but they haven’t.

Washington told us that they’d get us better health care and better education, but they haven’t. 

All right, people, let’s stop right there. “Washington told us that they’d get us better health care and better education”??!!! Since when do conservatives believe it’s Washington’s job to “get us” any kind of health care and education? What happened to federalism, and the authority of the states? What sort of conservative candidate sees it as a failure of the federal government that it failed to “get us better health care and education.” Democrats talk about health care as a “right” but I thought conservatives wanted the feds less involved in medical care and local schools. Has Romney gone from channeling Tom Tancredo to channeling John Edwards in less than a week?

Washington told us they’d get us a tax break for the middle income Americans—but they haven’t!

This is a flat out lie – and again, a direct steal from Democratic attacks on President Bush. The President and the GOP Congress lowered taxes dramatically for middle income Americans – in both 2001 and 2003. It’s Dems who’ve promulgated the stinking lie that Bush provided only “tax cuts for the rich.” Now Romney, seeking the nomination of the President’s party, recycles that wretched lie in classically liberal terms. Bush lowered the bottom  income tax rate more substantially than any other rate—dropping it from 15% to 10% , a cut of a full third. Did anyone tell President Bush that Mitt Romney now joins Democrats in denying that the tax cuts ever helped the middle class?

Washington told us that they’d cut back on the earmarks and the pork-barrel spending, but they haven’t. And Washington told us that they’d reduce our depenmdence on foreign oil, but they haven’t.

Anything at all in this carefully selected laundry list to make Democrats squirm? Or just one more liberal attack on the Bush administration?

And who’s going to get the job done?

Audience: We are! (Applause).

You guys, it was not very far from right here that Ann and I and our family behind us began our campaign at the Henry Ford Museum of Innovation. And at that Museum of Innovation, we said that we were going to take innovation and change to Washington, recognizing that there’s no way that an insider in Washington is going to turn Washington inside-out, but we’re going to do that.

Okay, the paragraph above would fit better with Obama than with Clinton, since Obama is running as the ultimate “outsider” with a similarly vacuous emphasis on “change.” Who’s more credible as an outsider, by the way, former community organizer and African-American poor boy Obama, or corporate honcho, globalist businessman and son-of-a-governor Mitt?

American voters said that knowing how America works is more important than knowing how Washington works.

That’s a good line – credit where credit is due. Easily the most effective line of Mitt’s speech.

And what we’re going to see in the next few days is Democrats saying that they’re the party of change. You’re going to hear Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards saying that they’re the party of change.

Is he claiming, insanely, that he originated the demand for “change” and the Democrats are stealing it from him? Is he honestly unaware that Obama’s been beating that drum for more than a year?

And I think that they would bring change to America, just not the kind that we want. You see, I think they take their inspiration from the Europe of old, big government, big brother, big taxes. They fundamentally in their hearts believe that America is great because we have a great government; and we do have a great government. But that’s not what makes us the best nation, the strongest nation, the greatest nation on earth. What makes us such a great nation is the American people.

Platitudes, but at least this one paragraph sounds vaguely conservative. Finally.

I take my inspiration from Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush who took their inspiration from the Amrican people.

Is he trying to diss the President by mentioning his father, but not the current President Bush? What is the deal here? Most conservatives don’t see the controversial one-term Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush as particularly inspiring. Why does Romney see it in those terms, and somehow comparable to Reagan’s revolution?

They took their inspiration from hardworking American people, people who believed in opportunity, who loved education, God-fearing people, people who also loved their families, people deeply patriotic. It is that characteristic of the American people that makes us the most powerful nation on earth.

Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush…

Here we go again.

… said we are a great and good people. It’s exactly what we are. It’s why we will always be the most powerful nation on earth.

Now, you heard right here in Michigan our campaign. We said we were going to strengthen our military with additional troops and better equipment and better care for our veterans when they come home.

All Democrats always emphasize this.  

We also said that we’re going to strengthen our families.

How, Mitt? Hillary Clinton makes precisely the same promise.

We said we’re going to strengthen the economy. I will never accept defeat for any industry here in America!

He’s got to be kidding. No defeat, for any industry? Does that mean no more industries go out of business? How much corporate welfare, how much protectionism, will it take to keep his promise to save every single industry. Don’t conservatives understand that the freedom to succeed in a free market means that you must also have the freedom to fail – without the Nanny state making sure that every single industry wins. Doesn’t Mitt sound a bit like one of those soccer league directors who wants to hand trophies to every single team—even those that lost every game?

I have a couple of questions for you. Is Washington, D.C. broken?

Audience: Yes!

Can it be fixed? 

Audience: Yes!

Are we the team that’s going to get the job done?

Audience: Yes!

And I thought it was W., not Mitt, who was the yell-leader in prep school.

All right, let’s take this campaign to South Carolina and Nevada and Florida and all over the country. Let’s take it all the way to the White House! Thank you so much.

All right, I promised you every line, every word of his victory speech, and I delivered. I did so with a sneaky purpose in mind: so that you can pour over his words and his lists and his promises and note the glaring, and sickening, omission.

In the biggest speech of his life so far, after the greatest victory of his political career, Romney made not a single reference to the fact that we are a nation at war. No mention of winning in Iraq, or Afghanistan. No promise to defeat an evil, implacable enemy. No acknowledgment that the next president’s biggest job will be to keep us just as safe as we’ve been under George W. Bush.

Romney made no reference whatever to the most important aspect of the position he seeks: the role of commander-in-chief. The bland promise to “strengthen our military with more troops and better equipment” sounds more like Nancy Pelosi than like McCain or Giuliani (to name two candidate who understand the most consequential issue of our time).

In explaining to the world what his victory means, Romney offered no assurance to pursue the war in Iraq to a victorious conclusion, no determination to pursue the enemy with the relentless ferocity that characterized the best moments of the Bush administration.

Did his pollsters and focus groups tell him that voters don’t care any more about winning the war, or refusing to appease terrorists?

Does Romney agree with conservatives that the struggle in which we’re engaged is an existential conflict that will determine the survival of civilization? If so, there’s only one way to explain his failure to mention that ongoing war (in which John McCain’s son Jimmy, by the way, currently serves with the Marine Corps in Iraq).

While the world waited for the candidate to define the significance of his big electoral triumph, we got an empty speech from an empty suit.

As I noted last night: he’s not running for Commander-in-Chief. He’s going for the job of Panderer-in-Chief and Michigan has moved him closer to his goal.  

In the last few days, the Republican Primary in Michigan turned into a referendum on whether or not lost jobs (the Wolverine State suffers the nation’s highest unemployment rate at an alarming 7.5%) were coming back, or not. 

John McCain told the voters the jobs weren’t “coming back” and that government, and workers, had to plan to develop new jobs. 

Mitt Romney attacked McCain for his “pessimism” and insisted that somehow has business acumen (which most often involved cutting jobs rather than creating them, but never mind) would bring home the controversial lost jobs. 

In the end, Michiganders voted decisively for the candidate who told them he’d somehow return the vanished jobs to the suffering state. 

In other words, the public that’s been suffering a “One State Recession” (exacerbated, to be sure, by a truly dreadful Democratic governor) chose the candidate who told them what they wanted to hear, rather than what they needed to know. 

The results highlighted the weaknesses of the McCain campaign more than the strengths of Romney’s revival.   

The Senator from Arizona proudly delights in ticking people off, counting on the idea that even people who disagree with his positions will respond affirmatively to his “straight talk.” He’s sold himself to those of us who support him (sure, I’m proud to back McCain) as the anti-panderer. Romney, on the other-hand, with his gumby-like flexibility, looks like he’s running for Panderer-in-Chief. 

His promises to revive Michigan’s ailing economy never emphasized specific proposals but instead focused on his abilities as a spectacularly successful management consultant and turn-around artist: if I can save the Salt Lake Olympics, he seemed to suggest, I can somehow rescue the ailing auto industry (where my father, coincidentally, happened to serve as a legendarily effective executive). 

South Carolina may provide more fertile ground for McCain’s emphasis on character and integrity, with Huckabee offering a stiffer challenge to Romney’s claims on social conservatives than he managed to mount in Michigan. Any outcome is possible – with victories for Huckabee, McCain or Romney (with his Michigan momentum) all very real possibilities. This Saturday also features a little-publicized GOP confrontation in Nevada, where Romney long held the lead but recent polls show McCain overtaking and passing him, with Giuliani and Huckabee both in the Hunt. There’s no sure bet in the Nevada contest, nor in South Carolina, nor in Florida, where polling shows four candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney) in a virtual tie. 

If any candidate manages to sweep all three of the remaining primaries before Tsunamic Tuesday on February 5^th he may carry the day in those delegate rich states and lock up the nomination. Certainly, a Romney Trifecta in South Carolina, Nevada and Florida, following his impressive win in Michigan, would make him a formidable front-runner.

The far more likely outcome, however, involves continued split decisions, with all primary winners falling below 40% of total voters (as they have so far) and a spirited battle continuing all the way to Minneapolis.  

The President of the United States may be the only human being on the planet who actually believes that Israel and the Palestinians will sign a comprehensive peace agreement by the end of the year. Yes, it’s true that no President in history has been a better friend of Israel, and Mr. Bush is certainly right that the Israelis want peace and will make major concessions to get it. He might even be right – despite abundant evidence to the contrary -- that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also wants an end to the violence and now seeks progress and prosperity for his people.

But any agreement requires that the two sides give something to one another, and Abbas and his Fatah faction have absolutely nothing – nothing! -- to give to the Israelis. The Jewish state can offer territorial concessions, financial assistance for refugees, support for setting up a new Palestinian state, released prisoners, and access to the most productive economy in the region. But what can the Palestinian authority deliver-- aside from an utterly meaningless scrap of paper?

 Certainly, Abbas and Company can do nothing to guarantee the security that has always represented Israel’s top priority.  The current Palestinian government can’t even subdue the West Bank terrorist cells (affiliated with Islamic Jihad or Fatah’s own Al Aksa Martyr’s Brigade), let alone control the implacable and suicidal Hamas fighters who hold sway over more than a million Palestinians in Gaza. The heavily-armed and implacable Gazans launch rocket attacks on Israel literally every day, and butcher their factional enemies from Fatah with the same enthusiasm with which they seek to slaughter Israelis. Most painfully, Abbas can’t even arrange the release of the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped before the recent Lebanon war and held by Hamas and Hezbollah, respectively.

In this context, the substance of the ongoing negotiations hardly matters.  Secretary of State Rice and Prime Minister Olmert can craft a treaty as exquisitely balanced as the statements by President Bush in Jerusalem, but it will hardly guarantee peace. Promises mean nothing without the ability to keep them. If the Palestinian Authority can’t arrange to stop the daily rocket fire before it gets what it wants, why should anyone expect them to end the violence after they’ve gotten Israel to agree to their major demands?

Israelis continue to love President Bush, and to admire his good intentions, but they understand that there’s only one way to cope with terrorism: crush the terrorists when possible, resist them when necessary, and avoid the mistakes of the past that rewarded Islamo-Nazi killers with unilateral concessions. President Bush will earn his place in the history books for his resolute leadership on Iraq and for persisting in a difficult, transformational war in the heart of the Arab world. His chances for success on brokering peace with powerless Palestinians posers remain, however, somewhere between remote and non-existent.

This weekend, CNN released results of general election trial heats, pitting each of the four leading Republican candidates for President against both of the leading Democrats.

The unmistakable message from this national exercise (surveying 840 voters on January 9 and 10^th) is that Mitt Romney unequivocally qualifies as the weakest candidate the G.O.P. could field.

In the head-to-head contest with Barack Obama he is utterly wiped out, losing by a margin of 22 points (59% to 37%). Against Hillary Clinton, Romney fares little better, falling 18 percentage points behind (58% to 40%).

The results for other candidates show that this is a Romney problem, not a Republican problem.

John McCain, for instance, virtually ties both Obama and Clinton – running 48%-49% against Obama and 48%-50% against Clinton. In other words, in a trial heat against Barack Obama, Senator McCain runs a startling 21 points closer than does Governor Romney.

Even Mike Huckabee (despite remaining virtually unknown to many Americans) draws slightly stronger support than Romney – running 3 points closer to Obama and 4 points closer to Clinton.

After spending more money than his major opponents combined, Romney appears more and more clearly unelectable, and a Saturday column by Gail Collins in the New York Times gives a clear explanation why. “Unfortunately, there’s something about Romney’s perfect grooming, his malleability and his gee-whiz aura that seems to really irritate both the other candidates and the voters,” she writes. “What bothers voters about Romney, as it turns out, is not his Mormonism but his inherent Mitt-ness.”

She’s right, of course. As I’ve said repeatedly over the last several weeks, the problem for Romney isn’t his faith, it’s his phoniness. It’s even worse to see that in-authenticity combined with an all-too-visible mean and nasty streak in going after his rivals.

I know many good people and committed conservatives who say they like Romney and insist, despite his back-to-back losses against flawed candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, that he’d still be the strongest Republican in November.

How then, do they explain his devastatingly poor performance in the latest trial heats – a performance that corresponds to his similarly feeble showing in prior polls (particularly against Obama) conducted by Rasmussen, USA Today/Gallup, and Zogby?

With key primaries coming up in Michigan and South Carolina, support for Romney would seem to indicate a powerful and problematic Republican death wish.