As the Nevada GOP Senate primary approaches its unpredictable conclusion, there is a potential disaster brewing for Silver State Republicans come fall. Sue Lowden, once the clear leader in the race has imploded thanks to politically asinine comments about bartering with chickens for health care. Never mind that bartering does continue to take place, when it comes to politics, such an unforced error is devastating. Moreover, Lowden’s questionable partial ownership and nondisclosure of her campaign bus has given her campaign an air of underhandedness. Add to Lowden’s woes her insider’s-insider status as the former Nevada GOP Party Chair and her past support and endorsement for Harry Reid and her veneer of formidability evaporates. As the latest polls indicate, Nevadans are walking away from Sue Lowden in droves, and Fox News reports she’s now third behind Angle and Tarkanian. Despite the backing of heavyweight GOP establishment figures, in the final analysis, Lowden is a falling star.

The bigger problem for Nevada Republicans is the possibility that many are leaving Sue’s campaign for Sharron Angle. Sure, Angle’s conservative, and she’s got the backing of both grassroots groups and political machines like the Tea Party Express, but Angle remains for many a fringe candidate with tenuous ties to Scientology and some questionable votes on spending. Her opponents, most notably Lowden, have pointed out her authorship of a bill which included the hair-brained scheme of providing massages to prison inmates. Can anyone see a Reid campaign commercial there? While Angle’s record does include some bright spots as well, the mere fact that Angle has a record at all is cause for concern in this anti-incumbency year. A four-term record in the Nevada State Assembly is sure to provide ample fodder for Reid and Democratic operatives, and Angle’s fringy style will likely prove an easy target for Reid’s well-oiled machine; a machine that’s managed to keep the sullen, liberal Majority Leader – by any measure an unappealing candidate – in office for more than 20 years. As the final vote draws near it’s clear that going with Angle is huge gamble.

The sleeper candidate in the race remains Danny Tarkanian. While Tarkanian hasn’t exactly caught fire, his quiet, consistent message and famous Nevada name have kept him in the running and amidst the unpredictability of Lowden and the quirkiness of Angle, Tarkanian looks more and more like the safe conservative choice. Tarkanian is just as conservative as Angle, he’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, opposed the Wall Street bailouts and focused on bringing the federal government to heel. He’s endorsed by Chuck Heath – Sarah Palin’s father and the grassroots Minuteman Project – but as an attorney and small businessman who’s never held public office before, Tarkanian comes without the baggage of a legislative record. He’s the outsider in an outsider’s year – something he grasped early as the first candidate to jump in against Reid last August when the Democrats were riding high. Going with Tarkanian has its disadvantages – Danny’s run for statewide office before, unsuccessfully – but on the other hand in doing so he’s boosted his statewide name recognition to a degree that Angle never has; most Nevada Republicans have a memory of casting their ballot for Danny Tarkanian. It helps also that every living room in the state has fond memories of watching his father, the legendary UNLV basketball coach, take the NCAA title.

Can Danny Tarkanian beat Harry Reid? If polls are any indication, yes. Tarkanian’s campaign boasts an impressive list of some 16 polls in which Tarkanian beats Reid – every poll, save one, since August 2009. While most Republicans are confident that a ham sandwich could beat Harry Reid in November, their overconfidence is just that – overconfident. Reid’s machine should not be underestimated – nor the millions upon millions of dollars in negative advertising and get out the vote efforts that will pour into Nevada to prop up the ailing Majority Leader. Reid will not go quietly, and while Angle’s upstart campaign seems to have the energy now to take on Reid, like Kentucky’s Rand Paul, personality along with her record, will likely prove far too easy to marginalize come June 9th; in the words of one respected Republican strategist, “Harry Reid will eat Sharron Angle for breakfast.”

Tarkanian may not be a dream candidate, but his quiet demeanor, constitutional focus, and stubborn determination are a good match for Reid’s own workmanlike approach to politics and the anti-government mood of the electorate. Over the course of nine months, Tarkanian has proven to be the only reliable candidate in Nevada’s GOP field, and he’s done so without the big dollars or the machine backing that has propelled his rivals. Ultimately Tarkanian is the safest option and the best candidate to take on Harry Reid this November, and should be the choice of Nevada Republicans.

Just when it seemed the Republican Party had breathed its last breath, an amazing thing happened: the one-time fiscally conservative, small-government party of yesterday briefly re-ignited. In a vote every conservative can be proud of, the House Republicans, thanks to the efforts of new Minority Whip Eric Cantor, unanimously voted against the crippling spending bill pushed by President Obama and his big-government allies.  Of course it took the mother of all pork-barrel bills, with a crippling cost of more than $1.1 trillion that is sure to wreck the economy and drive up inflation to do it, but at least they ‘got religion’ eventually.

Now the real fight begins. If the Republican Party is to find its true voice, there needs to be a unanimous rejection of this socialist monster of a bill when it arrives in the Senate. Can we accomplish it? Will we stand united on principle? It’s up to you. Our representatives in the Senate need to hear from you, especially those most likely to abandon our core principles. You can reach them by calling the Senate Switchboard and asking to be connected (202) 224-3121 or toll free (866) 220-0044.

 If you can only make one or two calls, please start with these Senators:

• Collins, Susan
• Graham, Lindsey
• McCain, John
• Snowe, Olympia
• Voinovich, George

 The following are newly elected Republican Senators, so their predisposition toward fiscal responsibility and small government is not known.  We are certain they would benefit from hearing from you:

• Johanns, Mike
• Risch, Jim

The following are regarded as being, ‘at risk’ because of their previous support of the original bailout package (HR 1424):

• Alexander, Lamar
• Bennett, Robert
• Bond, Kit
• Burr, Richard
• Chambliss, Saxby
• Coburn, Tom
• Corker, Bob
• Cornyn, John
• Ensign, John
• Grassley, Chuck
• Gregg, Judd
• Hatch, Orrin
• Hutchison, Kay Bailey
• Isakson, Johnny
• Kyl, Jon
• Lugar, Richard
• Martinez, Mel
• McConnell, Mitch
• Murkowski, Lisa
• Specter, Arlen
• Thune, John

The following Senators are the ones we believe are least likely to vote for this irresponsible bill. We are counting on their principled opposition to fiscal irresponsibility:

• Barrasso, John
• Brownback, Sam
• Bunning, Jim
• Cochran, Thad
• Crapo, Mike
• DeMint, Jim
• Enzi, Mike
• Inhofe, Jim
• Johanns, Mike
• Roberts, Pat
• Sessions, Jeff
• Shelby, Richard
• Vitter, David
• Wicker, Roger

Abraham Lincoln once warned his fellow Americans that, “as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” It is an axiom that still holds true. So it is on the eve of a great election that will have profound consequences for our national character that we implore our fellow citizens to remember the brave men and women who have gone before you, who have built this country from a frontier nation of 13 colonies to the great republic you see before you. We implore you to remember the vision of our founding fathers, to build a new society of strictly limited government but nearly unlimited freedom; a nation that prized natural and individual liberty over artificial, collective equality; a nation whose mission has been to foster life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To our fellow conservatives, we entreat you in these final hours to fight as hard as you have ever fought, to mobilize and focus all your efforts toward victory, while ignoring those who would cause you to lose faith. We remind you of the stirring words of President Reagan, who believed that the success of our America – an America of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and one rooted firmly in the fertile soil of our God-fearing, visionary forefathers was inextricably linked to the future of all humanity: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” Remember the charge of our greatest leader, the father of our nation, George Washington: “It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.”

To John McCain, a man of inestimable integrity and uncommon valor, we thank you for tireless service to this nation. You are unquestionably the better man, the greater patriot and the right leader for America at this trying moment. With you we cast our highest hopes and offer you this parting interpretation on words that have often brought encourgement to our nation :

 Sail on, Oh man of State!

Sail on, Oh warrior strong and great.

America with all Her fears

With all the hope of future years

Is hanging breathless on thy fate.

Finally, we offer our prayers to the Almighty, that He will guide our nation in this moment of historic significance. As a nation we have not always lived up to our highest ideals, but we remain a good and free people, and from our shores the light of liberty still beams out across a weary and dangerous world. May God continue to bless America and light our path forward.

Earlier this week our military announced that it lead and took part in one of the most complicated logistical military operations of recent memory: It transported 500 tons of Yellowcake across the Iraqi desert into Baghdad and onto 37 military transport planes, then load the Yellowcake, enough to build 150 nuclear missles, on to a military ship and deliver it to its Canadian customer. Source: Reuters

Yellowcake is low grade uranium that can me used to make nuclear weapons. Ignoring for a moment the fact that 550 tons of yellowcake was found in an Iraqi nuclear facility dating from the reign of Saddam Hussein, this task it must be fully appreciated.

The Yellowcake was stored about 12 miles south of Baghdad at the Tuwaitha facility and has been protected since the invasion of 2003, although it is rumored that Iraqis looted the site. During that time and during the most violent times of the Iraq war the Yellowcake was fully protected. Furthermore, when the yellowcake was moved to baghdad it was moved by military caravan through the “roads” of Iraq without incident: no roadside bombs, no IEDs, no ambush. The 550 tons of yellowcake, radioactive in this state, was transported safely into the green zone. Then it was moved on to 37 cargo planes, again without incident. The planes safely took off and landed at their secret location until the yellowcake, all 550 tons of it, was loaded onto a cargo ship. Free from attck by pirates or the Iranians the ship made it to Canada. The streetprice for this load of yellowcake is rumored to be in the tens of billions of US dollars for the yellowcake.

America and its military kicks ass. The head of this project should be smoking a fine Cuban cigar in the company of beautiful women. He did a great job and deserves all the praise we can give him.

Now, let’s focus on the fact that Saddam Hussein had 550 tons of yellowcake at the nuclear facility. Chew on that liberals.

John McCain is a man without a message. An undisputed war hero, a true leader on Iraq policy, a veteran Senate compromiser, McCain has the resume…what he lacks is a message that can connect to voters, and give them a rationale to go to the polls in November. As with any good slogan, it must be short and convey a clear idea – reflective of overall policy aims. Gopublius humbly submits for the use of the McCain campaign, the slogan: “Let McCain Fix It!”

Barack Obama’s message is clear: change. However, even as slogans go, it’s particularly meaningless, since change is inevitable no matter which candidate is chosen, while the indefiniteness of the verb connotes neither a positive nor negative transformation. Like Obama himself, “change” is obtuse, and given Obama’s lack of experience, his contradictory and ever-evolving messages, and the negative aspects about his religious and personal affiliations, it is increasingly derided as meaningless.

By contrast, the whole idea of a McCain presidency seems inherently associated with the idea that the veteran maverick Senator is a no-nonsense adult, who has in the past and will continue in the future, to thwart conventional political wisdom and expedience in the name of what he believes are sound and enduring American principles.  Though they are related, this should not be confused with an “experience” campaign, which time and again fails to capture the imagination of the American public; John McCain cannot run Bob Dole’s campaign.

With upwards of 70% to 80% of the American public of the opinion that America is on the wrong track, according to some recent polls, change is undeniably desired. To be effective however, that change must be positive, be competently delivered, and be in keeping with America’s traditional (center-right) values. Thus, the slogan – “Let McCain Fix It,” not only recognizes people’s misgivings, but it suggests a solution – backed up by competence, experience, and ability, wrapped in a “can-do” attitude.

One of the most frequently articulated concerns about a McCain presidency is the age question.  At 72, is McCain too old to serve? Spending any time at all with the perpetually energetic man will disabuse you of that notion, but rather than attempting to merely negate the age issue, McCain should turn it to his advantage by specifically leaving the notion of a second term in question, even in doubt, and campaigning on a theme of a man beholden to no political masters or calculated future, fixing what is wrong with the government of the country he has so long served and stepping aside; Mr. Fix-it meets Cincinnatus.

By uncoupling himself from the perpetual-campaign style of governance, and embracing a roll-up-your-sleeves, results oriented, possibly one-term administration, McCain may be able to emulate and channel some of the same skills that made Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure in office such a political tour de force – the idea of a serious candidate, who shares Americans’ palpable disgust with the mismanagement of their own government, and evidencing an independent and unconstrained commitment to fix it, regardless of the political costs. It is an attractive idea. Given McCain’s demonstrable record of seeking and achieving concrete bipartisan legislative solutions, and being a consistent, indeed farsighted, leader on military and foreign affairs matters, McCain stands in stark contrast to the highly partisan, overtly leftist, and woefully inexperienced freshman senator from Illinois. Thus, McCain should embrace his maverick past, his bipartisan record, his practical low-key approach, his disarming, self-effacing humor and even his age (and concomitant lack of future political longevity), and contrast it sharply with Obama.

McCain can be a stop-gap president, a chance for America to cease flailing wildly from left to right – a chance to catch our breath, elect a trustworthy, competent leader who will fix some of America’s most glaring problems, tone down the political rhetoric, and provide us with practical, moderate solutions, and at likely just one term, do so without the risk of political buyer’s remorse.  Obama’s election would mark the most radical left-turn in American history, ensure bitter partisan fighting, invite legislative gridlock, threaten America’s progress in the Middle East, and ultimately achieve very little at home.  McCain’s campaign, unencumbered as it is by traditional political calculations, can also offer refreshing change, but it will be practical solutions delivered by a conscientious, independent leader, looking to do his job, rather than keep it.

In short, let McCain fix it.

Like Davey Crocket and company at the Alamo, there are a number of steadfast conservatives who are holding out against John McCain, even in the face of what amounts to unvarnished socialism in the person of Barack Obama. Most of these individuals are committed, principled, conservatives, which means their allegiance to the Republican Party depends on the frequency and degree with which the Republican Party faithfully, fully, resolutely and competently fosters conservative ideals of governance.

 Quite simply, John McCain isn’t their man. Far more the maverick, compromising, bipartisan, sometimes-conservative, McCain has repeatedly raised the ire of conservatives not for his lack of principle, but for positions that stand in opposition to their principles. It is an honest, straightforward disagreement about policy and governance, the true nature of conservatism, and what is best for America.

There can be no doubt that these conservatives love their country, perhaps more than many. Oddly enough however, some of these conservatives have adopted a scorched-America, Phoenix policy. That is to say, they would rather sit home on Election Day, write in a non-competitive candidate, or even vote for Barack Obama, over John McCain. Their strategy, or so they hope, is to so damage America through four years of unchecked liberalism under an Obama Administration and Democratic congress, that like the mythical Phoenix, true conservatism will spring from the ashes such as in 1980.

 It’s not an incoherent position, but it’s not a wise one either.

First off, there are a number of logical inconsistencies with this concept, and one large assumption. The first is the notion that an Obama presidency will necessarily be a disaster. What if its not?  What if, like Bill Clinton’s presidency, Obama’s first two shaky years in office are met with a GOP midterm victory, that returns divided government to America, force Obama to the center, and results in Barack Obama being reelected in 2012? What if America, swollen by legions of poor immigrants from socialist countries becomes even more comfortable with big government? Obama’s popular vice president may take the reigns after him. Twelve years of liberal governance? Sixteen? More?

Moreover, a 2012 duplication of Reagan’s 1980 strategy is of course missing its central element – Reagan.  What illuminating, positive, articulate, appealing, intelligent, principled, electable conservative is currently out there in the field that could fill such shoes in 2012? Quite simply there isn’t one.  Reagan didn’t appear on the scene overnight. He was a voice for conservatism for years before his election in 1980. Reagan developed his philosophy, built his foundation of support, and honed his leadership skills. Reagan was the obvious choice for conservatism in 1980, but if our latest primary was the equivalent to reviewing the conservative litter, and John McCain still triumphed, it strongly suggests that no Reaganesque conservative has yet emerged. It is utter nonsense to employ a conservative great man strategy when no such conservative great men are evidently available.

Assuming however, for the sake of argument, that voting for John McCain would be a disaster for conservatives, and his presidency a failure for conservatism, then how would voting for Obama or not voting at all be helpful? If disaster is inevitable either way, one can employ the Phoenix strategy while still voting for McCain. You will have your GOP meltdown either way, and will have the comfort of knowing that you didn’t aid Obama and his leftists.

Lastly, there is the principle of America’s best interest. It’s a curious position to love one’s country so much, yet be willing to do what is not in the Nation’s best interest, (even in the short term) for the sake of political calculation. It is a curious position to place the virtue of one’s personal voting history over the virtue of always doing what is best for America, and all true, honest, conservatives must recognize that employing this strategy – helping Obama – is in fact willingly doing what they know to be bad for America over the next four years.

Some will argue that it is “tough love,” or that they are taking a longer view of the future – doing what is wrong now, in hopes of bringing about a brighter future. Naturally of course, the idea of trying to predict, much less influence politics four or eight years distant is utter folly. We live in an ever-changing, rapidly developing, world. Who on September 10, 2001, could have predicted how different America would look on September 11, 2001? There is no one alive who can have a clear concept of how America will look in 2012, and to suggest that America’s future is so important that she can go without proper leadership for four years or more in the hopes of one day returning true conservative leadership is mystifying.

Conservatives love their country, and all true conservatives should make a commitment to doing what is right for America at every instance. Each vote is a choice made in time: a selection between two imperfect options for America’s immediate future. A vote is not a scheme for future political advantage, but a decision about who, given the options before us, here and now, is best equipped to handle the many challenges, hurdles and unforeseen obstacles that America will surely face over the next four years. For the true conservative, such reflection can only lead to one conclusion. At this moment, in this election, for America’s sake, the conservative choice is John McCain.

It is hard to overestimate the amount of dislike harbored by the Left for George W. Bush, and even among independents and many Republicans, there is a definite sense of Bush fatigue. The respected Rasmussen poll placed the President’s approval rating at just 32% last week – the lowest ever recorded by Rasmussen, with a slumping economy putting the final nail in the popularity coffin of the Administration. 

Last week’s Republican defeat in Mississippi’s special election has Republican insiders sweating bullets.  If current trends hold, many are predicting a GOP rout unlike any in recent history. The traditional GOP brand – the one forged by Ronald Reagan is, at least in the near term, irrevocably broken.  At this point, the less the President says, the better.  Yet, in typical fashion, the retrograde Bush communications team managed to further damage GOP prospects in November with a controversial speech delivered to the Israeli Knesset, which was widely regarded as a thinly veiled attack on Barack Obama. The fact that what the President said was essentially true – that it’s sheer madness to have direct, unconditional, presidential-level talks with Islamic fanatics like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad- is beside the political point.  The Democrats are running an explicitly anti-Bush campaign, with Senator Obama adopting the canard that McCain is running for Bush’s third term. The President should stay as far away from the current race as possible, but inexplicably his own staff purportedly confirmed to journalists that Obama was the target of the remarks, placing Bush squarely in the middle of the current debate – right where the Democrats want him.

At this point one wonders if the President is not the victim of deliberate sabotage.  Forget for a moment the President’s own congenital inability to make simple declarative statements without error, and focus on a White House communications staff that has bungled nearly everything it has touched while steadfastly refusing to make the case for Bush’s intervention and progress in Iraq, the nearly seven years of uninterrupted economic growth, or any other achievement of the Administration’s. It is simply inconceivable that a modern White House communications team could be as thoroughly incompetent as the Bush team. A case in point would be the White House Office of Global Communications – which was developed in 2002 as a means of projecting an American point of view to countries around the world – an important need during a time when America was facing vocal opposition to its foreign policy.  That website hasn’t been updated since 2004.  Some message.

 While Bush remains personally likeable, the political reality is that he is tarnished beyond repair by a liberal slime machine that has pumped out unanswered, hysterical, Hitlerian, anti-Bush propaganda for years. Bush’s desire to “help” McCain by enmeshing himself in the current political race is like pouring gasoline on a fire. If GOP voters are reassuring themselves that Obama’s many disconcerting statements – and those of his wife and pastor – will be endlessly replayed to the detriment of his ambitions come the fall, they would do well to remember that every piece of footage depicting John McCain and George W. Bush together will be equally as visible. Starting of course with Bush’s over-the-top, he’s my guy, endorsement of McCain at the White House earlier this year – a moment that McCain is sure to regret. This is even more true considering the deep pockets that Obama is sure to have when compared to the anemic fundraising of the GOP.

 Of course the current political climate for Republicans can’t be blamed solely on the President.  Congressional Republicans have managed to so tarnish their reputation amongst voters by their continued unrestrained spending  (including the recent bloated farm bill), that they are utterly without credibility, and almost equally as incompetent as the White House in terms of communicating (much less implementing) a smaller-government vision for the country. Short of finding a way to release locusts on the population, GOP leaders have done all they can to vilify their own brand.  The result, as Representative Tom Davis so clearly put in his now famous memo, is a GOP disaster in the making.

The one bright spot of course is John McCain. Whatever criticisms have been leveled against McCain in the past, including from this blog, McCain is the one Republican that has enough standing, enough independence, enough consistency, to win in the fall. We are strangely fortunate that in a year when all things Republican are tinged with the smell of death, the maverick John McCain is the GOP standard bearer. Which is why is it critical that the McCain team avoids the obvious pitfalls that lie between here and victory in November. Chief among them of course would be the linking, in the popular psyche, of McCain and Bush, which though laughable given that Bush and McCain fought a bitter 2000 campaign against one another, is the unmistakable aim of the Democrats.

 Another pitfall is to avoid the “experience campaign” that just lost Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination. McCain needs to make the case that Obama is naive and untested (not a hard case to make), but at the same time McCain must avoid being the status quo candidate. The more reformist McCain is this year, the better.

Whatever lingering doubts some may have about McCain, his policies, or his conservatism, get over it. John McCain needs and deserves our support. He is our only hope of staving off a GOP meltdown that will result in the strengthening of liberal margins in both houses and the election to the Oval Office of the most leftist senator in the U.S. Senate – a Ted Kennedy without experience. The result could be a massive increase in the size, scope and power of the federal government with increased taxes, explosive new entitlement spending, a scheduled surrender in Iraq, a dangerous and detrimental new foreign policy of negotiation with terrorists, and a Supreme Court and federal judiciary packed with interventionist liberal judges.  If McCain is to be burdened with the notion of the 3^rd Bush term, then it is important that voters be reminded that Obama is running for the 2^nd Carter term…and the results could be even more damaging than the first.

With the departure of Mitt Romney, all conservative hopes for retaining the White House have diminished. The 2008 Republican presidential nominee will be Senator John McCain.

Under the best of circumstances, retaining the White House following a  two term presidency is difficult – in recent decades only Ronald Reagan was able to achieve this feat with the election of his sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush. This year, it is particularly difficult. No president in recent memory has been as despised by the left as George W. Bush. Between an expensive and unpopular war, worries over a souring economy, etc., Bush is anathema to the left and unpopular among independents. Their frustration over his policies and the sheer indignity they feel at having what they believe to be an ignorant and unworthy man who beat Al Gore and John Kerry leading our Nation is palpable.

Given these factors, it is hard to see how any Republican could be elected, but to make matters worse, the GOP is about to nominate the one Republican that will do more to dissuade the enthusiasm, and financial support of his own party’s base than any other.

McCain would be the oldest man ever elected as a first term president, and his stances on important issues combined with what many conservatives feel is the relish with which he opposes them on those issues, has made for bitter feelings. Moreover, despite his soft-spoken demeanor at victory rallies, McCain is not known for his magnanimity, and most conservatives are not optimistic that McCain will reach out to them with anything approaching the same spirit shown to those across the aisle. Indeed, McCain’s initial admonishment to his conservatives critics to “calm down” has done little to assuage that pessimism.

But it’s not all bad. After all McCain is the one man that can reach out to independents and Democrats, right? Maybe not. 

It seems hard to imagine how McCain can win in November with just moderate and liberal Republicans, independents, and Joe Lieberman. This is still about red state/blue state, and if you can’t win all of Bush’s states, you’re not going to win in the fall. If McCain cannot find a way to not only heal the rift with this base, but indeed to motivate them to work for him, the entire efforts seems folly.

Moreover, too few Democrats and independents are likely to cast their lot with McCain given what are the two critical issues in this election thus far: the war and the economy.  On the first score, McCain is committed to the unpopular war, already being labeled as a “war monger” by Hillary Clinton, and foolishly providing Democrats with bumper-sticker ammunition – “McCain: 100 more years of war!”

On the later score, McCain has already and exceedingly foolishly conceded that he knows little about the economy – touting his reading of Alan Greenspan’s book, his pork-cutting habits, and support from Jack Kemp as qualifications for leading the world’s largest economy into the next growth cycle.

Add to this dismal recipe the determination of liberals of all stripes to take back the White House, the explosive enthusiasm for Barack Obama, and the historic novelty of electing either him or the Nation’s first female president, and a McCain victory is hard to envisage.

There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to support McCain, but by and large, they are attempts to mitigate the damage that will be done to the country by the leftists. McCain himself has yet to give conservatives a positive and constructive reason to vote for him, or a true vision of how a McCain presidency will help them to achieve their goals and aspirations, while advancing the central core of Reagan conservatism. We wait to hear from Senator McCain.

While some conservatives are ready to head for the hills, others know that we retreat at our own peril, and that of the Nation. The specter of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, leading our retreat in the War on Terror, stacking the Court, raising our taxes, instituting massive new entitlement spending and socialized medicine, etc., simply will do too much damage to our Nation to ignore.

In the end, many conservatives will vote for McCain, some won’t, but absent the kind of national security crisis that no true American would wish to see, anything short of a Herculean effort by a united GOP is likely to result in failure.

There is much debate about which candidate would be “easier” to run against in the fall – Clinton or Obama. There is little difference between them in terms of policy, but tactically speaking, there are some definite advantages to a Clinton run. An Obama candidacy, though devoid of substance, is likely to be unbeatable given the tearful, near hysterical enthusiasm being shown by his supporters as well as the titanic volumes of cash contributions he is generating. Obama’s weaknesses are his inexperience, and perhaps to a lesser degree his race. Obama clearly would be the greenest choice for president in quite some time, and many have speculated that America isn’t ready for a black president. So far however, there has been almost no discussion of Obama’s race amongst Republicans, while the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, have been busily and openly race-bating.

Clinton’s weaknesses are many as a candidate, but she is somewhat less liberal and relatively more responsible on policy than Obama. As a candidate she is far less appealing to Democrats, deeply divisive within her own party and with the Nation as a whole, and she is presently cash-strapped. If victorious, Clinton will likely do more to galvanize GOP voters than almost any other Democrat, and while Obama will be strenuously opposed, his personal style, his race, and his “outsider” status may make him a harder target.

There is of course the prospect, even if it appears unlikely now, for a joint Clinton/Obama ticket. As to which candidate the Democrats ultimately select, or whether they select both, for the most part our feeling is that for now, it likely doesn’t matter. No matter who they nominate, and no matter who we nominate, the feeling in the country is decidedly against the Republicans; the presidency is not likely to go to the GOP.  It’s not pretty, but it’s better that we face the political facts now and focus our energy and resources on the places they can best be utilized.

Thus, it’s time for Plan B: The Senate.

The Senate will be the key to stopping the radical left agenda that will come from either Clinton or Obama. Not only can the Senate stop the revenue generating bills that will come from the House, but the Senate has a key role to play in the formation of foreign policy, the direction of the war, and the confirmation of judges. It is essential that all conservatives bury their differences and pledge their time, money and support to our Republican senatorial candidates.

There are 35 Senate races in 2008, and nearly half of the 49 GOP held seats are up for grabs. The Democrats by contrast have to defend only 12, and 10 are regarded as being relatively safe, while many long-held seats such as John Warner’s Virginia seat and Pete Domenici’s New Mexico seat will be hotly contested as both these veteran senators and others like them will be retiring. They may not all deserve our support, but nonetheless Republicans must pull out all the stops to assist every Republican Senator, including Norm Coleman and others, and must find a way to retain the seat held by Ted Stevens, who is currently under FBI investigation. The Republicans must put all their efforts into retaining every seat we have and doing our best to keep the Democrats from achieving a 51 member true majority, or worse, a filibuster-proof majority.

At the same time, we must work to pick up as many seats as possible in the House, which presents some easier targets, but ultimately has a different policy role than the crucial Senate, which must be regarded as priority one.

Our humble advice to all conservatives is to turn off the 24 hour cable news and stop obsessing about the presidential campaign until after the national party conventions. Focus on the 35 Senate races that will likely be all that stands between us and unrestrained liberalism. If you’re in a state where Senate seats are not up for grabs, adopt a candidate or two, and give of yourself, your time and your resources to keeping or winning seats for the values and issues more important than either the presidency or the Party. The race for the presidency shouldn’t be adandoned, but if we focus on winning in the Congress, we’re sure to drive up vote totals for John McCain.

The party of Ronald Reagan will rise again, in the meantime, lets roll up our sleeves, dig in, and hold down the fort.

Thursday’s Republican debate in Florida, which was calm, respectful and thoughtful, contrasted sharply with the rancorous and largely shallow Democratic debate in South Carolina held days earlier. In what was a largely, low-key, policy-heavy debate, domestic issues and economics took center stage, while foreign policy concerns such as Iraq were little mentioned.

The emphasis on domestic matters deprived Senator McCain of his strongest issue – his clear leadership on Iraq and the War on Terror, and forced McCain to play on slightly foreign economic turf. Senator McCain was particularly weakened by a sharp question from moderator Tim Russert in which Russert quoted McCain’s admission that he needed to be “educated” on the economy. McCain, was also treated to needling questions about his age and reputation for a mercurial temper, though McCain diffused those questions effectively and with good humor, and was later aided by Governor Huckabee who rose in defense of Senator McCain’s vigor.

Economics also proved to be a less suitable match for Governor Huckabee, who is seen as lacking authority on economic matters and has been vigorously criticized by pro-growth economic groups such as the Club for Growth.  Nevertheless, Huckabee’s strongest debate moment was indeed on an economic issue - a softball question from Senator McCain involving Huckabee’s Fair Tax proposal, in which he delivered a vision for a simpler, consumer-based taxed plan along with a crowd-pleasing indictment of the IRS.

For political observers reading between the lines, it was apparent that McCain and Huckabee shared a mutual desire to be non-aggressive with one another, and signaled the possibility of a McCain/Huckabee ticket.

Tonight’s undoubted winner however was Governor Romney, who demonstrated once again a smooth, presidential style, and a considerable proficiency in fiscal and economic matters.  Despite several tough questions, including another question about his faith, Romney delivered what MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews described as “commanding” answers. This sentiment was shared by viewers who participated in the unscientific text-message poll which followed the debate, and named Romney the decisive debate winner – overshadowing Senator McCain by more than 20 points. Romney’s performance also included hard-hitting jabs at Senator Hillary Clinton and a memorable, crowd-pleasing line about Americans not wanting former President Bill Clinton back in the White House “with nothing to do.” Romney also appeared to be the recepient of more questions than any other candidate, and therefore shared a concomitant plurality of valuable air-time. 

Coming in last according to respondents was the normally sharp Mayor Giuliani, who delivered a less memorable and more distracted performance than usual. Though it should be noted that Giuliani was the recipient of the evening’s most overtly negative question – a call to respond to an ugly, ad homonym attack by the New York Times.

For Florida voters only now making their decisions, tonight’s debate will no doubt inure to the benefit of Governor Romney who looked and sounded every bit the chief executive. With polls already trending his way, this Boca Raton debate could prove to be the decisive moment that could catapult Romney to victory in Florida, and the unchallenged status as national GOP frontrunner.

 Not if Michigan conservatives have anything to say about it.

Despite his lead in national polls, conservative Republicans are deeply distrustful of John McCain. While most concede that the nationally-known McCain could be their best hope for retaining the White House in November, many feel that McCain’s embrace of liberal positions – from pushing amnesty and campaign finance reform, to opposing tax cuts and promoting greater federal regulation - would amount to little gain.  Indeed, many contend that a President McCain, already predisposed to compromise with Democrats, and widely rumored to have considered leaving the Republican Party, would be a GOP disaster. 

All eyes are now focused on Michigan, where tomorrow’s primary could have an enormous repercussions for Republicans. A McCain victory could boost the Senator’s standings nationally, and provide the momentum necessary to give him a resounding win in South Carolina, where he currently leads in the polls.

With so much riding on Michigan, throughout America, the conservative war cry has gone up - vote Romney.

Though most readily concede that Romney is an imperfect candidate, he is by all accounts, the leading Reagan conservative in the field – the others being former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, and California Congressman Duncan Hunter, who has gained little traction. 

The late enthusiasm for Romney however, isn’t due to a sudden epiphany by conservatives that Romney is their guy, rather, it’s a concession by most that other than Thompson, Romney is the best shot for true conservatives.

Thompson, the candidate that most excites conservatives has performed poorly in the race, and despite a surprisingly good debate performance last week, still trails McCain, Huckabee and Romney in South Carolina. The Palmetto State is largely seen as a do or die contest for Thompson, and a surging McCain, fresh off a Michigan victory over Romney would almost certainly spell disaster for Thompson and could propel McCain right through to the nomination.

By contrast, a Romney win in Michigan would mark a sea change in the race. Romney, who has been on shaky ground since his victory in Wyoming, needs a big state win to keep himself in the race and increase his momentum heading into the southern primaries. Moreover, such a victory would send a message across the country – that Reagan conservatism is still at the heart of the GOP.

Despite the press’ characterization of the Republican race as a free-for-all, battle lines have increasingly been drawn around complimentary campaigns; it’s now a struggle between two groups – the more liberal McCain and Huckabee versus the more conservative Romney and Thompson.

Weekend polls showed a slight trend toward Romney, but with so many variables, it’s difficult to tell who will take the Great Lakes State. An open primary, such as Michigan has, is widely regarded as favoring McCain, whose appeal to independents and moderate Democrats could give him the win. Moreover, Michigan is familiar territory to McCain, who beat rival George W. Bush there in 2000. Still, with every Democratic candidate besides Hillary Clinton boycotting the Michigan primaries, it is unclear whether enough registered Democrats or Independents will turn out to either vote against Hillary Clinton by choosing “uncommitted,” or vote for John McCain.

Despite the open primary, Romney also has reason to smile. The name Romney is familiar to Michiganites, as Mitt Romney was born in Michigan, and his father, George Romney, served as Michigan’s governor, as well as chairman of the Detroit-based American Motors Corporation. Romney’s association with the state, and his reputation as a successful businessman, adept at turning failing organizations around, may propel him to a win with an electorate suffering from economic woes. Add to that a possible enthusiastic turnout from conservatives, including Thompson supporters, and Romney could eek out a win that would have enormous implications.

At this point it’s simply too close to call, but Michigan may hold the key to the GOPs immediate future – will it be the continuation of the Reagan model offered by Romney and Thompson, or a trend left, toward the compromise and economic populism offered by McCain and Huckabee?

In the end, turnout, and the will of non-Republicans may hold the key.