It was June 1940. An undefeated and many thought unstoppable Adolf Hitler rolled across the European continent. From the air, the Luftwaffe dominated the skies of Europe, and would soon lay waste the venerable and ancient English capitol. Fear gripped a British citizenry low on food, ammunition, fighting men, and spirit.  The full fury of the Bilitz was only months away, and Britain was all alone in its struggle against NAZI tyranny. In this climate of seemingly overwhelming odds, the dogged and pugnacious British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, rose before the House of Commons to deliver one of his most stirring speeches. Knowing full well the awful price of defeat, and deploying all his considerable rhetorical skill, Churchill challenged and inspired his fellow countrymen and women to fight on to the bitter end:

“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…”

Churchill’s speech rallied the British people who fought on alone. But Churchill’s words inspired many hearts. Less than two years later and thousands of miles from the British capitol, men like Admiral John McCain were answering Churchill’s eloquent call in defense of freedom.  Rarely since those days has liberty faced such peril, but Churchill’s words have inspired many, no matter the contest or field of endeavor, to fight on. More than simply an echo of trying times, Churchill’s speech reminds us that when an important battle must be fought, it is incumbent upon each of us, individually and in unison, to go above and beyond the call of duty in pursuit of victory.

And so it is, that we find ourselves on the eve of a historic election for America. No elections are without profound consequences, but not since 1980 has America been faced with such a stark political and ideological dichotomy. John McCain is not the perfect conservative, but whatever his faults, John McCain is now all that stands between Reagan’s America and a disastrous turn toward socialism.  With Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge of our Congress, and a President Obama ensconced in the Oval Office, leftist redistributionist policy will flow like water. Taxes hikes, profligate spending, and government expansion will unfold like storm clouds. The unionization of our private sector will begin in earnest and the end of the hitherto sacred secret ballot will come to pass. Our most cherished rights will be assaulted: from our freedom to express our religion, to our right to have and bear arms, to the very heart of the American spirit, the freedom of speech – which will wither under government imposed “fairness” guidelines. Our troops who have fought valiantly to secure a new future and a lasting peace in the Middle East will be undermined from home. The fight against Islamic extremism will end. The next justices on the Supreme Court will consider judicial activism their calling and judge-made law their right. Internationalism, foreign law, and sovereignty-undermining treaties will be the order of the day. Extreme environmentalism will trump all economic and business needs, and the promise of energy independence in the form of nuclear power, increased domestic oil production and natural gas will shrivel under draconian green legislation and government mandates. Like Gulliver amidst his captors, the great American juggernaut, already reeling from an economic blow of largely Democratic making, will succumb; death by 1,000 cuts. Not since the days of Carter will America have known such a malaise. The death of liberty by the hand of equality.

 But it is not a future that has to be. Hope remains.

John McCain is first to acknowledge that he is the underdog in this present contest, and many have proclaimed a McCain victory nearly impossible. Yet, with a strong final debate performance, a new sense that the American people are at last considering the true consequences of their choice in leader, and climbing poll numbers, a McCain victory remains possible. The odds are still unfavorable, and the task considerable, but in these final days, now is the time that every man and woman who cares about the hard won conservative gains of the Reagan Revolution must stand and fight. It will take more than merely voting, more than a yard sign or a bumper sticker, or a casual comment to a neighbor. It will take a sure and determined effort to mobilize every last Republican and independent vote.

In the end, it is not the media who decides our future, it is We, the People. So let us decide. Let us take our future into our own hands. In the spirit of Churchill, let us call forth every last remaining fighter. Family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, parishioners, teammates, fellow students, and more. Even complete strangers and sometimes adversaries must be called upon and mobilized in this effort.  Ask yourself not merely what you will do come Election Day, but what you can and must do between now and then. The Left is mobilized and organized. They will be bringing to the polls thousands of voters who have never cast a ballot before.  On their side stands all the media with its long and duplicitous tentacles gripping the fountainheads of public opinion. Indeed, all the World whose interests lie in a weakened and demoralized America are willing your defeat.

So up with the rally cry! Dig in, mobilize and fight. We can win this election, and save America from a dreadful future, but only if we commit ourselves to delivering, with one resounding voice, the timeless battle cry of the victors: never surrender!

Economic markets in turmoil, billions upon billions in public debt, a nation poised to elect a radical, anti-war socialist president with a Muslim background, and a population seemingly no longer interested in or concerned about the ongoing war against radical Islamic terror.  The climate could hardly be better for Al Qaeda, and with America’s famously fickle attention now focused on stock prices and financial bailouts, the time is nearly perfect for a major terrorist attack.

In Tuesday’s debate, John McCain noted that: “history shows us that nations that are strong militarily over time have to have a strong economy as well.” Such a notion is self-evidently true, and McCain is not the only man who recognizes the proportional relationship between America’s economic and military power. In December 2001 Osama bin Laden declared of America: “If their economy is destroyed, they will be busy with their own affairs rather than enslaving the weak peoples. It is very important to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means.” Less than a year later, his second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri similarly stated: “We will also aim to continue, by the permission of Allah, the destruction of the American economy.” There should be no doubt that Al Qaeda actively seeks to destroy the U.S. economy, and with it America’s military strength.

We can be certain that Al Qaeda and other radical organizations are closely following the U.S. election. The last thing they desire is for the battle-hardened, victory-committed John McCain to inherit the commander-in-chief chair from President George W. Bush, so a pre-election attack that would all but ensure a McCain victory seems unlikely. Yet, with just 26 days to go the election, the time is not very distant when conditions will be nearly optimal.

Come November 5, the economy will likely be in little better shape than it is today, America may have cast its lot with an anti-war political neophyte and defeatist Congress, the critical holiday retail shopping season will be starting, and with a new administration coming to power, Washington will be shuffling desks – a perfect climate of fear, distraction and uncertainty. It is the ideal moment to hit major economic interests in America and throughout the West, creating a panic that will further slam the American economy, deal a parting defeat to George W. Bush, and rattle the shaky new president-elect.

The threat is not limited to Al Qaeda either. A brazen Iran, a duplicitous North Korea, an emboldened Russia, even a militant China bent on the re-conquest of Taiwan could find the tactical reality of a tired and strained U.S. Armed Forces, a financially distressed U.S. economy and a heavily preoccupied American leadership irresistible.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 hit the American economy hard, ultimately costing hundreds of billions of dollars and prolonging the dot com bubble burst recovery period.  Now, amidst what many are calling the “greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression,” the effects of an economically-targeted terrorist attack could be truly devastating. It is a sober and worrying thought, and one that reminds us again how we have failed to learn the lessons of 9/11. For when America is distracted, when our resolve has lessened, when our domestic concerns overtake our concept of our mission in the world, it is then that our sworn enemies are most apt to strike us.

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.

John McCain has set a trap for Barack Obama, and its one Obama may find hard to avoid.  Obama owes his current candidacy and his position at the top of 2008 Democratic ticket to his uncompromising anti-war stance. Through the fall and spring, Obama’s position on the war was unmistakable, “Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq and there never was…the best way to protect our security is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months, or one year – now!” As a regular part of Obama’s stump speech, the freshman Illinois senator pledged, “I will end this war in 2009.” Such a position worked well with the left-wing base of the Democratic Party, but over the course of the past year a funny thing has happened in Iraq – the U.S. has employed an increasingly successful military strategy, and its primary public proponent has been Senator John McCain.

The trap laid by McCain was the challenge to Obama to visit Iraq. After all, how can a man running for the commander in chief spot not visit the very theatre of war he has founded his campaign on? Obama had no choice but to take the bait, but in doing so, he’s walked straight into a terrible conundrum. Once Obama arrives in Iraq, he will be faced with a radically different tactical situation and American commanders who are confident about the troop surge strategy and committed to continued U.S. presence.

Obama’s options will be to ignore the professional judgment of America’s top commanders and continue his call for immediate withdrawal despite the progress – an untenable political position that will shred his image and leave him vulnerable to withering criticism, or alternatively to repudiate his central campaign message, embracing the policy of George W. Bush – depriving him of the very essence of his candidacy and infuriating his own base. Will Obama campaign as the man who wishes to singlehandedly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, or the man who flip-flopped on the central issue of his campaign and embraced Bush? Quite simply there is no good option for Obama who today began his attempt to forge a middle path. It is an equally untenable option for Obama, who will cement his growing reputation as a split-personality candidate that has two contradictory positions on every subject and a penchant for politically expedient decision-making. Moreover, in addition to damaging his won credibility, whatever position he takes, will open him up from criticism from either the right, or the left…and most likely both – Obama can neither give ground on withdrawal nor ignore the conditions on the ground.

Today’s dual press conferences from Obama marks the slamming of the door of the McCain trap, and the opening act of what will be a withering fall campaign that will shatter Obama’s credibility and leadership potential.  Obama’s first press conference was an attempt by the Senator to back away from his longstanding commitment to immediate withdrawal, and was met with such withering criticism from both the right and the left, that in an overtly defensive move, Obama called a second press conference to stop the bleeding. His assertion that he will “refine his position” on Iraq after his visit there is the kind of noncommittal, legalistic, and ultimately unpresidential position that will further erode the media-bolstered patina of a new kind of principled candidate. It was a clumsy first step into the political minefield posed by Iraq, and a stark contrast with the steadfast McCain.

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.

It’s over. For better or worse, John McCain will be the Repulican nominee in 2008. Unfortunately, the only one in the country who seems unable to recognize that fact is Governor Huckabee.Everyone  instinctively knows that Huckabee cannot overtake McCain’s commanding delegate lead, and rather than following the gracious example set by Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney, Huckabee seems intent upon wounding the presumptive GOP nominee and preventing him from using this critical time to unite the Party, fundraise, and work on creating the kind of nationwide grassroots organization that will be needed for the fall.

Many pundits once speculated that Huckabee was staying in the race long enough to prevent Governor Romney from winning, and hopefully earning a veep spot with a grateful John McCain.  Increasingly however, it appears that Huckabee’s campaign is really all about Huckabee. Far from waging some kind of heroic fight for the conservative heart of the GOP, it appears as though Huckabee is merely running a campaign of personal ambition, for continuing to embarrass John McCain is not the most intuitive way to win over the presumptive nominee or help the conservative cause.  As the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer has noted, Huckabee seems intent on staying in the race long enough to overtake Governor Romney’s delegate count in order to earn himself 2012 bragging rights as the guy that came in second. Moreover, the otherwise unemployed Huckabee seems to be genuinely enjoying his time in the spotlight – making speeches to adoring crowds and touring from state to state like a country music star.

There is no question that Huckabee has run a good campaign, and there’s little doubt that he has skill as a politician and as a speaker, but enough is enough. Huckabee has proven his worth, demonstrated that he is now a national name in GOP circles, and must be considered amongst other likley candidates in the 2012 race – he’s probably even earned a right to address the Republican National Convention in September.  Yet irrespective of his losses today, Huckabee vows to fight on.

With each passing day, Huckabee’s campaign smacks more of pride and vanity than principle. With each passing week, Huckabee’s own stature is diminished by his attempts to remain in the spotlight. Governor Huckabee may keep playing his guitar, traveling from state to state, and delivering fiery speeches, but the longer he goes on, the smaller he seems. Alas, the candidate that seemed larger than life in Iowa is now the incredible shrinking Huckabee.

You ran a great campaign Governor, but now it’s time to recognize the inevitable, save your dignity, and bow out gracefully before it’s too late.

With Fred Thompson’s departure from the GOP field and Huckabee’s slow demise, the Republican race for 2008 is quickly coming into focus. The race is now between three candidates - John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. But is it?

There is significant speculation about what Thompson’s departure means, and which candidate will benefit. There can be little doubt however, that Thompson’s departure helps Mitt Romney, who now becomes the clear conservative choice in the GOP field.  This is particularly true given that Thompson did not endorse John McCain.  Whatever the flirtations with Huckabee, he was never a viable option for a national ticket, and he was consistently regarded by mainstream conservatives as anything but a true believer.

Many of the latest polls show McCain with a slight, but statistically insignificant lead in Florida, and Giuliani and Romney nearly tied for second place. Some however, such as the normally reliable Rasmussen, show Romney in the lead.

Florida is widely regarded as critical for Rudy Giuliani, and most analysts are probably correct. Although Giuliani could continue on after Florida, unless he demonstrates real strength in the Sunshine State, there is little to attract most voters to Giuliani on super Tuesday. Anything less than a win by Giuliani will be seen as a dramatic loss, and McCain’s continued successes will draw away the remaining support. Giuliani’s campaign has been based largely on his record of making government work in New York City, coupled with a “take no prisoners” approach toward the War on Terror, however Rudy’s true appeal was always the sneaking suspicion by many that he could win in November. Giuliani’s failures at the polls, particularly with Independents and Democrats, have cast doubt on that ability, and McCain’s war service record has overshadowed Rudy’s 9/11 warrior reputation. In the end, it seems that even a second place finish for Giuliani in Florida may not be enough, and a third place finish would almost certainly derail his candidacy.

The real race in Florida, as in the country, is now between John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Despite a healthy respect for McCain’s service record and his personal attributes, McCain is simply wrong on too many issues to be the choice of conservative Republicans. From illegal-immigration and campaign finance to taxes and environmental policy, McCain is simply in a different place than the majority of his party’s base.  Despite polls which show that McCain could be the strongest contender in November, regular Republicans simply cannot bring themselves to support a man who openly discussed leaving the Republican Party, joining John Kerry’s 2004 ticket in opposition to President Bush, and who presently has Al Gore’s 2000 runningmate, Joe Lieberman, stumping for him.

Though some still harbor doubts about Romney’s late conversions to some important conservative positions, and unease with what they view as Romney’s comfort with politically expedient ingratiation, Romney’s stated positions line up nicely with the majority of Republicans, and no one can doubt that he is an enormously capable and articulate leader, uniquely qualified to deal with the increasing worry over the Nation’s economy.

Moreover Romney enjoys the support of a considerable and growing sector of the Republican Party machinery, and is endorsed by unquestioned conservatives. Romney is the choice of conservative bellwether The National Review, which said of Romney:

“Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest…More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.”

Romney’s candidacy has also been bolstered in recent weeks by affirmation from conservative opinion makers such as Rush Limbaugh who has been generally supportive of Romney and brushed off doubts about Romney’s sincerity declaring, “I believe Mitt Romney’s conversion is genuine.” Moreover, with the endorsement of former presidential candidate and illegal-immigration hawk Tom Tancredo, Romney looks increasingly like the anti-McCain.

With Thompson’s departure, the conservative vote in Florida will slowly coalesce around Romney, and there was widespread evidence of such a shift today on influential blogs.  Huckabee will be largely abandoned and Giuliani and McCain will split the moderate vote, giving Romney the chance at a surprise upset and the unquestioned position of frontrunner. Given the early ballots that have been cast, the amount of time and money invested in Florida by Giuliani, McCain’s South Carolina momentum, and the persistent fluidity of this contest, it is difficult to predict who will win Florida. No one should be counted out, but look for Romney to do well among self-described conservatives, and possibly to take the Sunshine State. 

Barring some unforseen circumstances, and consistent with our earlier predictions, we believe that Governor Romney is increasingly well positioned to enter Super Tuesday, and ultimately to be the 2008 GOP nominee.

The biggest issue in the 2008 election will not be Iraq, and will not even be Immigration. Healthcare insurance coverage trumps as the biggest issue in the 2008 Presidential election, this leave a large opportunity for Republicans to offer a new direction and different solution than the Democrats’ “the government will pay for it” solution.

So far the Democrats have dominated this issue. This is simply because it is another issue where the Democrats can offer a bribe to get votes: vote for the Democrat and you will get free healthcare. The Republicans have pretty much mumbled something about a problem and empathized with those that do not have coverage but have not offered any real alternative solutions. The Democrats have created an issue Insurance Coverage, defined a problem Poor Coverage and created a solution Hillary-Care. That is, there are 40 million people without heath insurance coverage; the only solution is to have the government give those people free healthcare (if this is not buying votes, then I am a liberal democrat).

If the problem as defined by the democrats is coverage, however, the solution is cost. 40 million people in America do not have healthcare because of the rising and unbearable cost. MOst of the people that do have healthcare obtain it through their employer. A large majority of uninsured people are 20-somethings that typically do not need pills or frequent visits to a healthcare provider.

Address the cost of heathcare and you address the coverage issue.

Presidential candidate John McCain addressed the issue a couple weeks ago:

“Democratic presidential candidates are not telling you these truths. They offer their usual default position: If the government would only pay for insurance everything would be fine. They promise universal coverage, whatever its cost, and the massive tax increases, mandates and government regulation that it imposes,” McCain said. “I offer a genuinely conservative vision for health care reform, which preserves the most essential value of American lives — freedom.” source

Senator McCain’s plan, although lacking in detail, calls for the right solution – the Senator wants to lower the cost by affecting the market. Specifically by promoting open-healthcare markets and removing the tax bias towards employer-based coverage.

These are two solutions within the provice of the Federal Government that warrant serious attention. For once the cost of healthcare and its corresponding insurance costs drop, a natural effect is an increase in coverage. John McCain offers a good solution, if not a talking point that presents an alternative to Hillary-Care. Additionally, depending upon the press, this issue could be the rebound issue for the McCain campaign.

Rudy Giuliani:The Michigan debate may have been Giuliani’s best. The affable mayor seemed relaxed, optimistic, and in command of the issues. His attacks, waged largely against Hillary Clinton, did much to elevate him above the other candidates and helped to feed the notion that Giuliani is both the inevitable nominee and the best match-up against Hillary Clinton in a general election. Giuliani was able to avoid many of the social issues that have plagued him in earlier debates due to largely policy-focused questions, and his retorts were generally articulate and on-point. When coupled with some humorous if slightly contrived lines, Giuliani’s performance was exactly what he needed to help build on his frontrunner status. 

  Mitt Romney: Romney continues to shine in the debate forum. His command of the issues is solid, his style is confident, and there is little doubt that he is competent. Unfortunately Romney’s handlers have gotten to him; forcing the normally cheerful and easy Romney to take on Giuliani over a trumped-up difference in policy. Moreover, Romney’s endorsement of the unconstitutional federal line-item-veto does nothing to bolster his constitutional credentials (nor does his leave it the attorneys position on war powers) or his already suspect conservative credentials as a strict constructionist. Romney is at his best when he leverages his business acumen against the failed big-government policies of those on the stage as well as likely Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Romney should take a page from Ross Perot and treat his campaign as a hostile takeover of a badly managed government, while using his easy, clear, style to build confidence and optimism. Romney should campaign on his strengths rather than on Giuliani’s unapparent weaknesses, and should avoid the kind of forced lines that bolster his critics claims of phoniness.

Fred Thompson: Given the high hopes among rank and file conservatives, Thompson was almost sure to disappoint, but the veteran actor proved even less of a star than expected. From a stumbling start that was far to reminiscent of George W. Bush’s grating inarticulateness, to platitudinous answers to policy questions in which his eyes frequently diverted to his notes, Thompson did little to rebut his solidifying reputation as a candidate running on image rather than on ideas. Moreover, on the debate stage, compared to optimists like Romney, Huckabee, and even Giuliani, Thompson seemed dower and distant. Thompson’s forte is clearly not a staged debate, but rather the folksy one-on-one encounters with everyday citizens. Thompson has yet to prove that he has the “fire in the belly” to be president, or the command of the issues to defeat the intelligent, if overtly leftist, Hillary Clinton.

John McCain: McCain’s Michigan performance may have been his worst. The once aggressive McCain seemed tired, downtrodden, and at times gave rambling answers to questions that he is known to have a better command of. Though McCain’s strong position on the war continues to lend credence to his campaign, and there is no question that McCain would be a strong commander-in-chief, the candidate himself seems to have been deeply affected by the precipitous (illegal immigration-driven) decline of his campaign. Moreover, McCain seemed plagued by technical difficulties that left him unable to hear the questions, resulting in a series of awkward pauses that undoubtedly if subconsciously highlighted his age. McCain’s performance was competent, and honest, if uninspiring.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee continues to surprise and excel in the debate forum. His clearly articulated, folksy and cheerful demeanor makes him among the most engaging on the stage and continues to generate interest in his candidacy. Though some may deride Huckabee’s slightly “hickish” last name (certainly no worse than Millard Fillmore), there can be no doubting that Huckabee continues to gain popularity, and his common sense approach to governance seems refreshing and relatively genuine. Unfortunately, Huckabee continues not to receive the type of serious policy questions from moderators that he increasingly deserves. 

As for the other candidates, who have yet to emerge from solid second-tierdom, the results were mixed. Duncan Hunter’s tough, assured style continues to resonate confidence and decisiveness. Unfortunately his unrelenting focus on the issues of Chinese trade policy and a strong military begin to paint a portrait of the Congressman as an overly one-dimensional candidate. Indeed, it appears as if Hunter is campaigning full time for secretary of defense, rather than president of the United States. Sam Brownback continues to sound rational and clear, and gives the impression of a competent and dutiful public servant… perhaps suitable as a future head of the Department of the Interior. Ron Paul’s slightly hysterical personal style continues to erode any gains that his principled constitutional positions might otherwise engender, and Tom Tancredo, though right on illegal immigration, simply is out of his league as a presidential contender. Border Czar Tancredo has a nice ring to it however.

If Thompson and McCain were the debate’s big losers, Romney and Giuliani came out far ahead of the pack… and due to his poise, clarity, and skill the winner was clearly Giuliani.