It is interesting -- if not slightly disturbing -- to hear how conservative pundits and talk show hosts are reacting to the McCain "surge". Most are truly apoplectic about the possibility that McCain might actually capture the Republican nomination and become the party's candidate in November. Many of the pundits -- Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham -- see McCain virtually as a Democrat in hiding. Anne Coulter actually is now on record as saying that she prefers Hillary as president over McCain. And the dean of conservative talk, Rush Limbaugh has said it would be the "end of the Republican party as we know it". It's almost as if John McCain were to win the nomination, conservatives would have to admit to themselves that Ronald Reagan really is gone.

News flash: it's 2008, not 1980 -- and the country has changed since Reagan was president. Reagan's brand of conservatism -- small government, low taxes, strong national defense -- do represent timeless American ideals. But they were a particularly good fit for the America of 1980. The 1970s had been a decade of insult and injury -- Vietnam, Watergate, oil shocks, rampant inflation -- the nation suffering from what Jimmy Carter aptly called a "malaise". What Ronald Reagan brought to the nation was partly a self-confidence borne of optimism, and partly a political agenda that sought to revitalize American innovation through freer markets. By reducing taxes and deregulating markets, he promoted individual responsibility and opportunity -- and unleashed a powerful force in the American economy that was the foundation for the economic boom we experienced in the 1990s. It is not hard to understand why conservatives so revere Reagan.

But that was then. Today we live in a different country and in a different world. Two key trends mark this shift:

First, the demographics of America have changed over the past 25 years. Immigration has dramatically shifted the politics of many states that were solid traditional "red" states. Take California as an example: Reagan won California in both 1980 and 1984 by better than 16% over Carter and Mondale, respectively. George Bush beat Michael Dukakis in 1988 by just 3.5%, however, and since then California has gone decisively for the Democrats in presidential contests. The increase in hispanic voters has been a major part of this trend -- but it also reflects an increasingly mobile electorate that is heavily influenced by the media and who reside predominantly in major urban centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco. And it isn't just California. Similar shifts have been taking place in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan -- all once solid red states that now are on the edge of being consistently blue.

The change in demographics has been felt within the Republican party itself with a marked shift toward a more moderate "swing" base. This was proven out in exit polls from the Florida Republican primary on January 29. Only 27% of the Republican voters described themselves as being "very conservative". Those voters went for Mitt Romney 44% to 20%. At the same time, 34% described themselves as "somewhat conservative", and among those voters McCain and Romney tied, 32% to 32%. Finally, 38% of voters described themselves as "moderate conservatives". Among those voters, McCain beat Romney 40% to 22%. When you factor in that Giuliani got 15% of the popular vote in Florida and that a sizable majority of his support would have gone to McCain, the impact of the "moderate conservative" wing of the party is quite dramatic.

Which brings us to the second trend: the American electorate is more complex than ever before, and is less likely to vote on predictable partisan issues. While the base of each party remains doctrinaire, an increasingly large portion of both parties sits in the middle, focused on a wide variety of issues that create a complex voting pattern. People aren't just voting "their pocketbooks" anymore, but rather are also looking hard at national security, immigration, globalization and the environment in making their decision. One of the reasons that polling has been so inaccurate in recent elections is because the electorate is much more fluid -- making decisions often in the final hours or days. In this environment, the old standby "conservative" and "liberal" ques are much less determinant.

Of course, it hasn't helped that George Bush and the Republican Congress have given themselves a very black eye -- not just with their handling of the Iraq war, but also with their lack of fiscal discipline. The opinion of the country is that there isn't much difference between the two parties now on spending -- which leaves domestic security, foreign policy and the war on terror as the defining issue. On this the majority of the country is in the middle; they want the borders secured, they want success in Iraq, they want to be protected from attack here at home and they want US troops to come back -- but only when the job is finished. And this is why John McCain looks so good now to so many independents and "moderate" Republicans: he seems to understand now the need for border security, and he has the experience and credentials to be Commander in Chief from day one.

* * * * * *

The conservative base of the Republican party has a critical decision to make this year: whether to continue to live in the 1980s, or to join the rest of the country in the 21st century. This does not mean abandoning the principles that Reagan embodied, which should remain the core of the conservative movement. But to form a party that can both win and govern in the future, it must meld principle with pragmatism, and adapt its message to a new political reality. And the messenger for 2008 is John McCain.

Last night's State of the Union Speech was, as always, a fascinating spectacle -- a view into the pageantry and hypocrisy that is Washington. As the president entered and exited the House Chamber he was showered with handshakes and back slaps from Democrats who ordinarily wouldn't have given him the time of day. They were eager to be seen by the cameras as the president slowly made his way to the rostrum. Just to put a pinpoint on the hypocrisy of it all, the biggest annual grandstander during the Bush years has been Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, who always wore red (ironically) so as to be more noticeable on TV, and who made a big show of whispering sweet nothings in Bush's ear while grasping his hand and sporting a huge smile. Never mind that this is the same McKinney who introduced a resolution of impeachment against President Bush in 2006! Alas, Ms. McKinney was defeated in the 2006 midterm elections and was prominently missing from last night's speech.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were present, however. Hillary sat dour and stone faced through the speech, managing to clap on occasion but clearly uncomfortable watching George Bush stand where she thinks she will be standing next year. I'm sure she spent the evening composing her own version of the speech in her head, which would focus on her having raised taxes, instituted a universal health plan and removed all US troops from Iraq -- all within the first 100 days of her presidency. She just can't wait!

Barack sat next to his new best friend, Teddy Kennedy, who was so intently reading the evening's program that he looked positively mesmerized. Perhaps it was the cocktail menu for the after-party. In any event, Obama has put his fate firmly in the hands of the Kennedy family, and though it may play to the base, one wonders how those images and speeches will look during a general election campaign should he make it that far.

And it is always interesting to see what the Democrats, as the opposition party, clap and cheer for in the president's speech. They gave a rousing ovation to Bush's support on global warming, alternative energy research and African AIDS relief. But they were stone silent on making the tax cuts permanent and passing a long-term bill to protect the ability for our national intelligence community to eavesdrop on terrorist's foreign communications, including providing tort protection for telecommunications companies who work to assist the government. What a big surprise -- they want to spend more of our money, appease the ACLU and protect the interests of the trial bar.

Perhaps most depressing was watching the Democrats stand and cheer the military's effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, and particularly the portion of the Bush speech that addressed the surge's success. After spending almost the entire first year of their majority trying to derail the surge and abandon Iraq, the Democrats actually had the nerve to stand and applaud the very success that they had worked so hard to destroy.

I guess de Tocqueville was right when he wrote that "In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve".

It is a testament to how shallow our politics have become that an Op-Ed by Caroline Kennedy appears in the Sunday New York Times comparing Barack Obama to her father, John Kennedy. A President Like My Father cites Obama's ability to bring hope to the American people and inspire them to get involved in our collective future. Of Obama, she writes "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans". You may read the full piece by Caroline Kennedy here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?hpq

It may be understandable that Caroline Kennedy sees her father as an inspiring, towering figure in American history -- a man of great ideals who could move the nation. She was a young girl not quite six years old when her father was struck down by an assassin's bullet -- and her understanding of her father's life and legacy is unavoidably tied to the memories of "Camelot" as told to her through the eyes of ordinary Americans who were forever changed by his death. John Kennedy is now inexorably intertwined with his image as a new generation of leader, young, articulate, fresh -- with a classy wife in Jackie and two young children in the White House. It was then, and remains now, a tremendously attractive image.

On this cursory level, perhaps, you can make a comparison of Kennedy and Obama as young, urbane, well-educated and handsome leaders. They both exude a sense of hope and promise for a new generation of leadership to take over the entrenched interests in Washington. And both use soaring rhetoric that can be truly inspiring. That was evident again last night in Obama's victory speech in South Carolina. Like Kennedy, he can certainly turn a phrase.

But that's as far as the comparison goes. On substance, Kennedy and Obama are worlds apart. Kennedy was a liberal of the old school -- a realist who understood that certain threats to America needed to be met with blunt force, and who believed that the use of American power for good in the world was at its core a noble, generous act. It was Kennedy who said this in his first inaugural address:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Such a sweeping affirmation of the importance of America's role in securing liberty was at the core of Kennedy's foreign policy. This was borne out, overtly and covertly, in a series of military moves during his presidency: in the Bay of Pigs designed to secure Castro's overthrow, the Berlin Airlift that brought needed food and medicine after the Soviet blockade of the city, the blockade of Soviet ships in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the gradual but inexorable escalation of our military commitment to South Vietnam. In each of these cases, the goal was to maintain US security and to establish democracy in the place of a socialist brand of totalianarism, even at the cost of American lives. Kennedy was an interventionist; by today's liberal standards, he'd be a conservative hawk -- just to the left of Dick Cheney.

Obama, on the other hand, embodies none of Kennedy's commitment to liberty. He's hung much of his campaign on his opposition to the Iraq War -- a war that liberated 25 million Iraqi's from tyranny and that is attempting to establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. While Obama is on the record as saying that he doesn't "oppose all wars" and has called for an increase of US troops in Afghanistan, he views the current struggle against terrorism as a series of skirmishes in the shadows, rather than a war against a world-wide movement of Islamic extremism. He seeks to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately, even though we now have a real chance at showing Al Qaeda that Iraq can be a success despite its best efforts at destroying it. He is on record as wanting to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria to help bring "stability to Iraq", though the evidence is clear that both Syria and Iran are responsible for the killing of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians with impunity. In sum, Obama is typical of the Left who see negotiation as a panacea, and who believe the fight against terrorism is really a law enforcement issue -- a sporadic crime wave rather than a strategic struggle for the future.

Caroline Kennedy is at least half right -- Obama is a liberal in the mold of a Kennedy -- except that it is Teddy, not Jack. He's missing JFK's conviction that our current fight against Islamic radicalism is akin to the struggle against communism that Kennedy waged during the Cold War -- and which would require a similar, methodical, steadfast commitment to "bear any burden" in ensuring the triumph of democracy and freedom.

At first glance he may look the part. But, if you dig beyond the shallow similarities, Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy.

I've been watching the Obama and Clinton camps snipe at each other for the past few weeks and it hasn't been pretty. Obama made race an issue when Hillary tried to give some credit to Lyndon Johnson for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1965, Obama saying in effect that to give a white man credit (even if he was president of the United States) for any aspect of civil rights diminished the stature of Martin Luther King. Hillary, of course, had to fall on her petard to extricate herself from that non-pc statement -- factually correct though it may be. In response, Hillary unleashed her attack-dog husband to get into the muck and excoriate Obama for a variety of perceived sins, calling his opposition to the war in Iraq a "fairy tale" and giving him all sorts of grief for a comment Obama made that mentioned Ronald Reagan (Darth Vader to the Democratic base) in an obliquely positive light. It was typical Bill Clinton -- all fire and brimstone. And, of course, totally hypocritical.

It is the nature of the Clintons that they believe in everything they say -- even when it is an outright lie. There is no objective truth for Bill Clinton, only the latest spin. So it is not at all surprising that he has said in recent speeches that he didn't support the Iraq war in the beginning (false), and has consistently spun his own record as president in vainglorious ways while campaigning for his wife on the stump (the fact that he talks about himself when campaigning for her tells us all we need to know about the size of his ego). The latest barrage against Obama's statements about Reagan are especially noteworthy because they are tepid in comparison to Bill's own positive comments about Reagan in 1991, when Bill was running for the same nomination that his wife now covets. Speaking to the editors of the Washington Post, Clinton said, that Ronald Reagan deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."

Now, that's a far more robust endorsement of the Gipper than what Obama actually said -- which was simply that Reagan had truly altered the trajectory of American politics in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had not. Ahh, there it is -- the real reason for Bill going after Obama with a hatchet on this. The not-so-subtle rebuke to the former president Clinton was far more than his healthy ego could stand, irrespective of his comments in 1991. As anyone who has ever crossed swords with the Clintons (and lived to tell about it) can attest, their thin skin leads to your blood being shed. There is a long and illustrious line of fallen "friends of Bill" in his wake to prove it.

So, there we have it; a former president of this great nation on the warpath in Nevada and South Carolina, sniping at reporter's questions and taking every opportunity to bash his wife's opponent. His tone is not simply tough, it is shrill and condescending, as if you should know better than to challenge him. He's smarter than ther rest of us -- or so he thinks. And it comes off in an ugly, ugly way.

Are we really up for four more years of this? Of the Clinton machine revising history, triangulating public opinion and squeezing the facts to fit their version of the truth? And to have Bill running amok, unfettered as he will be by the office itself, but with all of the vast bully pulpit (and I do mean "bully") with which to lecture us? Can we really want that as a nation?

I've been hearing a lot of sniping among conservatives about John McCain -- most particularly from the talking heads who have not been shy in telling the mainstream media about their dislike of the Senator from Arizona. Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt -- all seem to think that McCain isn't a "real conservative" or will somehow sell-out the Republican party's dearly held principles.

This is specious at best. The Republican party has needed no help in abandoning its limited government roots -- just look at the debacle of the Republican-led Congress and its runaway spending . I'm not sure what universe many of the Republican intelligentsia are living in, but the fact is that the Republican party is reeling under the weight of its own largess. And, contrary to popular belief, John McCain has a record of fiscal discipline that is worthy of his Arizona forbear in the Senate, Barry Goldwater. McCain is a solid Conservative -- regardless of how his opponents attempt to paint his record on immigration and taxes.

Michael Medved has an interesting article that elaborates on some of these thoughts:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain

I've also heard those same pundits talk about the "myth of McCain's electability" against the Democrats. Sean Hannity is on record today as saying that he believes such statements are the product of McCain's "liberal friends in the mainstream media", and that Romney or Giuliani would be just as competitive against Hillary or Obama. Perhaps Hannity should take a look at the polling done by Real Clear Politics on head-to-head matches against the two potential Democratic candidates. Hands down, McCain is the most electable. And, while I recognize the inherent limitation of polling this far out from the general election in November, it is the comparative strength of McCain against the field that is important.

To view these polls for yourself, go to the following link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Things might change after Florida if Rudy gets his campaign back on track. But for my money, McCain is the guy who can win.

I’ve written frequently on these pages that I believe the Left lives in a different world than I do.  They see the world through a prism of victimization and emotion, where good intentions are far more important than good outcomes, and where facts seldom get in the way of a good argument (or policy) that might make them feel better about the world they live in.  In this vein, people are fundamentally not capable of making their own decisions or of providing for themselves.  Whether it is from racism, sexism or other “ism” foisted on them by the “power class”, the answer is always the same: more government, more entitlements, more help for the huddled masses.
This is troubling enough on domestic issues, but it is downright dangerous when it comes to foreign affairs.  Take the war in Iraq.  It is now clear beyond dispute that the “surge” that began a year ago has made a dramatic difference in the war.  U.S. and civilian casualties are down more than 80%, and life in Baghdad has returned to a state of normalcy not seen since the war began in 2003.  In many ways life is actually better for Iraqis now than it was under Saddam – with free enterprise, music and culture now taking hold in areas that were subject to widespread oppression under Baath party rule.   The Democrats believe that this can’t be true – that conditions in Iraq were better under Saddam’s iron rule, and that the war was a fundamental mistake.  But if you ask the average Iraqi, I believe they would say that despite the violence of the past several years, Iraq is increasingly a place of hope and opportunity.  It isn’t popular among the mainstream media, but Iraq is becoming a success story.  We aren’t out of the woods, and we still could fail in the end; but the surge has largely worked in creating the security that was so badly missing in previous years.
So it is troublesome that the Democrats running for president not only continue to stick to their opposition to the war, but continue to state with a straight face that the surge is not helping.  Hillary, for example, is sticking with her “suspending disbelief” statement to General Patraeus that the surge is working.  She can’t seem to stomach the idea that maybe the US is winning now, and that we now have a very real chance of success there.  Even the oft-repeated complaint that the political process is moribund is no longer accurate; at the province level in particular, former Sunni insurgents have turned against Al Qaeda and have now joined the political process, giving real promise to the possibility of a grass-roots accommodation between Sunni and Shia factions.  Events on the ground in Iraq have overtaken the politics of Washington – and it seems that the Democrat’s are the last to acknowledge it. 
Why so?  Could it be because the base of the Democrat party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?  That is doesn’t fit with the narrative they’ve created that paints the US as the misguided aggressor? Or that their hate of George Bush is so great that they can’t put patriotism in the place of partisanship?  Though I can’t understand it, there is (and always has been) a sizable segment of our country who want to see America get its comeuppance -- for centuries of perceived imperialist oppression of those who (again) can’t fend for themselves.  It’s the macro view of the victimization mindset – seeking defeat of power, even when it hurts the nation as a whole. 
It’s a scary place to be when the prospective Commanders in Chief are so vested in minimizing the success of the very military that they are campaigning to lead.  They can couch their oxymoronic “opposition to the war but support for the troops” any way they wish, but it would be a tragedy to reward such pessimism with power in November.
It would take a willing suspension of disbelief not to think so.

The results from Michigan are in and I'm concerned. Actually, I'm downright worried. We know already, of course, that the Republican party has lost its way. Even in the aftermath of the devastating loss in the 2006 midterm elections, the party has failed to find a unifying purpose for itself -- a raison d'etre. It used to be that the party stood for certain principles -- limited government, lower taxes, individual liberty. Today, those concepts seem like a distant memory.

The loss of direction can be seen clearly in the election results we've seen so far. In the three major state primary/caucuses thus far we've had three different winners: Mike Huckabee in Iowa, John McCain in New Hampshire and now Mitt Romney in Michigan. These three winners represent three distinct constituencies in the disjointed Republican party of 2008: The "evangelicals", the "national security" conservatives and the "economic" conservatives, respectively. Each of these wings of the Republican party have something of a proprietary interest in their candidate. For the evangelical conservatives, Huckabee represents a candidate of profound convictions that reflect strict Christian values. Likewise for McCain and those concerned principally with the war on terrorism, or Romney for those who see the prospect of recession the most significant issue that we face. In this way the Republican party has become a triumvirate -- a coalition of interests that require multiple leaders to adequately represent.

This coalition might work well in a parliamentary system -- but it is poory suited to the presidential system that we have in the United States. The effect of a multi-constituency system as found in the Republican party today is a division that ensures that no faction reaches a critical mass. In other words, no one wins to unite the party.

That's what we're facing now and it is absolutely maddening to me. We're choosing principal over the pragmatism that is required to effectively win the election in November. The issues that mobilize Republicans -- abortion, terrorism, fiscal restraint -- are the very issues that now divide them. The risk is that they will conquer the party as well. I've heard many conservatives say that if McCain (or Giuliani, for that matter) is nominated they will stay home on election day to prove a point. That's a position that I just can't fathom. It may be that we will have to choose the lesser among evils, but a McCain or a Giuliani winning the presidency is a far better result than handing the prize to Clinton or Obama in November.

Here's the pragmatic reality that is needed now: Huckabee can't win the general election.  Neither can Romney. As true as they may be to certain values that many Republicans hold dear, they cannot appeal to the nation as a whole enough to defeat either Hillary or Obama. Only McCain can create the cross-over dynamic that can beat the Democrats.

So, as maddening as McCain may be to many conservatives, he's the date who will get them to the dance.

It's that simple.

What a difference a week makes. Barack Obama's meteoric rise in race for the Democratic nomination has been quite a spectacle -- almost as fascinating as watching the vaunted Clinton machine implode. This has been a momentum swing of amazing speed and depth; Obama will likely win New Hampshire today by double digits, and has all the momentum going into Michigan and South Carolina. Key will be his ability to turn Clinton's support among blacks to his side -- a trend that polls seem to show already happening. And, to top it off, Clinton is already having money troubles -- a problem sure to get worse as it become clearer that Obama now sure seems to be the candidate to beat. It's hard to ever count the Clinton's out, but you have to think that Obama now has a good shot at being the Democratic nominee.

Which should give Republicans pause. Obama is a more formidable candidate for the general election than Hillary Clinton, whose high negatives would surely have mobilized Republicans to get out the vote. Obama has none of Clinton's baggage and none of his polarizing personality. He's fresh, new and likable, and he's pushing an agenda of "change" without the partisan venom that has been so corrosive over the past several decades. It's appealing on its surface -- which is, unfortunately, about as deep as many people go when evaluating candidates.

Obama definitely has the potential of being a true crossover candidate -- getting support from both independents and Republicans, which will make him very formidable. I've heard a number of self-described "conservatives" saying openly that they'd rather support Obama than vote for a John McCain or a Rudy Giuliani. Some even liken him to a new Ronald Reagan.

This is shocking given Obama's record -- because while he may be both charismatic and a good communicator, he is far more liberal than Hillary Clinton. The left-leaning Americans for Democratic Action rates Obama's voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The American Conservative Union, the ADA's ideological opposite, rates Obama's voting record at a rock-bottom 8 percent. Both ratings leave little doubt that Obama's actual votes make him a traditional, liberal Democrat -- not a unifying moderate who can transcend bipartisan "politics as usual".

Telling also is that Obama's record raises another issue of concern – his tendency to duck tough issues. In the Illinois Legislature, Obama compiled a record of voting “present” on controversial and politically explosive bills. However politically convenient, this isn't leadership. Obama's three years in the U.S. Senate are similarly devoid of any leadership examples on legislation of consequence -- and for the past year he's been on the road campaigning for president. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that Obama has the toughness to lead when decisions are difficult. And which decisions aren't difficult when you are president of the United States?

So, what kind of president would Obama be? If his record is any indication, a very liberal one. And without the foreign policy bona fides that are sorely needed at this time, it is hard for me to fathom how any conservative could actually cross over to vote for him. I think Clinton posed the right question yesterday when speaking about Obama: Looks good, but "where's the beef"?