Investor's Business Daily is brave enough to go there -- calling Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act suspiciously similar to a government redistribution of US taxpayer wealth.  Well, technically they use the 's' word.  Socialism. That's a heavy charge, and it's one that needs to be backed up with specific examples.  This op-ed makes a convincing case that the Global Poverty Act could qualify as a socialist proposal.

While I know that one example of bad policy wouldn't brand someone like Barack with the socialist label, it's troubling that this Global Poverty Act would redistribute our wealth to those in other countries.  We wouldn't even benefit from all this increased spending, unless international good will can be bought with this high price.  That premise is highly questionable.  If the world's affection can be bought with enough foreign aid money, we should have the receipt for it already.

Here's how Investor's Business Daily first described this bill:

Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts, which is at least $30 billion over and above the exorbitant and wasted sums we already give away overseas.

The bipartisan bill would require the president "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

To say that the United States government has far exceeded its Consititutional mandate would be understating the case.  Charity shouldn't (and doesn't) begin and end with the federal government.  Americans are generous people.  Through non-profit charitable organizations and our own churches, we are reaching out to people here in this country and around the world, and it's having an impact.  This shouldn't be a role of the federal government.  That's the flaw in this legislation -- requiring United States taxpayers to subsidize some mandate thrown down by the U.N. and the international community.  The financial obligation of the federal government should be first and foremost to the citizens of the United States -- not to the world community or the U.N.

So how much would this boondoggle of a foreign kiss-up effort cost you and me?  Here's some numbers(with bold text added for emphasis).

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

If Barack Obama wants to religiously follow the U.N. Millenium Development Goals,  and could get something even half this bad passed through a Democratic Congress, it will destroy our economy.   If we are struggling with high energy costs and high gas prices now,  imagine how hard it will be to afford energy when we have to pay additional taxes to fill up our cars and heat our homes.  Forget for a second that something like this would allow the U.N. to control a part of US tax policy, which is completely unacceptable.  It is also politically tone-deaf in this country, when we want solutions that increase supply and reduce costs for energy.

All we hear these days from the Democrats is how much the average American is struggling and how bad the economy is.  But not to worry, fellow citizens.  They haven't forgotten about us.  Senator Obama has new spending programs to cover the needs of each and every American, all paid for by your friendly neighborhood federal government.   When will we learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially on the federal tab?  And now we will be required to help finance the U.N.'s new war on poverty?  Count me out.  If that makes me an ugly American, I am proud to be one.

If you want to read Barack's Berlin speech, go here.  No average citizen of the world gets to make that speech.  I can't call Chancellor Merkel and book time to speak to the people of Germany in a historic place.  So it's somewhat disingenuous of Obama to insist that he has this opportunity to speak in Berlin and that it has nothing to do with being a candidate for President. There are a few problems with what Obama had to say,  but the bigger problem I have is with his whole European tour.   The Obama campaign is taking a huge risk by keeping their candidate off of the domestic campaign trail to meet with all of these world leaders and to press the flesh with his European fans and his buddies in the media.  No doubt there is huge press that goes with a world tour, as well as much adulation from foreigners because they know he won't be a "cowboy" like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.  But is this the way to win an American election?

Greatness and legacy are not borrowed by copying phrases or words.  They are earned, and Barack has done nothing to claim the mantle of either Ronald Reagan or JFK.  That's why the comparison of Barack's speech to similar speeches made by these two men is inaccurate.  Both Reagan and JFK said stuff that was unpopular at the time, and didn't apologize for it.  When was the last time Barack said something unpopular that he hasn't apologized for?   He doesn't admit mistakes very often. (Does this sound like anyone the left has consistently hammered the past 7 years or so?)  Most importantly, both men had been elected by the people of the United States to speak on their behalf and to shape the foreign policy of this country.    Barack Obama has no such mandate from us.  He hasn't been elected yet, and he and his advisors would do well to remember this.

For the must-read of the weekend, check out Gerard Baker's absolute skewering and mockery of Barack Obama.  It's hilarious.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love Senator DeMint?

Senator Jim DeMint writes to Obama requesting hearings on Afghanistan(pdf here -- h/t Sister Toldjah):

Dear Senator Obama,

In the coming days, I understand you will travel to Afghanistan for the first time and visit with a few of our European partners.  Like my travels to these regions, I trust this trip will afford you a unique opportunity to see the facts on the ground firsthand and witness the work of our brave men and women who sacrifice so much to secure our freedom.

In February, I had the privilege of visiting and talking with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  These brave Americans serve their country with incredible passion, pride and courage.  As you know, NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) plays an integral part in the current operations and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

There are concerns about the imbalance between some European nations, their level of commitment to the fight in Afghanistan, and caveats these nations place on their forces in theater.  I trust you will become well acquainted with these issues.  The Bush Administration has worked hard to maintain and increase the level of forces our European allies have committed to the fight.

However, despite these successes, I am concerned our Subcommittee has not held any hearings on these issues over the last two years.  With oversight of NATO relations and its role in Afghanistan, I believe it is time for us to focus closely on these issues. As Ranking Member of your Subcommittee on European Affairs, I would welcome a chance to hold a hearing on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan upon your return.

The success of Afghanistan is critical to the future of NATO and vital to our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  As the situation in Afghanistan grows more tense, it is time for us to hold a hearing on the mission there. I look forward to working with you to schedule this hearing.

While it's nice to see that Senator Obama recognizes the importance of sending more troops in to stabilize Afghanistan, it's also fair to point out that he hasn't exactly made Afghanistan a top priority until now. Senator DeMint draws attention to this without being nasty about it, and the indirect reply to DeMint's letter is that his letter was "politically motivated".   If DeMint is on McCain's VP shortlist, that's news to all of us.  (I wish that this was true, but it's probably not.)  He raises a legitimate question and Obama should give a straight answer to it.  I can buy the argument that Obama's subcommittee might not be the most appropriate venue for Afghanistan hearings, but why not just say that, instead of taking a shot at DeMint?

Senator Joe Biden attempts to rescue Obama by pointing that out, and he is unsuccessful. As Sister Toldjah points out in her post,  Senator Biden's defense of Obama falls flat because Biden himself had previously criticized Obama for not holding hearings on Afghanistan. Oops.

Biden does deserve some credit here -- he has been consistent in requesting a "surge" of troops for Afghanistan.  That's one thing that the press release quoted by Politico brings into sharp focus.  I'm surprised that Joe Biden hasn't brought this up very often.  Why are Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats so convinced that adding additional military personnel in Afghanistan would achieve the desired objective?  After all, they aren't even sure that that the Bush-Petraeus-McCain strategy of sending additional troops worked in Iraq.  Afghanistan is far less stable than Iraq.  Might they want to focus more on the all-important political objectives before sending in the brute force?  It's a puzzler.

Fear not, liberals progressives.  Barack hasn't abandoned you.  He still believes in all those progressive ideas he started out believing at the beginning of his primary campaign.  Pay no attention to the appearance of centrism you may think that you see.  The progressive Barack is the real Barack...and you can trust him on that.  For the record, I believe him. I think that all these attempts to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on Iraq are misguided, because his position has always been somewhat nuanced...except for the times he implied that he supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  This was the position progressives liked very much and many of them supported him over Hillary because they thought he was for immediate withdrawal.  Joke's on them I guess.  It's an unusual talent some of these Democrat politicians have -- to convince each person that the politician actually shares their values.  Barack is especially good at doing this, and it shouldn't come as a shock that he hasn't been exactly what progressives expected him to be.

Those who bought into Barack's promise of a new kind of politics must not have been around the game long enough to be cynical about promises like that.  It's still hard to condemn the idealism that all these young voters have brought to the process.  We would all like to believe a candidate that we work for has the ability to be transformative and bring needed change to the Washington establishment.  When we find out that the guy or gal we campaign for isn't everything we expected, it does cause some to be disallusioned with the process. But in this case, did these progressives believe that Barack was going to continue to speak their language going into the general election against John McCain?  Surely they know deep down Barack is still one of them, no matter what he's saying right now. If not, they should believe it.  It's far more likely that Barack will stay left once elected than it is that he will embrace some kind of new centrism that is closer to George W. Bush than it is to Bill Clinton.

In case we have forgotten about the severe left-ward bent of the New York Times, a new editorial puts in all back into focus.  In "A Supreme Court on the Brink" they worry about the future direction of the Supreme Court, specifically that a McCain administration could undo all the liberal decisions the Supremes have made over the years, including Roe V. Wade.  This is a needless fear.   Not even Reagan managed to accomplish that goal, and McCain can hardly be accused of such extreme conservatism.  McCain will keep his word on this, if not on anything else, but conservatives shouldn't get their hopes up that McCain could get a Samuel Alito or John Roberts through the expected Democratic majority in Congress.  Unless the Democrats inexplicably cave in, there's no way this will happen.  A more plausible scenario is that McCain attempts to put through judges the base approves of, and he is brutally rebuffed by the Democrats.  Then he gives in and nominates someone like Harriet Miers.  Yikes.  Of course this all assumes McCain beats Barack Obama.  Is the New York Times worried about their golden boy's chances in November?  Say it ain't so guys.

Some of the Court's rulings were questionable, and the assessment of their overall record this year as "muddled" is a fair way of describing it.  Even so, I shouldn't be surprised that the New York Times wants to be on the record supporting the Court's decision denying the death penalty to the child rapist.  The ruling was misguided to say the least.  If we are going to have the death penalty as a punishment for crime, not too many crimes are worse than child rape.  The child will be scarred for life.  I'm not sure that life in prison is a sufficient punishment for what the child went through at the hands of this monster. Then there's the more well-known decision to give habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees who -- may I remind everyone -- are not American citizens.  It's a bad idea to give foreigners access to American courts, and I still haven't heard a great explanation of why Constitutional rights and protections can be given to non-citizens.  At least the New York Times is consistent in their worldview and we know what to expect from the majority of their columnists and their op-eds.

Those of us on the right always point to stuff like this as a example of how out of touch the mainstream media is (and the New York Times usually provides most of the ammunition for these critiques).  If we spent half as much time focusing on what we can do to fix what the Republican politicians have broken, we might have more of a reason for confidence going into November.  As it stands now, we have an uphill climb ahead of us.

Believe it or not, there is a Republican left with some credibility on fighting wasteful spending by our Congress -- Senator Tom Coburn. Senator Coburn has been consistent in this area, but unfortunately many of his colleagues have refused to follow his lead, and that of other senators like SC's Jim DeMint. There aren't enough fiscal conservatives in Congress, and we have seen the negative results when Democrats and Republicans agree to waste our money. Now there are many so-called wise men, telling the Republicans that we are losing because we aren't compassionate enough, or that we need to abandon the ideal of limited government completely to gain the favor of those independents and moderates. Even people who started out believing that government is the problem have changed their minds to be more tolerant of activist government -- including Newt Gingrich. It is an almost irresistible proposal -- that there can be a way to merge the activist government policies of the left with the free-market impulses of the right. I'm not convinced that this is the case, or if it is possible, that Newt has come up with the right balance.

Here's a sample of what Senator Coburn had to say:

As congressional Republicans contemplate the prospect of an electoral disaster this November, much is being written about the supposed soul-searching in the Republican Party. A more accurate description of our state is paralysis and denial.

Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.

Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn't good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.

Truth in advertising. That "compassionate conservatism" is a euphemism for wasting our money on more worthy causes than the stuff the Democrats want to waste our money on. That we need to get back to what Republicans said we believed about reducing earmarks and government bloat. That we should be principled enough to hold our fellow Republicans accountable when they forget what kind of message got them where they are today. Like Senator Coburn said, "spending other people's money isn't compassionate". There's nothing wrong with heartless conservatism when it eliminates excuses for out of control spending and massive pork projects.

This is where Republicans have gone wrong. The voters didn't reject conservatism, they rejected dishonesty. Republicans promoted one agenda and delivered something different. The scandals sure didn't help us, but at the end of the day those who stayed home in 2006 and those who voted for Democrats sent the same message. Republicans didn't deliver what they promised, and they deserved to lose. Congressional Republicans still haven't gotten the message. They are blaming their losses on the stubborn conservatives who refuse to abandon principle to win elections. Some of our "leaders" have suggested that we need to expand our coalition to include independents and moderates, and that we should do this by watering down our governing philosophy so that those people agree with us. As long they keep following that dimwitted advice, Republicans will keep losing elections.

Crossposted at Organized Chaos.

Crossposted to Organized Chaos

People of faith, and Christians in particular, need to get out of the political king-making business. We have more important things we need to be worrying about than who wins elections. We condemn elitists. We say that politicians are out of touch with our values. And you know what? We are absolutely right to be doing that. But we cannot, and we should not, be telling people to vote for or against a candidate because of the level of their belief or non-belief in God. With all the flaws in the Democratic strategy over the years, I don't recall them ever fighting about which candidate is more religious, and basing their support on who appears to love God the most. It's a stupid argument that we are having here, and we need to recognize that the more important characteristic than a person's religion is how competently that person can run the US government and how aggressive she/he is in protecting this country from foreign enemies, both terrorists and rogue regimes seeking nukes. If we can find someone as a Republican nominee who will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court in addition to that, that would be a bonus.

We have to ask ourselves how aggressive we want the federal government to be as advocates for a social conservative agenda. Do we really want government programs to push an agenda that would be better carried out in the private sector with non-profits and charities rather than adding another appendage to the government monolith? I would like a candidate who is a social conservative and who shares my values, but I would have to think about whether I want the government to be funding religious activity. The reason for that is that what government funds, it will eventually control. I don't want the government to have any control over religious organizations at all. So keep funding of faith-based organizations in the private sector where it belongs.

 Many of the social conservatives running for president seem to want to have an activist government on social policy. Is that really what we want? Here's something else to consider. Is it the government's job to provide free health care to all Americans? Is it the government's job to ensure that people can afford a house? Is it the government's job to make sure that you have a job?

No. It is not.

 If we say that we are for limited government, and we actually mean it, then this should mean that the candidate we nominate should be more interested in protecting our country than protecting our faith. That's what churches are for. That's what our pastors are for. That's the role of our families. That's not the role of our government.

Tags: '08 election, Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, Republicans

Let me preface this by saying that there are many areas where conservatives believe that President Bush has disappointed them. The debate over McCain-Kennedy comprehensive "immigration reform" is the most recent example of this perceived apostasy, and it's a great example of how tone-deaf the administration has become lately. We are also annoyed with the massive increases in federal spending that the President allowed to pass his desk. To some conservatives, there is a long list of Dubya's sins, real and imagined, and they are ready to move on from this President. Our reasons are different than those of the Democrats. While acknowledging that he should be given all of the credit for his SCOTUS picks and some of the credit for our strong economy, we still find him lacking in other areas. Some of the criticism is unfair in this way: He never ran as a fiscal conservative. He was always supportive of making it easier for illegal immigrants to come here. We voted for the President, not because of these things, but because of Iraq and because we wanted conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

Bill Kristol believes that President Bush will be judged as a successful president. His argument almost convinces me, but even though I know that there have been some successes with the surge strategy, I'm just not buying his optimism on Iraq. He says that in order for a war president to be judged a success, the war has to be won. Many of us are discouraged with Iraq. Maybe we are buying in too deeply to what the MSM is selling. Maybe we are just being realistic about the obstacles the administration is facing in continuing the surge and trying to improve the conditions on the ground in Iraq. In either case, it's an uphill battle to keep the Republicans from defecting to the Democratic side on the war, and it's a continuing struggle to keep the impatience of the American people with the progress of this war from forcing those defections from those standing for re-election next time. I'm not rooting against the President. I want him to succeed, not because it validates me, or neocons, or because he would have a better legacy. I want Iraq to succeed because that would mean the terrorists and insurgents have failed there.

Maybe we are asking for too much in our presidents and in our presidential candidates. After all, none of the Republican presidential candidates currently in the field are as committed to reducing the size of the federal government as the average conservative is. They don't have any new ideas on Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, and they would not implement anything different from what Bush has done so far. On the other hand, Romney, Giuliani, and Fred are all better communicators than President Bush. Romney is probably the weakest of the three because of his tendency to sound wonkish when discussing anything. All I'm saying is that if conservatives intend to vote for a Republican for President in '08 (rather than sitting the election out and giving the election to Hillary by default), that means that we will have to settle for someone who doesn't fit everything we want. And that includes FRED.

If we really want to see the Republican party become more responsive to conservatives, we can't jump ship. We have to stay in the party and work to keep them accountable for their actions. Conservatives haven't won a lot of victories from the fighting we've been doing with Republicans in Congress and with the Bush administration. But we won't get any more victories, even of the minor variety, if we give up and stop fighting for what we believe is the best direction for our country. Even the smallest spark can start a fire. We got the immovable to move when we stopped the nomination of Harriet Miers. Another "success" of the conservatives could be the furious debate we had about the Dubai ports deal. If we get enough people to care enough about the direction of this country and the direction of our party and to speak up about it, eventually Washington politicians will pay attention.

The leadership of the Republican party knows that there is no place for social conservatives in the Democratic party. They are confident that small-government types won't find much to like about the Democrats' approach to social programs and spending. They also know that what conservatives find lacking in the Republican party can't be found in the Democratic party right now. They take us for granted, because they can. If our senators do not understand that a majority of Americans want a commitment to border-enforcement first before any concessions to illegal aliens are made, then they need to start paying more attention to what their constituents have been telling them. Maybe this immigration debate will cause more people to start paying attention to what Congress is trying to do, and at least some good will come out of this flawed legislation. Speak up. Speak louder. We have the attention of Congress at this moment. Let's see what we can do with it.

Tags: illegal immigration, Republicans, conservatives

Getting involved on the grassroots level of politics usually means that, during that process, you end up meeting people who are very passionate about the candidates they are supporting and the party they belong to. It's necessary that there is diversity of opinion in a political party, and there is no possible way that everyone will always be on the same page. What worries me going into '08 is that this passion will cause divisions between members of the same party who, after our candidate is selected in the primary process, could refuse to support that candidate because he might not pass all the ideological roadblocks that have been placed in his path.

There are folks that I respect very much who have decided to support several of the second and third tier candidates in the Republican field. I also know several people supporting Romney and McCain whose opinions I value a great deal. In the absence of a viable “true conservative” who is 100% in the Reagan mold, we have the current front-runners, who all have some problems with the conservative base. During the primary process, it is absolutely fair to try to convince supporters of another candidate, like Romney, for example, to back a more conservative, but less viable candidate like Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, or Sam Brownback. I don't think the conservative cred of any of those gentlemen is in question. I will concede that to their supporters. But there are other considerations for the Republican nominee for President than just being conservative enough for the base.

There is a fight going on for the soul of the Republican party. Every group wants a piece. The SoCons (or the religious right), the fiscal conservatives, those who are more liberal on social issues, and the “compassionate conservatives” who support excessive spending on programs that do not work and see no problem with allowing illegal immigrants who have broken the law to continue to do so...these are just a few of the constituency groups we have to deal with. This is a healthy debate to have within the party, and one could make a strong case that the Republican party has strayed from its roots. I don't think you would get much argument from conservatives on that, especially social conservatives.

But I'm not ready to exclude candidates who have a good chance of winning the nomination / Presidency simply because they can't check off on a checklist all the conservative hot button issues. There are others who feel the same way that I do about this, and none of us should feel that we are less of a conservative just because we may not be supporting the most conservative candidate in the field. This is the message we are getting, whether intentional or not, from supporters of Huckabee, Hunter, and Brownback, and I just don't think that this is the best argument to make to fellow conservatives.

There seems to be this fear that the Republican party will lurch inexorably left should Giuliani or Romney get the nomination. I don't see this happening. Conservatives will always be part of the Republican party, just like liberals will always be part of the Democratic party. This won't change. The Republican party has had capable and worthy nominees for President not named Ronald Reagan in the past and the same will be true in '08, whether the candidate is conservative or not.

Tags: Republicans, conservatives, '08 election

as if we needed any more proof that the '08 presidential campaign season is too long, we now have even more people considering jumping into the race. i'm not sure if this says more about the quality of the current candidates or about the monstrous egos of the other possible candidates. either way, it's an amusing little circus and it gives bloggers more interesting storylines than we would have otherwise. to that end, i applaud the dark horses, vampires and other assorted persons who could shake things up while the republicans are deciding whether rudy is really their guy or not.

apparently senator chuck hagel believes that there could be a hole for him for him to fill in the republican field, but he's not ready to save us from all these pro-war candidates just yet. he says that he has more important work to do in the senate before he could even consider doing us the favor of running for president. how considerate of him. how selfless of him to put the needs of his constituents first. if only all politicians were like chuck hagel! so he calls a press conference, and the media are all a-twitter...what will he say? will he run for president? not quite. he simply announced that he might have something to announce in the future.

what a disappointment for the media that was. this is a bad tradition mccain started, and it needs to stop. having press conferences or going on letterman to announce that you might have a big announcement later on is just obnoxious. if you want to have separate pressers announcing the exploratory committee and the official "i'm in" statement, that's fine, but press conferences announcing nothing in particular are just silly.

if you are still unconvinced about the field of democrats and republicans who want to be your next president, you are in luck. there are other options. our favorite vampire jonathan sharkey, in addition to running for governor of minnesota, is also running for president as a member of the vampires, witches and pagans party. as dave barry would say, i'm not making this up. i have no doubt that he would be tough on crime, but i'm not sure the country is ready to be represented by a vampire. mormons? sure. women? no doubt. african-americans? why not? i think, however, that we must draw the line somewhere.

welcome to the circus, ladies and gentlemen. grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

tags: '08 election, jonathan sharkey, chuck hagel

poor john edwards. everybody is picking on the aggressively photogenic presidential candidate. first ann coulter. now roger ailes. his strategy is rather curious, considering that his base would applaud any condemnation from two of the left's main enemies. doesn't he understand that whining isn't a very attractive quality in a potential nominee? i can understand why he might want to take a swing at ann coulter. many on the right sometimes feel the same way about her. on the other hand, he's allowing fundraising letters to be sent out that accuse the right of having this orchestrated plan to destroy him. that's a crazy charge, and that kind of accusation didn't work for hillary either. (remember the "vast right wing conspiracy" line?) ann coulter doesn't speak for the bush administration or for vice president cheney. there's no conspiracy here. why would the right need to destroy john edwards? he can self-destruct without our help.

i don't understand why john edwards still thinks he needs to win the lefties over. he's got them already. he gave them what they wanted when he decided not to fire his controversial bloggers. he admitted that he made a mistake on the war. he is even calling for cutting off the funding for the war. (that's easy for him to propose...he doesn't have to vote on it.) he said no to the proposed nevada presidential debate because fox news was airing it. is it possible that there's not much else he can do to keep the lefties happy?

maybe this is all part of the grand plan. i don't see it working. if he considers these personal attacks to be extremely rough treatment, he doesn't want to know what will happen after hillary gets done with him. if i'm a average democrat who is seriously looking at edwards as a potential nominee, i would want him to take the high ground more often and stop whining about every single criticism he receives. what i have seen so far from edwards doesn't show me that he's a leader. it shows me that he's a follower, and that he might just follow the netroots right over the cliff.

tags: john edwards

newt gingrich cannot win the republican nomination for president. even though his supporters might wish that it were possible, it's not. my concerns about newt are not related to his personal life. they are based on what i have seen while he was in congress –his leadership style and his inability to complete the reform job he started in 1994. i just don’t see him as a guy who would be able to run this country. no matter what newt gingrich says now about bipartisanship and working together to solve the nation's problems, there are more than a few skeptics who question his new-found commitment to that ideal. that skepticism is well deserved. we didn't see that very often in the gingrich congress, which always seemed to be at odds with the clinton administration and congressional democrats.

the main problem for newt is that most of the country is already biased against him. i don’t usually put much stock in polls, but if you look at his favorable / unfavorable ratings, the deficit there is around 20 points. whether that rating is fair or unfair, it is undeniably true that he has very high negatives with the average american. not many people can claim that they are unfamiliar with the virtues and the flaws of the former leader of the republican revolution. we know him well, although that knowledge is based on what he did in congress and not so much on his personal life. those who pay attention to politics on a regular basis know enough about newt gingrich to make the judgment on whether he has the ability to be president, and even though we like newt, we should realize that he lacks that ability.

anyone can be re-invented, except newt gingrich. we know what he is, and what he was. if adultery was a disqualifier for the presidency, then our candidate pool would be much smaller in each election year. this isn't what makes newt gingrich the wrong man for the presidency. gingrich made his mea culpas to dobson and falwell, and whether he was sincere enough to change this pattern of behavior, that's not for me to decide. you can argue that the details of newt's past affairs are troubling, and that he has made some glaring mistakes in his personal life. those past mistakes were also well known to the press corps at the time of the lewinsky affair. because of this, gingrich was initially cautious about moving forward with impeachment based solely on clinton's monica indiscretion. if you still want to accuse newt of hypocrisy because clinton ended up being impeached anyway, i guess you could.

in spite of all newt's flaws, conservatives still like what he brings to the table as a potential presidential candidate. he’s got a stronger claim to conservatism than any other front-runner except for mccain. we also like big ideas and big-picture thinking. that’s another one of the strengths he has. he also has the appeal of not being giuliani, romney, or mccain… and don’t underrate that quality. even though he hasn't “officially” entered the presidential race, he still could raise the money necessary in time to get himself into the top three and become a serious contender. i just don’t see it happening.

that said, newt is kidding himself if he thinks that he can blunt the criticism or short-circuit the full examination of past sins by entering the race late in the game. as dean barnett points out, thanks to the speed of information these days, it won't take long for his entire record to be bludgeoned to death. in fact, it's already happening at altercation, where a very thorough discussion of all those affairs in newt's past is taking place right now. his record is not going to hold up under the media scrutiny. he's a rock star now, but all that changes once he officially announces his candidacy.

tags: newt gingrich, '08 election

as if there weren't enough people foolishly filling out NCAA basketball tournament brackets, talking about "cinderellas" and "glass slippers" and such, now we must add john mccain to that list. the arizona senator and letterman fan has filled out his bracket, and let's just say he didn't put much thought into it. somebody should have advised mccain that not every #1 seed in a region makes it to the final four. he doesn't have a prayer of winning his own contest, but if you want to try to win some kewl mccain swag, feel free to take his bracket challenge.

it's an interesting compulsion politicians seem to have to pander to sports fans. for example, john f. kerry: he LOVES the red sox, but someone had to inform him who the manager was and who some of the players were. hillary clinton: she used to be a cubs fan, but she had a miraculous conversion to becoming a yankee fan while running for senator of new york. amazing how that happens. my money says she never really watched either team, deciding instead to pursue an interest in a different kind of sport.

seriously, people...why does everyone feel compelled to fill out a NCAA bracket at March Madness time? you know your picks will be done after the first 10 games. you are not going to win big money. give up. i can understand the addiction with the game though. however, if you find yourself filling out NIT and NCAA women's basketball brackets...GET.HELP.FAST.

tags: john mccain, march madness