McCain's Brilliant Choice

See, I told you that John McCain could be trusted to make good decisions for the country (See The Case for McCain on my Web site.). If Sarah Palin is any kind of indication as to the kind of people with whom he would surround himself as President of the United States, I can’t wait to see his first Supreme Court nominee.

The choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate was a brilliant decision by John McCain in numerous ways. First, and probably most importantly, she energized the base of the Republican Party and galvanized them behind McCain. Palin is a true-blue (or rather red) conservative. She is a Christian, is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, while also being fiscally conservative, and anti-establishment.

Palin is someone that every facet of the conservative base can get behind. Evidence of this was the money that came pouring into the campaign the weekend that she was chosen and continued to roll in the week of the Republican convention. McCain’s campaign raked in $7 million the day Palin was announced. They reported bringing in $10 million on the day of Palin’s convention speech, which was the most they ever raised in one day. Republicans now say that there will be no money advantage for Obama the rest of the campaign.

The choice of Palin demonstrates, again, the “maverick” image of McCain. This will continue his appeal to independents. Also, there is the obvious appeal to women, especially those who may have become disenfranchised with the Obama campaign not choosing Hillary. If nothing else, it keeps Obama playing defense as to why he passed over Senator Clinton for his V.P.

Also, Palin’s strengths match Obama’s strengths. He’s fresh and new, so is she. He’s articulate and well spoken, so is she. He’s handsome; she’s beauty-queen beautiful. He’s an African-American, she’s a woman.

In addition, her weaknesses, whether perceived or real, that liberals may point out, highlight even greater weaknesses in Obama. This gives the Republicans a retort for most every criticism that could be leveled at Palin. Liberals have said she doesn’t have enough experience. Conservatives responded that she has more than Obama.

Liberals will say she’s a small-town hick. Conservatives will respond that Obama is a big-city elitist. Liberals will say she comes from a radical church. Conservatives will quote Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright. Liberals will say she’s too conservative. Conservatives will point to Obama as the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Congress. Along with all of this, conservatives will note that Palin is on the under card for their party, while Obama has top billing with the Democrats.

What’s more, Palin has a life and a history to which most all Americans can relate. This cannot be said of any of the other candidates. McCain’s biography is so unique and amazing that no one can imagine himself as him. Obama is the graduate of two Ivy League schools (Columbia and Harvard) and has been involved in law or politics his whole adult life. Joe Biden has been in law and politics all of his adult life as well. In fact, he became a U.S. Senator at the Constitutionally minimum age of 30.

Palin is a graduate of the University of Idaho with a degree in communications-journalism. She worked in journalism and served on the PTA. She’s helped her husband run his family’s commercial fishing business. She served two terms on the city council in Wasilla, Alaska and later became mayor of Wasilla. In 2002 she ran for lieutenant governor of Alaska and lost in a close race. She was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and chaired that Commission from 2003 to 2004.

In 2006 Palin became the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest at age 42. In addition to all of this, she is a wife of 20 years and a mother of 5, including a son who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month. She hunts, fishes, and is a lifetime member of the NRA.

All of this gives Palin strong connections to the majority of Americans. Her life story is one that resonates across the heartland. It’s one that many young Americans, especially young women, can look at and say, “Yeah, I could do that.”

Many liberals know this, and this is why they have come after her. The attacks have been vicious. It was discovered through wild efforts to prove that Governor Palin’s last child was actually her grandchild, that her unwed 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant. Having their crazy theory quashed, liberals went after Bristol. (These liberals never seem to let the facts get in their way; i.e. Joan King’s August 26 article, which contained multiple false accusations about me. See my Web site for my response.)

It seems that many liberals imagined that since Palin’s daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, evangelical support might waver. This proved to be way off, and her attackers should have known better (though most liberals often get evangelicals wrong). Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported Bush-Cheney in two elections even though Cheney has a lesbian daughter.

This election should ultimately come down to the contrasts between McCain and Obama. However, Palin has shaken up the election like no one else could have. I think John McCain could have won without her, but I also believe that with Palin on the ticket, he improved greatly his chances of victory.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Three Reasons to Vote for John McCain

In the light of two recent Supreme Court rulings, one in California and one at the U.S. Supreme Court, there should be little doubt as to the stakes of the elections this November. Back in February I suggested the fact that the duty of the President of the United States to fill vacancies in the federal judiciary was enough reason for any doubting but reasonable conservative to strongly consider voting for John McCain (see, “The Case for McCain” ). I believe that there are three significant reasons coming into clear light for voters to prefer John McCain over Barack Obama.

First, with the California Supreme Court disgracefully circumventing the will of California voters and by judicial fiat changing the legal definition of marriage; and with the U.S. Supreme Court conveying our constitutional rights upon non-U.S. citizens at Guantanamo Bay who wish to destroy us, it is becoming ever transparent as to the significant role that the judiciary plays in our republic. Outside of Commander-in-Chief, I don’t believe that there is a more significant role for the President of the United States than appointer of federal judges. As I implied several weeks ago, John McCain and BarackObama have drastically different takes on the judiciary.

Obama has said that he sees the U.S. Constitution as, “not a static but rather a living document.” However, as Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “the Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document…(it) is an enduring document but not a ‘living’ one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.” Speaking to Planned Parenthood, and refering to judges, Obamasaid, “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”

Since “heart” and “empathy” are so important to Senator Obama, I wonder if he would nominate Oprah to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. (Also, I find it unfortunately ironic that Senator Obama doesn’t include the most defenseless of all, the unborn, in his reckoning of those who deserve our empathy.) Senator Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. John McCain voted for them and has pledged to nominate justices in the same vein as Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.

Obama indicated support for the California Supreme court ruling, while John McCain came out against it. McCain called the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo detainees, “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,” while Obama called the decision, “an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law.” On judicial nominees the choice for conservatives in November is clear.

Second, concerning the role of Commander-in-Chief, many times during the primary season Americans were asked who they saw as most prepared to take on this role on day one of their presidency. Over-and-over again John McCain was the overwhelming choice. As I pointed out above, I believe this is the most important role for a U.S. President. Most voters are familiar with McCain’s military experience and his 26 years as a U.S. Representative and Senator. These will certainly aid him if he becomes commander of all U.S. forces.

Contrast this with Obama who has no military service, no executive experience, has served only a fraction of one term in the U.S. Senate, and spent most of this time running for president. If he becomes president, he would have, by far, the weakest résumé of any U.S. Commander-in-Chief in history. (For brief resumes of all U.S. Presidents go here.)

Last, when it comes to government spending, Senator McCain is viewed as a champion for the taxpayer and against government “pork.” He has a lifetime rating of 88% with Citizens Against Government Waste, which rates him a “taxpayer hero.” His latest rating with National Taxpayers Union is 88% (an “A”), while Obama’s latest rating was 5% (an “F”). Also, McCain has a lifetime rating of 82.7 (out of 100) with Americans for Tax Reform, while Obama’s brief career has netted him a 7.5% rating.

I don’t agree with Senator McCain when it comes to his current positions on man-made global warming, drilling in ANWR, and so on. However, Obama’s positions on those matters would be even more extreme. For far too many people Barack Obama’s most redeeming quality for president is his race. For example, Bill Clinton recently said, “I’ve been waiting all my life to vote for an African American president,” then added, “I’ve been waiting all my life to vote for a woman for president.” What a foolish thing for a supposedly highly intelligent man to say.

In these perilous times America cannot afford to select its president based only on race or gender. When it comes to my vote for President in November, John McCain is the clear and easy option.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The New York Times' effect on McCain

“We can try to understand the New York Times’ effect on man,” the Bee Gees sang around three decades ago in their smash hit Stayin’ Alive. Since the New York Times’ latest tabloid journalistic, thinly-sourced, slime job/hit piece, “Stayin’ Alive,” politically speaking, is what John McCain is trying to do. Although, since the story broke, the “effect” for McCain has not be so bad after all, and could even turn out to be quite a blessing-in-disguise for him.

In fact, since the story was published, the NY Times has come under more scrutiny than McCain has. How ironic, but not surprising, is the fact that the article appeared at all in the NY Times is more of a story than the story itself. It is not surprising because the story is full of innuendo and circumstantial evidence. It practically begs readers to draw their own negative conclusions regarding the almost certain Republican presidential nominee, John McCain. This after the NY Times endorsed McCain in late January.

The story implies an affair, around a decade ago, with a female lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. I use “implies” rather loosely, because there are no named, on-the-record sources and all that the unnamed sources reveal is that certain people around McCain, suspecting something romantic was going on, tried to limit Iseman’s access to the Senator.

All of this is, “according to two former McCain associates,” whom the article later admits, “had become disillusioned with the senator.” Were they disillusioned to the point that they perhaps wanted to hurt the Senator politically? Did their disillusionment come about as a result of being “former” associates (Were they fired?)?

Both Iseman and McCain have directly denied any affair.

The story first surfaced around two months ago, on December 20 in The Drudge Report under the headline: MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY. Drudge reported that, “Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES…and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!”

Drudge continued with, “The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication. The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.” There was no mention of an affair in this report.

Drudge also reported that, “McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report.” Keller, on the Times website, the Friday after the story ran, said, “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish] with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.”

Regarding it as more than a “cheap shot,” The Weekly Standard reported that, “The editors of U.S. News & World Report and Time magazine both said publicly that they would not have published the article. It was not, to borrow a phrase, fit to print. The piece was so underwhelming that many believe the paper must have more evidence that, for whatever reason, it decided not to publish.”

However, just as one person’s manure is another person’s fertilizer, McCain is looking to cash in on the Times ineptitude. A campaign aide stated two days after the story ran, that a campaign fund-raising letter ripping the story and pleading with contributors to fight back “was the most successful to date.”

With this latest sorry effort, all the Times has done, besides galvanize conservatives against them, is reinforce the belief of many that The Gray Lady is going a bit senile.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Case for John McCain

Just how conservative is John McCain? It has been particularly interesting to watch, listen, and read about this issue. With the withdrawal of Mitt Romney, it also will be interesting to watch as McCain tries to sell himself to those skeptical of his conservatism. Many conservatives have contended that he is a liberal masquerading as one of their own. Some conservatives have gone so far as to say that there is little difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, and the country would be served equally well with either one occupying the White House. This all makes for high drama, and high ratings, but I don’t buy it. I do not see McCain as a liberal, and I don’t think it was reasonable to conclude that he was more liberal (in general) than his chief rival, Mitt Romney.

I’m not alone in this assessment either. National Review, a leading conservative journal (and an endorser of Romney), recently noted that, “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney…This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.” Bill Bennett, in a recent article concluded that, “There is a great deal of difference between Senators McCain and Clinton (and Obama).”

The McCain haters, at least those with an audience, pinned their hopes on Romney. It is beyond me how a governor from “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts” became the darling of many diehard conservatives. His record as Governor is as liberal as one would imagine.

For example, in 2002 Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s candidate survey with, “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs…” Interestingly, he refused to respond to the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. His platform during the 2002 governor’s race said that he “would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts.”

Twice Romney sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republican Club. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, his organization distributed bright pink flyers during Boston’s annual Gay Pride events, which said, “Mitt and Kerry [his running mate] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights regardless of their sexual preference.”

Now Romney ran for President as a pro-life, pro family conservative. I’m not saying he wasn’t sincere in his policy reversals, but his conversion at least appeared politically convenient. However, I would have enthusiastically supported him over Clinton or Obama.

Some claim that if McCain gets elected, he will make a political “left turn.” Why were those supporting Romney so sure that he wouldn't pull the same thing? As has been widely reported, McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 83. This puts him right behind Fred Thompson’s 86, who was the favorite of most conservatives early on. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 79% rating from National Right to Life and during that same period he averaged a 0% rating from the pro abortion groups Planned Parenthood and NARAL. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 6.5 % from the liberal National Organization for Women, and a 100% from the conservative Concerned Women for America. (Interest group ratings for many politicians can be found at www.vote-smart.org)

The Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson (who refuses to personally support McCain’s candidacy), as recently as 2003 rated McCain 100%. Interestingly the founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, found it acceptable last November to endorse the thrice married, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani (who also was once a darling of other very vocal “conservatives”).

President Bush is no perfect conservative either (whatever that is). However, he has been steadfast as Commander In Chief, has given the country tax cuts, has overseen significant economic growth, and perhaps most importantly, appointed the strict constructionists Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.

Whatever a conservative’s concerns with John McCain, and there are legitimate ones, the dual roles of Commander In Chief, and appointer of Federal Judges, should be enough to cause any reasonable conservative to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Concerning McCain as Commander In Chief, even some of his most outspoken critics such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, admit that, “The world’s bad guys would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the U.S. through terror.” Contrast that with Barak Obama, who has about the same foreign policy experience as I do, or with Hillary Clinton who said recently that her first act as President would be to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days.

On the Federal Judiciary, the Wall Street Journal recently said, “there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006.”

Given all of this, I will eagerly vote for John McCain in November over the likes of Clinton or Obama. If you call yourself a conservative, I hope you will do the same.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com