The Pendragon's Hall

The pictures all over the news today were certainly instructive although the media, as usual, misinterpreted it. It showed John McCain flanked by two supporters: Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The media (including McCain-worshipping Fox) described how it shows the mounting support for McCain's candidacy. The Pendragon respectfully disagrees. What it shows is that McCain is...a liberal. Giuliani is more liberal than most Democrats and he supports McCain. Schwarzenegger is a Nixon Republican, not a Reagan Republican (all his personal likability notwithstanding). The liberal wing of the Republican Party is what is supporting this "McCain surge." But it can be a two-bladed sword. Reagan and Bush brilliantly united the wings, but relying on liberals is tricky business. It was conservatives who always made the difference for Republicans. George Bush I tried to placate liberals enraged that he wanted to remove an evil despot by hiking taxes. He won the approval of the New York Times. Enter Bill Clinton, a real tax hiker. The liberals ditched Bush like he had the plague and conservatives were disenchanted. Remember 1992? Or how about in 1996 when Bob Dole ran for the Republican nomination portraying himself as a moderate response to Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes--a war veteran who couldn't possibly lose to the controversial Clinton. When it came time to reinvent himself as a true conservative Republican, we were all suspicious of him. Anybody remember a President Dole in recent history? And looky here, we have a candidate named John McCain who supported raising taxes, has won the approval of the New York Times, trots out his veteran credentials at every turn and is being hailed by every liberal in the country, even aptly-named Dick Morris, as the sure-fire candidate to beat another Clinton. ::Sigh:: Oh well. Perhaps Romney can run again in 2012 when it comes time to unseat President Hillary.

It's always interesting to note what presidential candidates are reading in their spare time. It gives you a bit of an idea what to expect. When asked recently what book (besides the Bible, assuming any of them were reading that) they thought was most important, Giuliani said he liked "Profiles in Courage" by JFK; Hillary said she would read the Constitution (whether the paper version or the "living" version was not clear); Romney recommended "John Adams" by David McCullough; Barack Obama said "Team of Rivals" had inspired him. John McCain said, "What's a book?" I'm paraphrasing. I like what Ann Coulter said in her article this week: "The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility." Bingo! With the Pendragon longingly eyeing Barack Obama, at least I know that when, not if, the Democrats win back the presidency this November, I'll be able to oppose all the policies coming out of Washington. If on the off-chance of a freeze-over in hell, the old coot is able to slip through the cracks into the Oval Office, any criticism I make will be deflected with, "Show some loyalty to your own party." If only someone had said that to McCain back in the day.

Why does no one ask a simple question: Why is MSNBC, the lynchpin of the liberal media, celebrating McCain's win in Florida tonight? Because they know he'll be the easiest Republican for their darling Democrat to beat come November. He's the only candidate less likable than Hillary Clinton and older than...well, than Moses really, but his age will play terribly against Obama's youthfulness.

Romney is still alive, thankfully. But part of the weary Pendragon wishes it would just be over, a declared contest between Hillary and McCain so I can declare my support for a third-party candidate and start planning my move to Poland.

In one of the richest moves in the history of politics, John McCain the RINO has lumped rival Romney with Hillary Clinton. Of course, he used that strategy in 2000 as well, lumping Bush, the anti-Clinton, with Bill. Turns out the aging, possibly senile, senator couldn't even get his facts straight. Romney had suggested that there be private milestones to withdrawal from Iraq but not ones shared with the general public. "You don't want to let the enemy know how long they have to hide in the weeds before you're gone." Seems a sound enough response, but McCain charged that Romney wanted to set deadlines, "and the only deadline is victory. Victory!" I appreciate what was apparently an audition for some kind of Scottish nationalism movie, and it certainly plays well down south where tough talk is often substituted for action. But it seems a little vague--even Bush is willing to set stipulations to be met, but how does one define "victory"? Beyond even this, however, is the sheer dishonesty of the move. If we wanted a hero with credentials thirty years old to be president, we could have elected Kerry. Yet McCain, who voted against Bush tax cuts "for the rich," now says he thought they were inappropriate during wartime, or, in the latest release, favors making them permanent. And Romney is the flip-flopper? McCain is soft on defense--in early debates he championed a long list of restrictions on intelligence and military operatives and toned down the hawkish rhetoric of Giuliani, Tancredo and Romney. That didn't work for him, so in his endless effort to be president, he is changing tones. Someone needs to get him a sandal. Hopefully, the Florida voters will consider tomorrow: Do we really want a pathological liar for president?

The South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus turned out pretty much as I surmised. I remain optimistic that Romney can compete--in fact, I think the down-to-the-wire battle will be between Romney and McCain, and with most of the inclusive Republican primaries over, McCain had better hope the voters in the upcoming Republican-only primaries have collective amnesia or their car breaks down on the way to the polls. We're still alive.

But an issue of more generality weighs on my mind. Four years ago, conservative Democrat Zell Miller (a man who should have been President) endorsed President Bush and criticized his party as "a national party no more." This has been true of the Democrats--they play well to west coast liberals and east coast elites, but not so well in middle America. Yet four years later the Republicans are in the same predicament. We are the party of the South. The South threatens to go home every time they don't like the way the game is played and this includes choosing a presidential candidate and dictating the platform. Since the southern states have been such a huge bloc of Bush and Reagan conservatism, they have justifiably had a lot of clout. Again, tonight southern Republicans chose southern candidates, including one (Huckabee) who demonstrably tried to raise the regional awareness, referring to himself as "the first in the south candidate." This is a mistake. Of the last six Democratic presidential candidates, three have been from the south and three from the north. There is nothing reflecting that balance in the Republican party. But the problem is this: Ohio and Iowa teeter on the edge. If the Democrats win every state they won in 2004 plus Ohio and Iowa, they win the White House. Republicans cannot afford to lose any states and they should be attempting to make inroads in Democratic territory. If Obama or Hillary have to spend time and money to ensure they win their traditional strongholds in the North, Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, they won't have the resources to go after the Republicans in states like Florida, Virginia and Missouri. Furthermore, having two regional parties sets us up for conflict and gridlock and nothing will ever get done. What we will have is a Republican party running mostly in the south and mountain states and the Democrats in the north, west and midwest. Every president will necessarily alienate a section of the country simply by his or her existence. We've come a long way from the days of secession but the tension is still there, thanks to leadership that refuses to look beyond their traditional supporters and leaders. I only hope the Republicans rectify this situation before the Democrats do.

George Will has McCain's Number.

Lining up with all the other reasons to reject the RINO's and loonies jockeying for the limelight is the fact that Mitt Romney is the only national candidate. Giuliani has not been a presence in any primary or caucus so far--banking all on Florida. Watching him lose that gamble will be fun. Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada are all swing states come November and voters are likely to remember that the good mayor didn't give them the time of day. Huckabee, in the meantime, is shamelessly touting regional politics when he declares, "The first-in-the-south candidate is going to win the first-in-the-south primary." Get yer guns, rebels! I'm the southern candidate. McCain on the other hand ignored Iowa, Nevada and Wyoming to focus his attention on New Hampshire and now, South Carolina. Romney has campaigned in every state. The message of his campaign has been that every state is important and every state should have a say in the election of a national president. Swing state voters are likely to remember which Republican candidate campaigned for their votes, and with the Democrats running strong in every state, no Republican can afford to alienate voters. And of course with McCain and Giuliani the threat is a repeat of 2006: loyal Republicans, unexcited about their choices (McCain has yet to win a Republican-only primary) staying at home while Democrats flood the polls for their man or woman. Would we really want to risk it?

The conservative luminaries are becoming less divided by the day. People are beginning to realize what a disaster a McCain candidacy or even worse a McCain presidency would be...for the party and the nation.

Coulter and the Pendragon...on the same page again.

Santorum for Vice-President.

Maybe there is hope for the Republican Party after all.

All presidential elections seem the same these days. As in 2004, a senator is dragging out his thirty-year-old war record and hoping conservatives forgive him for his record in Washington because of it. John McCain is certainly a war hero, but it doesn't get him out for what he has done in Washington. So, in the interest of clarifying things, here are the top ten reasons NOT to vote for John McCain in the Republican primaries. Note that this is not a list of why not to vote for him in November, so anyone who is not a Republican should not expect to agree with this list and therefore should have no comment on whether or not it is valid.

10. He has voted against the Bush tax cuts every time they were brought to the Senate floor.
9. He has consistently favored tying our military's hands in regards to gathering information they need to protect this country.
8. His temper has made him look unprofessional even for an assembly that boasts Teddy Kennedy and Bobby Byrd as members. When someone questioned his judgment on a piece of legislation that certainly deserved it, McCain told him to "F-- off!" Remember when we referred to John Kerry as John "F'in" Kerry?
7. McCain's age will play unfavorably in the lineup against either Obama or Hillary. He may be the one person less likeable than Hillary Clinton and too old to compete with the swell of young voters looking for new faces in Washington.
6. McCain actually toyed with the idea of being John Kerry's running mate in 2004, only reluctantly denied it, and showed a strange unwillingness to take the kid gloves off when dealing with Kerry for the rest of the election. But he found his way to help Kerry's program.
5. McCain has no governing experience, having served his entire public career in the Legislative Branch.
4. McCain voted against the Marriage Amendment and was strangely absent from the debates over partial-birth abortion.
3. McCain joined Ted Kennedy in sponsoring the "Amnesty By Any Other Name" bill that the vast majority of the American people rejected. In 1992, another Clinton squeaked into office because a third-party candidate took the voters most interested in an end to illegal immigration away from the Republicans. Do we want it to happen again?
2. McCain scuttled President Bush's domestic agenda and undid years of Republican campaigning when he sold out Bush's nominees for the bench and handed authority for deciding which ones got voted on to the Democratic minority, all in the name of bipartisanship, which was really a code-name for "McCain 2008."
1. McCain's cosponsored campaign finance reform bill is an unconstitutional limitation of free speech that does not address monetary corruption at all, and so settles for shutting people up, a clear violation of their First Amendment rights. Again, McCain settled for getting his name on a bill with a good title to it so he could be poised to win the presidency in 2008. Like that other senator with a military record, McCain's ambition has blinded him to the greater needs and desires of the people he is supposed to represent.

The man who wants to headline the Republican resurgence this November is telling his fellow Republicans to lay off the Democrats. That's right. Mike Huckabee has chided Republican candidates for going after Hillary Clinton and told them to "leave her alone." This is the same attitude he displayed when he, along with Fred Thompson, defended the other governor from Arkansas from being impeached for his numerous felonies and it should disqualify him for being the party's nominee for President. Unfortunately, Republican loyalty has not factored at all so far in the polls, as shown by Huckabee and McCain's wins in two of the first three states. But those who live by the sword die by the sword. Republican loyalty may not factor much at the polls this November when either McCain or Huckabee are whining for support from the people they've snubbed for years.

Well, at least New Hampshire chose a qualified candidate. Not the best though. I may eventually support John McCain due to the absence of another electable candidate who is not a complete scumbag. But in the meantime, I remain a supporter of Mitt Romney, who must win either South Carolina or Michigan to remain a viable presence in the race. McCain has sold out his own party too many times to be trusted with its leadership. He scuttled President Bush's domestic program to advance his own presidential ambitions. Rudy Giuliani has done the same. Mike Huckabee is initiating religious warfare of his own. Mitt Romney has been stepping up the attacks on his opponents but he has yet to say anything untrue about either of them. He has simply pointed out the inconsistencies between their rhetoric and their records. They have reacted like Democrats, whining about unfair attacks, and unfortunately the Republican voters appear to believe them. Well, we shall see...fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!

On the Democratic side, I am divided as well. Much as I would love to see the Clinton machine dismantled at last, Obama truly frightens me. Not because he is anti-war--all that rhetoric won't amount to anything or because he is left of center on economic issues, which I couldn't care less about. It's the fact that Obama is as coldblooded a killer as any in the world today and no record of being "against torture" or whatever the crap is they're talking about these days can erase that. Every other Democrat, even those in favor of slaughering infants half out of the womb, believe that those who survive should be protected. Not Obama--he callously refused his assent to a bill designed to protect children outside the womb, refusing to believe they are actually human. On another side, Obama would be a more formidable challenge to the eventual Republican nominee in the general election and would be even scarier if elected president. My one hope is that the election will continue to be a bitter, hardfought affair that fatally divides the Democratic Party come November.

The Pendragon is highly disappointed that Iowa Republicans chose slick Michael for president last night but I stand by my defense of the caucus system. Now it remains to be seen if Huckabee can schmooze primary voters in the rest of the states. The Pendragon is thoroughly disgusted that Christians are so easily coerced by the simple formula of shared faith. Huckabee's Christmas ad was a disgrace, not because he said "Christmas" but because of the background. With his exposition of the "true meaning" of Christmas with a soft light casting a cross-shaped shadow on the wall behind him, Huckabee's message was clear: vote for me because I trust Jesus. Bush has never been shy about his faith but he did not claim that people should vote for him because he was a Christian. It's just been a part of who he was and you could accept him or reject him accordingly. Huckabee is something new in American politics, or at least new to this century: a politician who unabashedly is declaring that only a certain kind of Christian can be president of the United States and using it to further his own ambition. Nothing could be further from the American goal of true freedom of religion. There is a difference between a population of Christians electing a president who shares their broad faith and a Christian politician attempting to equate his own personal future with the will of God. Mnay have said this is what Bush has done, but a quick comparison of the Bush and Huckabee campaigns will prove that the former governor of Arkansas has far more in common with Jimmy Carter than with George Bush. The Pendragon only hopes that the people of New Hampshire will be more discerning.

The one silver lining is Obama's rather convincing defeat of Hillary. We are a long way from crowning him, but his impressive showing in Iowa proved that Hillary must fight hard to wrap up her cherished dream of holding onto power indefinitely.

Whatever the result of tonight's caucuses in Iowa, you can bet people will be screaming about it tomorrow. The Pendragon hopes to have cause for celebration, but many find the process "undemocratic," a cover word for something you don't like but can't think of a better word for, and is supposed to end all discussion, like the term "racist." The press will display, as usual, all of the pointless American obsession with privacy, saying the fact that Iowans gather together and publicly state their preference for president violates the sacrosanct right to private ballot, another necessity found in the "living constitution," I suppose, right next to abortion and sodomy. After all, the progressives introduced the notion of a private ballot to combat corruption, but it hasn't exactly solved the problem, has it? The dead still vote in Chicago; felons still vote in Florida and nursing home patients are brow-beaten by their health care providers to vote for one candidate or another. I say: dispense with the privacy fetish. Americans are too consumed by it anyway. Let them stand up and tell the world who they support. I'm not afraid to do it. If we fear being booed by our fellow citizens who disagree, then maybe it will force us to make sure we're supporting a candidate that we actually believe in rather than one chosen at random in the privacy of the voting booth. So say what they will: I like Iowa's process and honestly wish it had greater power than it has. Candidates really need to appeal to the people when they're competing in Iowa, more than they do anywhere else and after all, isn't that what democracy is all about?

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the Pendragon is issuing one last plea for any Iowa Republicans out there to support Mitt Romney. Don't believe the slick salesmanship of Mike Huckabee who wants to use his "Christian credentials" to divide the party. If conservative Christians had always believed this, they would have voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980. And don't believe the equal and opposite error that only by betraying all our principles can Republicans retain the presidency in November. Rudy Giuliani is not the man for us. Vote for a real Republican with a real plan for changing Washington for the better. Vote Mitt Romney.

The Chinese, long fabled as great seers and prophets, are not helping the Pendragon's low spirits. They have named 2008 the "year of the rat." This seems to bespeak a Hillary-Giuliani race or perhaps that would be known as "the year of the twin rats."