In case you missed this nice write-up about a speech Romney gave on Thursday in PA for McCain, here it is. Jonathan martin points out Romney downplays his VP chances.

That's what Forbes writer Paul M. Murdock says:

A McCain-Romney ticket makes sense for both men. McCain gets a boost on economic issues and Romney gets a seat next to McCain in the White House—assuming they manage a victory in November. The increased exposure would serve Romney well should he choose to seek the presidential nomination in the future. Considering John McCain’s age, Romney’s chance could come as soon as 2012 if a victorious McCain decided to only serve one term.

Labels: Forbes

It’s always interesting when people try to define the conservative movement so as to make John McCain the quintessential conservative. Don’t get me wrong, at this point I see him as the best candidate available and will vote for him over the Democratic candidate or any independent. That being said, John McCain is at best a marginal conservative, and better classified as a moderate Republican. There’s nothing wrong with being those things, indeed McCain seems to have succeeded without a strong conservative identification, but conservative is just an inaccurate description of McCain.

Jonathan Rauch at the Atlantic makes the case that conservative really should mean traditional or incremental.

Burke is the father of modern conservatism, and still its wisest oracle. Tradition-minded but (contrary to stereotype) far from reactionary, he believed in balancing individual rights with social order. The best way to do that, for Burke, was by respecting long-standing customs and institutions while advancing toward liberty and equality. Society’s traditions, after all, embody an evolved collective wisdom that even (or especially) the smartest of individuals cannot hope to understand comprehensively, much less reinvent successfully.

In a sense, Rauch is correct. Conservative in its dictionary definition, and the way that he describes Burkean traditionalism, is slow to evolve and incremental in its change. By this standard, McCain does seem conservative. McCain is hesitant to upset the status quo in the federal government. He is not a crusader against big government and its excesses, but more concerned with political corruption (earmarks, McCain-Feingold). He is loathe to do anything dramatic (or, in my view, effective) on issues like immigration or marriage. McCain is generally content with the current state of the federal government and sees only tweaking at the edges as necessary.

However, Rauch’s arguments to the contrary, conservatism is really a misnomer for the modern conservative movement. Modern conservatism is more correctly viewed as classical liberalism. These are dynamic philosophies that are able to bring about the revolutionary changes that Rauch says are antithetical to conservatism. The marketplace, one of the foundations of conservatism/classical liberalism, is able to bring about dramatic changes to a society. Government, one of the obstacles to conservatism/classical liberalism, is generally resistant to change or is ineffective or clumsy in bringing it about.

Rauch places McCain at the center of conservatism because of his resistance to change:

And then there is McCain. As eclectic a reformer as he has been in the Senate, he has been consistent in his incrementalism. Though he was known to sound hot-headed on campaign-finance reform, his legislative work produced a reform that was mostly modest in its aims and that mostly attained them. He has been an old-fashioned budget balancer, not a newfangled supply-sider. He defends his global-warming efforts as gradualist and as modeled on emissions-trading systems that have already been tested. In the presidential primaries, he showed little interest in grandiose promises.

This concept of conservatism misunderstands what the aims of modern conservatism are. It is not about incremental change, but about empowering the individual, generally at the expense of the government. This is why McCain is viewed skeptically by conservatives. It is not that his reforms have been modest, but that his aims have been towards more government at the expense of individual freedom. If his reforms had modest but had been to remove government rather than expand government, I believe McCain would be more favorably viewed by conservatives.

Rauch’s article is also derogatory towards conservatives more generally.

Partly, however, it grew from narcissism: no less than their left-wing peers, right-wing Baby Boomers liked to suppose it was their destiny to reshape the world.

This imputation of motive is devious, not to mention disingenuous. This is the same type of equivalence that we saw in Barack Obama’s speech. Rev. Wright’s pronouncements of anti-Americanism and hatred for whites were the same as a private expression of fear after being haggled. Likewise the social upheaval caused by liberal ideology was the same as resistance to those ideas. “We were all radicals,” is what Rauch is trying to say. This is factually wrong and devious in its crass equation of two very different types of people and ideas.

Labels: Jonathan Rauch, The Atlantic

It's like a backhanded compliment. Still true, though.

Labels: Howard Dean

Reid Wilson tells the tale of two former presidential candidates. He juxtaposes the specter of what Romney has done for McCain since ending his presidential bid versus what Huckabee has done since ending his bid.

First Romney:

Romney has been the most active, appearing for McCain this week at a Lancaster, Pennsylvania Republican dinner, shepherding McCain around Utah for a major fundraiser and promising to hit the stump in the future. Romney has also said he will raise $15 million for McCain, as the Associated Press' Glen Johnson reports.

Compare that to Huckabee:

Huckabee, too, is staying active. He signed a contract with a Hollywood talent agency this week, and next week he will launch a new venture with a major speech, to which his website is counting down (four days, five hours, forty-one minutes and twenty five seconds from the time this post was written).

Is there a starker contrast between two people? Romney has dedicated his time towards a greater cause. Huckabee has used the occassion for self-promotion. Ideally the countdown on Huckabee's website would be the dwindling of his minutes of fame.

In this world we need fewer self-promoters and more people willing to work for a cause other than self. Thank you for the example Gov. Romney.

Labels: mike huckabee

This is funny.

MikeHuckabee.com, the official website of Mike Huckabee for President, is showing a countdown to April 15th when it will launch something big.

One MMM reader notes:

The countdown posted at www.mikehuckabee.com is being touted on blogs, and articles as the announcement date that JohnMcCain's name will scroll to the top of the site, with Mike's underneath it. The star is the same as the one used on McCain's site, and the gold/blue is similar to McCain's site, as well.

The ONLY thing that makes sense about it is that McCain will ignore his advisors, stick with his "gut" and select the guy he promised the spot to after Iowa. It's the kind of thing I could see McCain doing.

Labels: John McCain, mike huckabee, Vice-President

From Paul Harvey's Website:

The former Republican presidential candidate will serve as guest host of ABC Radio Network's "Paul Harvey News & Comment" on Thursday. Harvey, who recently recovered from pneumonia and is scheduled for cataract surgery, plans to return to the show on April 25.

Check Harvey's website for time and stations in your area.

Here’s a few stories to read today:

Weyrich Backs Away from “No Mitt” Ads: “I don’t know what the story is with Weyrich but all this vacillating isn’t doing him any favors.”

Religious Right flip-flops: “The Religious Right is still desperately trying to catch John McCain’s attention, and they’re still running into the same problem that left them with a candidate so distasteful to them in the first place. They can’t seem to pull it together and make up their minds.”

Romney in 2012?: “Mitt Romney still has friends -- at least on Facebook.”

Labels: paul weyrich

The anti-Mitt/anti-Mormon agenda, John McCain is lucky, and what do the Beach Boys, Houston, TX and Mitt Romney have in common?


MP3 File

SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST CLICK BELOW:




OR use our feed:

XML Podcast Feed

Labels: mittcast

John McCain Was One Lucky Guy in Primary Race With Romney - Michael Barone (usnews.com):

"John McCain was one lucky guy. That has been my conclusion as we watched him beat Mike Huckabee in South Carolina January 19 by 33 percent to 30 percent, beat Mitt Romney in Florida January 29 by 36 percent to 31 percent, and then make a huge delegate sweep by winning all the winner-take-all states on Super Tuesday, February 5, including Missouri by a 33 percent-to-32 percent-to-29 percent margin over Huckabee and Romney. In California, which awarded 11 delegates to the statewide winner and three each to the winner in each congressional district, McCain beat Romney statewide 42 percent to 35 percent and carried 48 of 53 congressional districts (it appeared to be 50 of 53 before California finally counted all the votes).

Using Dave Leip's Election Atlas and the Green Papers, I calculated the delegate count if McCain's share of the vote had been exactly 3 percent less in each primary on January 19 and 26 and February 5 and if Romney's share of the vote had been exactly 3 percent more. After all, those results would have been just about as plausible, given the way the campaign and polling were going, as the actual results."

A friend of mine here in Louisiana asked me to get the info out on this "NO MITT" snafu . . . here is what she sent me:

So Mr. William J. Murray did not like people signing his No Mitt petition so they could leave PRO ROMNEY comments!

“ADVISORY: PUBLIC ACCESS TO COMMENTS HAS BEEN BLOCKED. Because of insensitive and offensive posts public viewing of comments has been blocked. Click here for a complete explanation. Note: If you support Romney you should not be signing a petition against him in order to make pro-Romney statements. That is flat out dishonest.”

THE NO MITT AD AND MORMANISM by William J. Murray

Romney’s press secretary told FOX News that the claims made in the No Mitt Ad are not true.

Here is Mr. William’s blog where we CAN leave comments!

Mitt is a class act.

Huckabee and his crew? You decide.

Lots of news making the rounds right now about John Murtha's earmarks. One familiar recipient is CTC (Concurrent Technologies Corporation). "Corporation" is a bit of a misnomer since CTC is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity.

Knowing something about non-profits I decided to do a little sleuthing.

First, some information on CTC itself:

• Ruling year: 1989
• Assets: $75,491,552
• Income: $243,960,365
• No. of employees: not available
• NTEE Code (categorization code for non-profits): U40 - Engineering and Technology Research

Next Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees: Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2006

Name	Title	Compensation
Daniel R DeVos	Pres & CEO	$503,473
Edgar Berkey	VP & CQO	$472,535
John B Pursley, Jr	Exec VP	$411,576
Michael A Katz	Sr VP & COO	$357,864
Edward J Sheehan, Jr.	Sr VP & CFO	$346,540
Emil C Sarady	Vice Pres	$310,747
Frank W Cooper, Jr.	VP & CTO	$288,933
Jerry Hudson	Vice Pres.	$254,807
Linda Monzo	General Mgr	$227,111
Margaret A DiVirgilio	Gen Mgr & Treas	$225,851
George Appley	General Mgr	$220,705
Teri S Maguire	Corp Secretary	$78,671
Henry L Ellison	Board Member	$5,500
Conway B Jones, Jr	Board Member	$5,500
Albert L. Etheridge	Board Member	$4,500
Howard M Picking, III	Chairman	$4,500
E Jeanne Gleason	Board Member	$3,500
Lawrence J Rhoades	Board Member	$3,500
Mark E Pasquerilla	Board Member	$2,500
John N Crichton	Board Member	$2,000

Mission

Improvement of the nation's industrial competitiveness through the effective development and transfer of leading-edge technologies

Programs

Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) is a national resource committed to assisting industry and government achieve world-class competitiveness CTC is an applied research and development professional services organization that provides management and technology-based solutions to a wide array of clients representing state and federal government as well as the private sector.

Can anyone interpret that for me?

Now, here's the kicker:

REVENUE
Contributions	$0
Government Grants	$212,739,257
Program Services	$31,098,761
Investments	$122,347
Special Events	$0
Sales	$0
Other	$0
Total Revenue	$243,960,365

EXPENSES
Program Services	$212,322,790
Administration	$25,845,645
Other	$1,054,730
Total Expenses	$239,223,165
Net Gain/Loss	$4,737,200

In short, you the taxpayer gave almost a quarter of a billion dollars to CTC, a non-profit entity, to fund massive salaries for an organization that has a fuzzy mission and now a fuzzier future thanks to Murtha.

Is there some back scratching going on as CBS alleges? Why yes.

• Daniel R DeVos - CEO, gave $1000 to Murtha 3/2/2007 and $1000 on 8/28/2007
• Edward Sheehan - CFO, gave $1000 to Murtha 3/9/2007 and $1300 10/26/2007
• Frank Cooper - VP, gave $1000 to Murtha 3/28/2007 and $200 8/30/2007
• DiVirgilio - Treasurer gave $1000 to the DCCC

The list goes on and on. More to come...

Labels: ctc, earmarks, murtha