By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

"Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters.” -Francisco de Goya

The morning news led with the announcement that the New York Times had published an extensive article exposing an alleged dalliance over eight years ago between John McCain and a woman (not his wife) which came as absolutely no surprise to us. We had synchronized our watches in expectation, because it was just a matter of time – the countdown commencing the moment the Times puffed their feathers and handed McCain a grandiose endorsement following the final Republican debate at the Reagan Library. The fact they endorsed the most liberal Republican candidate was also lost on no one save the candidate himself.

With this so-called exposé of Senator McCain and a lobbyist, Sulzberger’s gang – three, two, one – fired away, and right on schedule.

For the unenlightened and non-believers, the New York Times was once the noble powerhouse of responsible journalism – their sheets filled with some of the finest writing ever to grace any newspaper of any country. To wake up every morning and have the New York Times waiting for you on the floor at your door every morning was a thrill. But the thrill is gone as B.B. King says. Like religious zealots, this newspaper is now governed by ceremony and greed: pandering to and supporting the man or the issue, gaining their trust to close the distance between them then stabbing them in the back.

John F. Kennedy was courted by mobsters and it was rumored he kept company with other less-than savory characters, but the New York Times did not turn him into a “made man by association.” In 2008, however, this is neither a ludicrous analogy nor out of the question. The Times has inferred that sensible advice given to the candidate, “ But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity ” enough of a story to pin their assumption of impropriety right after their endorsement.

We very recently wrote an article entitled “ Media Calls Election ” in which we reminded readers how hard line liberal journalists and influential bloggers, from the start of these primaries, have harnessed Americans’ attention towards who they wanted attention paid to. It does not take a university graduate to comprehend which rivers we are being steered down, because, ladies and gentlemen, we are there.

The Times, much like the other major dailies currently on financial life-support, has reduced itself to speculation, hearsay, and innuendo in order to score well-timed points in an effort to control the direction of the 2008 election. While we do not fully support John McCain’s numerous moderate-to-liberal positions on a multitude of issues, the game of politics, most especially Presidential campaigns, was never meant to be usurped, controlled or driven by The Grey Lady. These major dailies have virtually ignored – and this is possibly why they are falling fast like a fiery stone -- the guidelines set down by the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, specifically: Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Their Times’ editorials have become self-serving nonsense delved out without conscience or reason. They have acquired an unsoundness that supports our enemies. We are a nation in turmoil, and the Times is only adding to the confusion and chaos, such as when they and other media disclosed the Administration’s plan to monitor the financial records of terrorist cells within the United States after our administration pleaded with them not to do it. But then they have made it crystal clear how they feel about “your” President.

 Prior to his present poll position, Republican prophets of doom came out en masse to belittle and accuse McCain of numerous gross breaches of his fiduciary duty as a conservative. They continue to repeat and remind that he is not worthy of the People’s trust for his myriad anti-establishment and self-serving political maneuvers (McCain-Feingold; McCain-Kennedy; McCain-Leiberman; McCain-Kennedy-Edwards; the McCain-Reimportation of Drugs; his vocal opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his hostility towards American enterprise; McCain-ACLU; the Gang of 14, etc.), all of which have been deemed unsound and ill-advised for this nation. Yet, even in the face of conservative forewarnings, McCain the maverick has, to the party’s bewilderment, scored the most delegates.

It goes without saying that both the President and his linear successor, the Vice President, require ceaseless patience and perception if they are to effectively pilot this nation through the ever-darkening threat of jihadism. Both must have the ability to instantly recognize the gravitas of national and international situations, and if necessary, tighten control over them before they unravel, such as the current chaos in Pakistan. Mr. McCain knows this and of that we can be certain. If he offers us a fraction less than a balanced ticket, Americans will lose confidence and inadvertently cede power to the Left in November.

Even taking into account their political adversities, McCain should acknowledge that his and Romney’s stated positions are uniquely suited to right the listing negatives – that the sum total of their parts will equal a worthy and formidable team.

Critics of Romney couldn’t be more mistaken. Mitt Romney is a patriot. He is also highly intelligent and a pragmatist. And that would be a complementary asset for John McCain and for this country.

Romney has the keen ability to be, when necessary, analytical and tough. This is a parallel to how Ronald Reagan approached and dealt with problems. Romney’s refusal in September 2006 to provide state police protection to Mohammed Khatami, a former president of Iran, was immediate and swift.  He then denounced Harvard University for extending an invitation to Khatami.  This was critical decisiveness under pressure. He likewise did not hesitate to urge the United Nations to revoke an invitation for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their general headquarters in September 2007. Mitt Romney sees people and situations for what they are and isn’t afraid to “hands-on” deal with it.
 

John McCain and Mitt Romney “get it,” as they have both represented.  That clear and present danger that looms over everyone’s heads propels them both to want to do everything, no matter the cost, that is necessary to protect and defend our country.  In his concession speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Romney said, essentially, that our countrymen must choose a leader who understands the very nature of the enemy and hence how to save from harm the future of America.

We cannot deny that John McCain does understand the nature of the enemy, and he does have the experience necessary to qualify him to make the claim that he would be a good President.  However, as we said, pulling the lever in his favor will be much easier if his selection of a running mate is, in character, confidence and strength, the best man for the job.  That best man is Mitt Romney.

It is our concerted opinion that the indefatigable and experienced team of John McCain and Mitt Romney will trump the leading inexperienced liberal opponent’s mantra “Yes, we can” with the conservatives’ “YES, WE WILL.”

Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon
http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/2/19/mcmitt-because-americans-deserve-a-break-today.html

by Lance Thompson

House Democrats have decided that their greatest duty is to the enemies of this country. They have performed magnificently in this role by refusing to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that provide information to government agencies tasked with preventing terrorist acts. By withholding their votes from the legislation that would have renewed the Protect America Act, House Democrats have discouraged these companies from cooperation by leaving them open to law suits by the very terrorists who plot the murders of innocent Americans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke for the Democrats when she denied that national security was the issue, and accused the GOP of wanting "to protect the financial interests of telecommunications companies and avoid judicial scrutiny of their warrantless wiretapping program." The Democrats, on the other hand, are protecting the interests of lawyers, terrorist-enabling lawsuits, and the rights of our enemies to plot our destruction in inviolable secrecy.

Once mystified by the liberal approach to governance, I have finally been able to understand the thinking behind it. Liberals take positions which reflect well on themselves. Conservatives take positions which will have positive consequences. I don’t know if this is a conscious effort by either side, but every difference in liberal and conservative thought can be explained by this theory.

Liberals want to stop the war because being against war makes them look humane. They want to outlaw waterboarding because being against maltreatment of prisoners makes them look empathetic. They don’t want to tap telecommunications and e-mails because being against eavesdropping makes them look principled.

Conservatives support the war because they know the consequences of losing the war and surrendering the initiative to the jihadist enemy will be the continuing slaughter of Americans. Conservatives support waterboarding because they know the knowledge gained from prisoners under duress can save the lives of soldiers in the field, civilians at home, and allies around the world. Conservatives support electronic surveillance because they know foreknowledge of a terrorist plot can avert a tragic attack.

Liberals support higher taxes because gouging the rich and big corporations makes them look like friends of the common people. Liberals support socialized medicine because providing medical care to all makes them look generous. Liberals support raising the minimum wage because giving more money to the lowest-paid workers makes them look magnanimous.

Conservatives support tax cuts for individuals and corporations because they know progressive taxation punishes success, limits investment, hobbles business and enterprise, and discourages the private industry that drives the economy. Conservatives dislike socialized medicine because they know that free medicine for everyone still must be paid for by some one, not to mention the cost of a vast government bureaucracy to manage a system that will decide how much and what quality of care is right for you. Conservatives are against raising the minimum wage because they know that higher wages translates into fewer jobs, and fewer hours for those who need those jobs.

Liberals are against guns because that makes them look responsible and level-headed. Conservatives support gun rights because they know that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crime and protect innocent people. Liberals are against the death penalty because that makes them look merciful and forgiving. Conservatives support the death penalty because they know that innocent human life is so precious that the penalty for taking one must be the highest a guilty human being can pay.

In every area of political discussion, liberals take the side that makes them look good. Conservatives take the side that will provide positive results. It’s easy for liberals to look as if they are caring, forgiving, admirable individuals, because their views are chosen for that very purpose. Conservatives are easily painted as uncaring, mercenary and cruel because positive results may require unpopular positions and actions.

House Democrats will congratulate themselves on their blocking of the Protect America Act because they can pretend to be principled and devoted to the civil rights of Americans. Conservatives know that every terrorist-fighting tool and technique we deny our government is a gift to our deadliest enemies, gifts which will be exploited to the utmost and used to kill innocent Americans.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Conscience will ever judge right when it is rightly informed, and speak the truth when it understands it. - John Leland
How is the conservative media to be assessed during the recent chaotic Republican Primaries?

This is one question that, if it can be answered honestly, may come to haunt the conservative party throughout the term of the next administration.

We have to admire the mainstream media for their success in convincing voters to support the MSM ’s chosen candidates, and in the precise order calculated: Hillary Clinton , Barack Obama , Rudy Giuliani , Fred Thompson , John McCain , Mike Huckabee , John Edwards , Ron Paul , Mitt Romney. No psychic could have done it better.

Adding to their efforts were full-throttle boosts by Oprah Winfrey and other Hollywood glitterati for both Clinton and Obama. Their momentum is unstoppable. As we write, the Obama Express has become the runaway bullet train right-wing punditry cannot derail – not because such punditry’s influence has been stopped in its tracks, as liberals would like to believe, but because they didn’t “pour on the steam” and charge full speed ahead with the right candidate when they had the opportunity.

A passionate division has always existed between the Left and the Right. However, in these past eight weeks the evident passion on the part of the liberal media was a 50-block inferno weighed against the conservatives’ weenie roast.

The eleventh-hour (or more specifically, 11:59^th hour) support given by Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Newt “Johnny Come Never” Gingrich amounted to a minnow’s belch compared to their liberal counterparts’ lion’s roar. It is easier to blame the outcome on straying conservatives than to acknowledge “real” conservatives never strayed to begin with.

After twelve months – one solid year – of campaigning by aspirants of both parties, the best these pundits offered is that they weren’t ready to support anyone? They all, one-by-one, ultimately figured out that Mitt Romney was the best candidate for the job. Had they used their power of persuasion to educate and influence (as they do daily on a host of other topics), the voters would not need to “drag themselves to the polls” as one popular talk show host offered. Instead, there was equivocation, vacillation and just plain jelly-fishing their way through the campaign season. Now they want to blame it on voters. Informed voters did vote for Mitt Romney. If the talk show hosts do not influence thinking, what is the point of filling the airwaves with opinion?

No one, save for Hugh Hewitt of Townhall, William F. Buckley (The National Review) and Tammy Bruce of KABC Talk Radio, took the early plunge and wholly supported who they believed was the right man for the Oval Office. We were glad to hear they had made solid decisions and were not afraid to be wrong. But no matter how hard those particular three tried (and they tried very, very hard on behalf of their chosen contender, Mitt Romney), their enthusiasm was in no way matched by other high-profilers’ fence straddling -- whether it was for Romney or any Republican candidate. Each pundit who waited until it was too late has since proffered a limp explanation as to why he or she withheld support of the best candidate, generally, that none of them were ready to support anyone.

We’re not saying that the existence of the Republican Party or conservative ideals lies on the support of talk radio or cable shows – just as no candidate should rely only on them as a crutch or as their sole source of support. That would be absurd. What we are saying is this: Why was it necessary for them to wait for the realization that the wayward conservative they had worked diligently to demonize would actually end up being the conservative party's nominee? If they are all as clever as they purport to be, this fact – this end result – would have been as evident to them as the sun rising in the east each morning. All of the influence peddlers are now steering us in the direction of “McCain is better than Hillary or Obama.” Jack Kemp has even gone so far as to compare John McCain to Winston Churchill . Someone please give us a break. That’s like saying Lindsay Lohan is the new Garbo . The entire premise that McCain is better than Clinton or Obama is like saying pneumonia is better than malaria or cholera.

At the battle of Gettysburg, a Union officer, Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (a college professor from Maine), was ordered to lead his men up to and hold Little Round Top, a strategic hill on the outskirts of the town. After hours of brutal gunfire and casualties, his unit had exhausted their ammunition – and the Confederates were still closing in on them. Did Chamberlain wait for reinforcements? Did he wait for more ammunition? No. He ordered, against all odds, a full bayonet charge against the advancing Rebels. The result was an astonishing victory for him and his men. And for this Col. Chamberlain was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

If he had hesitated, if he had waited, the aftermath might have been disastrous. As it turned out, Chamberlain made the right split-second decision.

That is why we are confounded by the doubt-filled hesitation on the part of conservative media after, as we’ve pointed out, one year of massive amounts of information being literally thrown in our faces.

The fact of the matter is that most people in this country are simply not interested in politics. They passively watch shows like The O’Reilly Factor or listen to talk radio waiting for inspiration and guidance.

Republicans are motivated by logic and Democrats are motivated by emotion. This is evident as Democrats and Independents fall more and more rapidly and in even greater numbers under the spell of Obama’s oratorical but empty prowess – all of which is merrily aided 24/7/365 by the liberal mainstream media.

The final result of all the conservative hemming and hawing is clear and irreversible: We are left with John McCain and Mike Huckabee, a hot head and a preacher who are engaged in a spinster’s race for the altar.

Ideally, voters join the party which most represents their views. Historically, the Republican party is more conservative, the Democrat party more liberal. Thus, conservatives make up a majority of the GOP, liberals a majority of the Democrats. These majorities constitute the "bases" of the parties–the stalwarts who contribute, volunteer, get out the vote, and sustain the party.

Having associated with the parties which most represent their views, the base voters in turn exert influence on the positions of their respective parties. The Democrats have been greatly influenced by the liberal base of their party, so much so that Hillary Clinton has had to backtrack and dissociate herself from her vote to authorize military force to remove Saddam, even though many other Democrats also voted for the authorization.

But what is a base voter to do when the party he or she supports no longer represents his or her views? Obviously, a voter will usually not agree with every item of a party’s plank, but there is ordinarily general agreement on a majority of issues. But party leaders will say, "We stand for most of the things you believe in, and certainly more of them than the other party stands for." In a two-party system, this is a compelling argument. The Presidential election always comes down to two choices, and a vote is cast for that candidate whose views are closer to that of the voter.

Conventional wisdom holds that parties cater to their bases during the primaries, when candidates are competing for the votes of their own parties, then try to appeal to a wider audience during the general election, hoping to attract more middle-of-the-roaders than the other side.

But if the party’s front-runner has never catered to the base, has always made a greater effort to accommodate the other side, and does not stand for the base’s issues, then that candidate risks alienating the base. For the GOP, John McCain is such a candidate.

The Republican party leadership encourages all Republicans to forget their differences and unite behind John McCain. After all, the alternative–Obama or Clinton–is surely more objectionable than a moderate Republican. And if we don’t support McCain, the Republicans risk losing the presidential election.

But if the party and its candidate no longer represent the principles and values of the party members, what claim can the party have to their votes? There are only two possible outcomes in a presidential election. If McCain, the Republican candidate who voted against Bush tax cuts because they favored the rich, wants to close Guantanamo Bay, voted to extend citizenship to illegal aliens, voted to limit free speech in political campaigns, voted to fund stem cell research with federal money, was a charter member of the Keating Five and the Gang of 14, wins the contest, what have we achieved? We have placed in the White House a candidate marginally more conservative than his liberal Democrat opponent.

A McCain victory will demonstrate to the Republican party that a moderate Republican can overcome either the heir to the last Democrat dynasty or a tremendously charismatic Senator from the new generation of Democrat leadership. Republican leaders will conclude that conservative credentials are not necessary to win a national election–they are, in fact, a hindrance. Candidates in subsequent elections will be required to show that they are bipartisan, moderate, and able to work with Democrats and see things from the Democrat point of view. This will set conservative values back for several election cycles.

It is also possible that McCain could lose to his Democrat opponent. This would result in a marginally more liberal president than McCain, who would probably also enjoy a majority in Congress. The liberal agenda could be enacted with dispatch–higher taxes, withdrawal from Iraq, socialized medicine, and amnesty for illegal aliens. This agenda could prove beneficial to the nation or, mor elikely, disastrous, and by the time the next election comes around, the nation will be ready for a change, as it was after four years of Jimmy Carter. The party of change would be the party that stands for conservative values. The GOP candidate would not be a middle-of-the-road accommodator, but a strong, proven conservative.

The GOP leadership will argue that we all want what’s best for the country, regardless of whether a moderate or conservative Republican wins. But if conservatives truly believe in their own principles, they must also believe those principles are best for the country. They must believe a liberal agenda, conversely, is bad for the country. And, on many if not most issues, John McCain stands for a liberal agenda. He is less liberal than his Democrat opponents, but only by degree, and not by nature.

The Republican party must not take its conservative base for granted, must not assume we will go along with any candidate because we fear the prospect of the Democrat alternative. None of us wants a Democrat in the White House. But a Republican who caters to Democrats is very little better, and self-defeating in the long run. If McCain enacts sixty, seventy, or even eighty percent of what the Democrats hope to accomplish, each vote for McCain is in equal percentage a vote for the Democrat agenda.

There is talk of the GOP "suicide voter," described as some one who disagrees so much with McCain that he or she plans to vote for the Democrat. I don’t know how many such voters are in the Republican ranks. But I do know that the conservative base of the party, the marrow of the GOP, has no passion for McCain. There is no enthusiasm on the GOP side to match the mesmerized crowds at Obama rallies, or the determined passion of the Clinton supporters. Only a true conservative can mobilize that base, and John McCain is not that candidate.

John McCain has enjoyed favorable press, including an endorsement from the New York Times. He has worked closely with Democrats in Congress, even considering a spot as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004. He has branded himself a maverick, willing to defy conservatives in Congress and in the White House. So in the coming election, let John McCain call upon his friends in the press, his moderate supporters, his colleagues "across the aisle" when he seeks campaign workers, volunteers, donations, and support. They may be hard to reach, however. Because when the general election comes, they will all be working for the real Democrat candidate.

Lance Thompson
http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/2/11/the-homeless-conservative.html