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.