The Democrats keep repeating the mantra that the financial crisis is the fault of the Bush Administration and Republicans. When is McCain going to hit back and lay this mess at the feet of those who created it and refused to do anything to control it? Bill O'Reilly ripped into Barney Frank, head of the House Financial Services Committee, last night for blaming everyone but himself and accepting no personal responsibility for this mess. In 2003, Frank said, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

How many people are aware that John McCain supported a proposal for oversight of FMAE and FMAC in 2005 while Democrats refused to support it and wanted approval for more suspect mortgages? McCain and Palin should hit the Democrats over the head with this until they knock them silly! See: http://beltwaysnark.com/2008/09/16/john-mccain-supported-a-proposal-for-...

The bill was shot down by DEMOCRATS! Shove this right down their throats, talk about the push by Democrats during the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people who were not qualified to receive these loans. Repeat as many times as necessary that the very groundwork for today’s problems are rooted in Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act , and that in 2003 President Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis and was blocked by Democrats on party lines. Keep slamming Obama who has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000. Barack Obama and his allies took the money and, for years, did nothing to resolve the credit crisis.

John McCain needs to push back against the way the media has painted this as the fault of Republicans, including McCain himself. If he continues to roll over and say nothing about this, McCain will go down with the ship.

Come on John! Fight with me, stand up, fight with me! Fight!

John McCain has taken many lumps from the liberal and misguided mainstream press during his campaign. But some of the worst criticism has been due to his hawkish statements made about Russia.

With regards to Russia, McCain has called for dropping the nation from the G8 group of world economic leaders. He has also called for a quick expansion of NATO to place nations such as Georgia, which lie directly on the Russian border, under the protective arm of the alliance.

With the invasion of Russian forces which has begun taking place today against the former Soviet Republic, Georgia, it is painfully obvious just who has been out in front on this issue the past year. And even more so, just whom was wrong in their criticism of McCain.

By way of a Salon.com featured article from June 9th, we have an interesting perspective back into time, giving us the ability to study the type of criticisms the liberal media used against McCain on this particular issue:

This kind of talk -- in particular the call to oust Russia from the G-8
-- has given pause to seasoned experts on that part of the world, who
tend to emphasize engagement with Russia. McCain's harsh rhetoric and
tough proposals led Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria to write an April column
titled "McCain's Radical Foreign Policy." If McCain were to pursue his
Russia agenda as president, Zakaria wrote, it would be interpreted by
much of the world as an "attempt by Washington to begin a new Cold
War."

Continuing a very old tactic by the MSM,  Mark Benjamin went on to  place McCain's ideological position under the suspicion of simply being penned by those scary former lobbyist advisers, who obviously only made such proposals, without merit, due to their obvious ulterior motives. 

Not so much... The reality of the situation is more like, sometimes people are advisors in a various field (or lobbyists on behalf of certain issues, for that matter) because they are experts at making analysis within those fields!

The article, which in the perspective of such a short matter of history, humorously goes on to read:

During the presidential campaign, the presumptive Republican nominee
has shown remarkable interest in Scheunemann's client, Georgia, a
country of 4 million. In his statement last month on the inauguration
of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, McCain said he hoped the new
president would "take steps to ease tensions with Georgia by reversing
recently announced measures that undermine Georgia's internationally
recognized sovereignty which have rightly caused great concern among
our European allies."

McCain might take his hard line on Russia because it plays well with
some of the GOP base. Experts on Russia say some of those Republicans
harbor nostalgia for being tough on the Soviet Union. Or perhaps he
simply believes Russia will respond best to threats. But there is
little doubt that McCain's rhetoric and policies would please the
countries Scheunemann has worked for.

"Those are countries whose advantage it is to point the finger at a
Russian threat, particularly Georgia," explained Thomas Simons,
ambassador to Poland under George H.W. Bush and to Pakistan under Bill
Clinton.

There is no way to tell if Scheunemann has influenced his boss on
behalf of his clients, or if McCain and Scheunemann simply share a
common get-tough-on-Russia philosophy. But when there are lobbyists on
a candidate's campaign staff, it's hard to distinguish chicken from egg
when it comes to policy.

Whatever the reasons behind McCain's hawkish tones, despite how any microanalysis of his position statements may wish to explain how they came about, at the end of the day... they are simply right.  And the events that are transpiring today in the Republic of Georgia, simply gives even more credence to the Republican nominee's foreign policy bone fides.

Now we all just sit back and wait for the spectacle of Barack Obama's attempts at standing equal to McCain on foreign policy, within the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Georgia.  I'm sure that Vegas would take 2-to-1 odds on Obama making mention of the Georgia republic's capital of "Atlanta".

Today is Ronald Reagan's birthday. I believe he would be taken aback if he were alive to witness what is taking place within the Republican party today. Assuming Senator John McCain wins the GOP nomination, it will show how the party has been ideologically transformed since President Reagan so adroitly communicated the conservative core values which defined the Republican party in the 1980's. Reagan united all Americans with his charisma and his ability to communicate the necessity of fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and strong social values for the betterment of the country. He was an optimist who believed in the strength of the American people and united his GOP base along with "Reagan Democrats" to win landslide elections in 1980 and 1984. The catchphrase of this election seems to be “change,” communicated as often by Republicans as Democrat candidates. According to Democrats, everything is bad, everything is going wrong, and massive changes must be made to "save" the country. Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton promises huge, expensive government welfare programs if elected. Barack Obama, the Democrat senator with the most liberal voting record - more liberal than Clinton or Ted Kennedy - would also favor huge government intervention into the lives of all Americans yet gives no details on any of his policy recommendations for "change". He compares himself to former president John Kennedy, yet his identity seems to be based solely on rhetoric rather than substance. Is the country ready for 21st-century-style socialism? Or is there an alternative which will inspire Americans as Ronald Reagan's policies once did?

It is surprising that a candidate has emerged as the frontrunner in the race for the GOP nomination despite the fact that he is opposed by a majority of his party and has taken many positions in the past which are contradictory to the views of fiscal conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. John McCain's views on illegal aliens, Bush's tax cuts, oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, climate change regulation, drug re-importation from Canada, and campaign-finance legislation have infuriated most conservatives, yet he has emerged, nevertheless, as the candidate who will most likely carry the banner for the Republican party in this year's presidential election. How can this be?

The GOP seems to have lost its way during the current primary season. Republicans seem to have lost the optimism of Ronald Reagan and echo the Democrats in their belief that the policies of the country must be drastically altered. Possible conservative candidates such as George Allen, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter either never got started or never picked up support from conservatives. Another candidate, Mitt Romney, is distrusted because of his recent conversion to many conservative beliefs and another former Arkansas governor and Christian minister, Mike Huckabee, is a bit too slick for his own good and has too many social liberal policies which he implemented while in office. Thus, McCain has emerged as the probable GOP candidate despite his crabby, over-the-hill, liberal persona and the fact that he has been able to garner barely one-third of the Republican vote in the primaries.

Many conservatives worry that McCain might permanently change the "soul" of the Republican party and cause it to abandon its traditional conservative values. Is there much of a difference between John McCain and the Democrat candidates for president? One has to wonder when McCain declares that he is well-suited to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats. He has repeatedly demonstrated this with his record for tag-team legislation, working with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, and other liberal lawmakers. "Reaching across the political aisle" always entails selling out conservative values. McCain, himself, seems not to understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats and makes dumb, self-defeating statements such as, "I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president." That sounds a lot like an endorsement to me. The so-called "mainstream media" is rooting for McCain right now because, if he is nominated, liberals will be in a win, win, win position. If Clinton wins the presidency, good for liberals. If Obama wins, that's good, too. McCain, ditto. Of course, once McCain gets the Republican nomination all the knives will come out and he will be brutally attacked by most of today's media "supporters".

So, what does all this augur for the GOP? I see little chance that Republicans will defeat Democrats in November. The country will fall under the control of big-government politicians controlling the executive branch and both houses of congress. The Supreme Court will probably see two or three more liberal judges appointed to the court. How many years will this last? Only history will tell. But until another conservative standard bearer comes along, the Republican party will most probably be stranded in the political wasteland. Then, again, events in history can change everything. Did not the defeat of Barry Goldwater set the stage for the election of Ronald Reagan?

However this election turns out this elcetion will be to Mc cain and Romney after today. Rudy and Huckabee will be effectively out if not in fact, I doubt they will drop out but they will have no chance at the nomination. Only Mc Cain and Romney even have a chance at winning Florida.

At the moment I am leaning towards Mc Cain, because he is a maverick and has the best chance of winning,  but I have problems with a few of his positions such as his soft stance on illegal immigration and Mc Cain-Feingold.

Either of these men would make a good president.

I PICK ‘EM, YOU CLICK ‘EM

From The Trail:

* Anti-Romney Calls – Does the Cost Point to a Suspect? – National Review

* McCain: It’s OK to Make People Mad – Washington Post

* Obama and Clinton Clash over Scandalous Information – Baltimore Sun

* Kucinich Protests Army Training School - Yahoo

News:

* Without Both Parents, Childrens Abuse Risk Rises – Houston Chronicle

* US Considers Enlisting Pakistani Tribes to Fight Al Qaeda – NY Times

Opinion:

* World Should Give Thanks for America – Orange County Register

* Heritage Foundation – The Rights of Guantanamo – FoxNews