James,

You can make up names and badmouth people all you want.  But the choices for president in November are Barak Obama or John McCain.  If you think we would have a "liberal tyranny" if we elect McCain (and Romney?), you haven't yet thought about what a radical tyranny we would have during SIXTEEN years of Obamas (8 for Barack and 8 more for Michelle).  This guy is not even a Liberal Democrat. He's a radical.  And you and every other protest vote is putting him in the oval office.  I don't know if Baldwin is good or not, but right now it is Obama or McCain.  A vote for Bladwin is definitely a vote for Obama.

Luke seems to be missing part of the equation, however.  Romney lost in the south, not because he is unacceptable to southerners.  He lost in the south because Huckabee seemed more appealing.  If Huckabee wasn't on the ballot, we'd be choosing between Obama and Romney.

So why didn't Romney win?  All of those people who voted for Huckabee didn't vote for Romney.  You may question how much of a conservative Romney is.  But he is much more conservative than McCain, and he's a clear shot better than Obama.  By voting for the guy you liked, (Huckabee, or, if you'd prefer, Baldwin) you elected the more liberal guy (McCain, or Obama) instead of the more conservative guy (Romney or McCain).  People who voted for Huckabee and got McCain should have trouble looking in the mirror.  If you vote for someone else and we end up getting Obama instead of McCain, you should have trouble looking in the mirror.  Don't make the same mistake a second time.  This one counts.

As for the Massachussets Supreme court, remember that Romney's job was to execute the laws.  He can't pick and choose which he wanted to enforce and which he wouldn't.  I've read stories of legal maneuvering which may or may not have worked.  And even if it worked, they may have had such a backlash that it might have advanced the cause of gay marriage instead of having the backlash against it that we got here.  In any case, the same thing is happening in California, and I don't see any legal challenges in the works.

As for the life issue, I believe that you believe in life.  There are people who don't.  Isn't it possible, don't you consider it probable, that someone with good values who studies the issue might change their mind and come to agree with you?  Isn't the purpose of the pro-life movement, or any movement for that matter, to change the minds of people who look at the issue closely.  So here you have a "convert" to your side.  Someone who converted while he was governor, not while he was running for president.  And you assume bad motives for the conversion.  Do you have such little faith in your side that anyone who agrees with you must have come to your side for reasons other than, well, reason?

So the two big issues this election are security and the economy.  We need someone in office who understands the economy.  Well, we can't get Romney (except, perhaps) for VP), but certainly McCain is better on Security than "we'll be out in eighteen months" Obama.

It comes out.

Not that I have tried too hard to find out, but I finally have found out why Michael Medved doesn't like the "Mittster."  He thinks that Romney has flip flopped to become president.

Never mind that the most "eggregious" "flip flop" occured while he was governor and is reflected in his action as governor--the change to a pro-life stance.

Never mind that though he has flipped, he has never really flopped.

I want to know why Michael writes.  One would assume it is to persuade people to agree, or at least consider, his point of view.  Of course if Michael manages to convince anyone, they become a flip-flopper and become ineligible for high office.

That the best outcome would be that the entire left would flip probably doesn't occur to Michael.

In discussing the state of the SCUS and the need to win this election (and not stay home because, "that'll teach 'em"), listeners to the Hugh Hewitt show have heard him trot out the justices and list them in inverse order by age.  Funny, if McCain was a Supreme Court Justice, he would be among those Hugh expects to retire during the next presidential term.

Romney for Vice President.

Fred Barnes has made the suggestion that others have.  McCain should pick Romney for VP.

He solves so many problems for McCain's presidency, that it just doesn't make sense for him not to select him.  Assuming people voted for McCain for his appeal to the independents, that does not make McCain necessarily more electable.  What profit a man to gain the independents if he loses the base.  They chose McCain for his military experience and his steadfast position on the war.  But McCain's expertise in economics is sketchy at best.

Romney could help secure the base as McCain goes for the independents.  Romney could shore up the administration's economic credentials.

And let's not even get to what the Vice Presidential debate would be like with razor-sharp Romney on a one-on-one with some Democrat.

The argument goes that McCain and Romney just have too much enmity to pair up on a ticket.  McCain may be stubborn as an old mule, but you can befriend a stubborn mule with a little sugar.  Surely McCain can see that he needs Romney.  As for the enmity, as soon as Romney conceded he came out and endorsed McCain.  Not even McCain's old friend Fred Thompson did that.  Romney did it not to secure a place in the new administration, but out of loyalty to the Republican party.  McCain should show his loyalty to the party by burying the hatchet and going after Romney.

The Vice President serves at the pleasure of the President.  If Romney pledged to clean up Washington, let him.  Let him go through every department and every budget and let him clean the place up.  Surely this would accomplish much more than the earmark and pork that McCain wants to get rid of.  Whatever he is not able to clean up, he will be better able to deal with later.  The credit would go to McCain.  The experience would go to Romney.

We hope and work for McCain's victory in November.  But if his age works against him this year, imagine four years from now.  Give McCain his four years.  But perhaps a 76-year old McCain would step aside and give his Vice President a chance.  With four year's experience as Vice President, with the greater name recognition and a more solid record for his positions, Romney would have a better chance next cycle than this one.

It is good for McCain.  It shores up his administration's credentials and makes his election more certain by securing the base as he goes after independents.  It is good for Romney, gaining experience and name recognition as he prepares for his chance to serve.

I don't expect McCain to announce anything soon.  But when his selection is made, it should be Romney

That is what Ann Coulter seems to be saying in her latest article.  But we can't "Make a deal."  And it does matter that you choose the right door.  The Right door.

Let me confess something.  I like Ann's work.  Many conservatives may not admit this.  But RightTeacher1 will.  She is . . . caustic, to be sure.  And I do disagree with her on occasion. 

On the other hand, she defended Joe McCarthy as a man who was actually right.  That if people know exactly what happened in that "Have you no decency?" episode, they would have a different opinion than they would just reading history books and watching movies of the event.  (How many people still think SENATOR McCarthy had anything to do with the HOUSE Unamerican Activities Committee.)  That he was a man more sinned against than sinning.  But he was, well, . . . caustic.  I tried to get people on leftist boards to defend history's verdict.  They were very helpful about how much they hated Ann.  They were very helpful about how much they hated McCarthy.  But when I would solicit facts about why he and Ann are wrong and they are right, they would tell me that that is not what their board is about--they aren't interested in facts.  They had no real critiques about what he did.  He just rubbed people the wrong way.

Ann rubs people the wrong way.

And she does that as she tells people that we now have to choose between three senators for our next president (meaning of course, that our next president will be a senator--something that hasn't happened since JFK) and that all three are democrats.

Well, she's wrong.  McCain has an R next to his name.  He may be to the left of anyone who might be reading this, but his is no RINO.

She refutes my previous posts (OK, not directly) that McCain may have an 82 LIFETIME conservative rating, but that RECENTLY his rating has been closer to 62.  Fine.  Probably a good point.  But we need to look at a number of things.

First, if I understand this rating correctly, 62 would still be "conservative."  Not as conservative as we'd like (I'm still a Romney guy, even though I'm a McCain guy), but certainly no democrat.

Second, what are the ratings of Obama or Billary.  That is what democrats should look like.  McCain is no democrat.

Third, we already know some of his colossal blunders.  He's already taken a hit for them.  We already take those into account.  Don't hit him a second time because those blunders lowered his conservative rating.  Is there anything that the 62 ratings tell us that we didn't already know?

We know about immigration, Bush's tax cuts, campaign finance reform, judges, and the environment.  Isn't that alone enough to lower his rating to 62?  Is Ann telling us there is more?

But McCain is no democrat.

He is right on the war.  Take either Billary (Ann's choice) or Obama, and we will give up in Iraq.  Does it matter that we're winning?  I recall a tape made by one Osama Bin Laden from December 2001, where he talks about America as a paper tiger after eight years of Clinton 41.  And that is just because we didn't engage when threatened several times over those eight years.  We all remember the result.  We will never forget the result.  Imagine how much more of a paper tiger we would seem to Jihadists if, after all this time, all this blood and all this treasure, we ran away when we weren't losing, just because our leaders didn't have the stomach to finish the job.  They would try something worse than 9/11.  Something that might even succeed if the Obama Billary people manage to weaken FISA and the Patriot act and other acts and agencies that have kept us safe for almost seven years.  This would not happen with McCain.  Ok, there is still the torture issue, but that is understandable.  McCain is still no democrat.

On immigration, McCain has said we would do enforcement first.  I hope someone asks him if that means that we'll get our damn fence.  I hope he gives the right answer.  I hope he means it.  Certainly his position is better than Obama Billary's.  Not giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.  If he asks me, I'll tell him what to do.  I also hope he appoints people who can give him good advice.  After all, McCain is no democrat.

On the Tax Cuts, we understand why he did it.  He believes in the integrity of the budget.  But we're at war.  He knows that.  He wants to keep non-defense spending under control.  Does anyone reading this disagree with that?  He needs to have Romney or Rudy explain to him about taxes and a vibrant  economy.  And he'll listen because McCain is no democrat.

On campaign finance reform, I don't have a response.  I hope he's seen the error of his ways, but is too stubborn to admit it.  Certainly after one campaign running against Obama Billary and their 527's, he will come to appreciate what a mess he made.  Certainly then, he'll be no democrat.

On judges, he has said and I believe that he will pick Roberts's and Alitos.  I prefer Scalias's, but that is just me.  His problem with judges was over procedures, not over the kind of judges we will need.  In that case, it may be good to keep him out of the senate.  He is no democrat.

On environment, I am hopeful that an educated McCain will not blunder.  The need for energy independence and his understanding of national security would compel a change on his ANWR stance.  The enlightenment he needs to get about business and the economy would make him renounce his McCain-Lieberman farce.  I am hopeful because I know he is no democrat.

This is not an impassioned defense.  In my refrain, I am not taking my cue from Mark Antony.  I am not being ironic.  I wish I could make a better case.  I know Romney (or Rudy) would be better.  I am a month behind in listing to talk radio podcasts, and so I am hearing about a wistful time when Romney was still in it. But, McCain has won according to the rules, as George Will reminds us.  I know there are still problems with McCain that I don't have answers for.  But we are stuck with him.

Right now we have a choice of three and soon we will have a choice of two.  One will have and R after his name and he will win the war, cut spending, and appoint good judges.  The other will have a D after his/her/his name and will appoint activist judges, raise taxes, increase spending and lose the war.  The person with a D after his/her/his name may get us killed.

That is the choice we have.  We can't make a deal.  Door number one, door number two, or door number three.  Which ever you choose, it is vital that McCain is on the other side.