Yesterday the AP wrote an article about the potential for Bob Barr to be “the Ralph Nader of 2008.”

Sure, the sum of John McCain and Bob Barr’s vote totals could end up being enough to win the presidency, despite McCain losing to Obama, but it is foolish to assume that absent Bob Barr, McCain would receive those votes.

The AP, and other commentators who spout this “Nader of 08″ garbage, fail to realize an important point: elections are not about voter preference, they are about who you are motivated enough to go to the polls and vote for.

Political parties don’t spend millions of dollars to ensure that their candidate is preferred, they spend millions to get out the vote (GOTV).  So long as we don’t have mandatory voting (and let’s hope we never do), elections are not a zero sum game… then the McCain + Barr = Obama calculus simply doesn’t add up.

Frustrated conservatives who might vote Barr are going to do so because they aren’t persuaded to give their vote to McCain (or Obama).  Voting for a candidate who you know won’t win - such as Bob Barr or Ralph Nader - isn’t something that people will do lightly, and the decision to do so says far more about McCain then it does about Barr.

If McCain loses, it will be because of his own failure to get out the conservative base.  Years of betraying conservative values and contempt for the Republican grassroots will be the reason otherwise likely Republican voters may take the step of going to the polls for Barr.

Don’t believe me, just look at the list:

• McCain-Feingold free speech restrictions
• Opposition to tax cuts and using class warfare rhetoric to oppose them
• Joining with Ted Kennedy to push for amnesty for illegals
• Joining with Joe Lieberman to impose regulations on carbon emissions that will devastate the economy

In other words if McCain does lose by a small margin, the real ”Nader of 2008″ will be McCain.

Here’s another example of the problem that comes with trusting one individual to restrain government force.

Guess who said the following:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

What sounds like George W. Bush actually comes from a statement issued today by Barack Obama, in which he explains why he voted in favor of the compromise wiretapping bill.

Obama went on to say:

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. . . It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. [Note: According to Salon, "Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this 'effort' is going to fail and is just pure political theater."]

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people.

But Senator, what happens if John McCain is elected president?  Then you’ll have voted in favor of a bill that you fully admit just further withers away our civil liberties.  Well done.

Introducing… The Department of Horse-land Security.

Jess Jackson, owner of 2007 Horse of the Year Curlin: “We need action, please. Congress, help.”

Bloodlines, steroids, the lack of an authoritative governing body, alarming figures on horse deaths and a breech of protocol by Big Brown’s trainer were all topics of discussion Thursday before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. The hearing was called after Eight Belles broke down at the Kentucky Derby last month and was euthanized on the track.

Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky noted that Congress has leverage to influence the sport because of the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978, which grants simulcasting rights that now account for much of the industry’s profits. A law could be passed, for example, that withholds simulcast money from states that don’t adhere to federally mandated guidelines.

Aren’t you glad that Congress is investigating this single horse death while largely ignoring thousands of human deaths in Iraq?

In his Evans-Novak Political Report, Robert Novak - who has the pulse of the Conservative movement - examines potential problems for McCain. Novak (and co-writer Tim Carney) see problems for McCain with libertarian and evangelical factions of the conservative movement:

1. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who garnered significant chunks of the Republican primary electorate in the late primaries, has made it clear he will not endorse McCain. Paul’s loud and enthusiastic following is small, but if they stay at home or vote third-party in tight states, they could help Obama. McCain will have trouble appealing to limited-government conservatives, but when contrasted with Obama, he could win back many of the Paul followers.
2. The key question on the libertarian side of the ledger will be the strength of former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian nominee. Barr lacks the rock-star quality of Paul, and his mixed record on foreign policy, domestic security, and gay marriage will turn off some of the libertarian purists. Will he appeal to disaffected small-government conservatives?
3. Barr sees his strongest region being the Mountain West, where Nevada and Colorado sit on the edge of the McCain-Obama battle. Barr could tip those states in Obama’s direction if he gets just 2 percent.
4. The fear of Barr swinging his home state Georgia to the Obama column is overblown. Bush won 58% in Georgia in 2004, and a higher black turnout in 2008 would be partially offset by the white Democrats who vote Republican. Also, remember that Barr lost a GOP primary to end his congressional career, so he is hardly Georgia’s favorite son.
5. On the religious conservative side, McCain is also facing difficulties. Ineptitude and insensitivity resulted in insults to two evangelical leaders, the Rev. John Hagee and Focus on the Family’s James Dobson.
6. Hagee has told friends that McCain “threw [him] under the bus,” by soliciting his endorsement, and then disowning him after news came out about a previous offensive-sounding comment about Hitler (Hagee actually has very strong ties to the Jewish community, but many groups objected angrily to the comments). McCain’s rush to disavow Hagee while Hagee was searching for a more gracious exit route shows the nominee’s clumsiness.
7. McCain also bungled an opportunity to patch things up with Dobson, who is very influential. Dobson had said last year that he could never vote for McCain, but this spring, he reached out to the nominee. Dobson wanted a meeting in Colorado Springs, but McCain demanded a meeting in Denver. No meeting ever happened.
8. There is little in McCain’s record as a senator to upset evangelicals, but little to excite them either: He opposes gay marriage, but voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment; he votes pro-life on most issues, but he is hardly vocal about it. To evangelicals, however, he doesn’t come across as “one of us.” These missteps can emphasize that problem, depressing turnout in a constituency that has been a core of GOP presidential victories starting with Ronald Reagan.
9. Add to this McCain’s un-conservative tastes, as exemplified by the two men he would most like to name as his running mate: former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.). Either of these VP nominees would destroy his conservative support, and McCain surely knows that.

How do you solve problems created by government mistakes? That’s easy… more government!

Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling: ‘We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.’

Sounds like Hinchey is auditioning for next dictator of Cuba…

UPDATE: It’s a good thing that John McCain is hitting back with conservative ideas:

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds ‘to make clean coal a reality.’

Hmm. If clean coal is such a good idea, why isn’t someone aleady making a ton of money by building those power plants? Tax, then subsidize big business: the motto of the New Right.

Over on the National Review, Mark Levin rushes to John McCain’s defense against George Will whose recent column goes after McCain for his criticism of the recent decision of the Supreme Court to allow habeas corpus rights for terror suspects being held in Guantanamo. (McCain’s response showed his blatant disregard for civil liberties and the Constitution.)

Levin’s post certainly evokes the old criticism of the National Review as being so concerned with being anti-communist, that it fails to oppose communism.  This time Levin invokes opposition to Che as a reason to defend Bush’s torture policy:

the attorneys for the enemy, led by the Center for Constitutional Rights, have made clear their motives. It is their purpose to use litigation to weaken our nation’s resolve. CCR’s president, Michael Ratner, is a William Kunstler protégé and worshipper of Che Guevara. There is plenty of public information about him and his group and their activities. Will should have encumbered his views with more facts regarding the bigger picture. This war is being fought not only overseas, but now in our courtrooms; we are winning in the former and losing in the latter.

How ironic that Levin cites Ratner’s tie to Che as a reason to oppose the Center for Constitutional Rights (which took the case to the Supreme Court) given that Che was a thug who ran Castro’s secret prisons and was the communist regime’s chief torturer.

If Levin is so appalled at Che (and he should be), then how about he opposes the Bush Administration’s remarkable imitation of Che?  After all, Guantanamo (which like Che’s prisons are located on the island of Cuba) is essentially a secret prison where the Bush Administration ordered torture.

Instead Levin equates a group that is advancing the rights of habeas corpus (a right that no Cuban living under communism enjoys), with the evils of communism and even implies that the lawyers are at war against America. What chutzpah!

I have to throw some props to radio talker and friend of the rEVOLution Jack Hunter for his great analysis of the coming election.

Democrat Bob Conley offers conservatives a real choice in November

Lindsey Graham vs. Conservatism

BY JACK HUNTER

Like most South Carolina conservatives last Wednesday morning, I shook my head in disgust over Sen. Lindsey Graham’s triumph in the Republican primary. We all knew it was going to happen, but being reminded was no less painful. It seemed as if the Palmetto State was destined to forever endure Graham, a man that Quin Hillyer, editor of The American Spectator calls the “Worst Republican Senator.”

The following Thursday morning, still bummed, I took notice of a headline in The Post & Courier that read “Dems seem to back conservative.” The article focused on the potential challengers to Graham in November in the Democratic primary, of which Bob Conley was victorious. I knew nothing about Conley and assumed he was just another standard liberal Democrat. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Keep Reading…

Disgusting: Obama Volunteers Asked Supporters in Headscarves to Move Out of Camera Shot.

Of course, if we just treated people as individuals rather collectives, we wouldn’t have this problem.

I don’t mean to criticize Obama personally, but if volunteers were doing this, does anyone believe that they weren’t told to do so by someone higher up?

This incident serves as a reminder of why government coercion is so dangerous.  Even if Obama is as great as many of his supporters think he is, it’s simply not possible for one person to prevent every possible abuse of power.  How could Obama as president stop government bureaucrats (or agencies, or entire branches of government) from abusing power any better than he could prevent discrimination in his own campaign?

Of course, from the War on Poverty to the War on Terror, such abuses are what’s been happening for administration after administration, Democrat and Republican alike.  The solution is not to find the right person to “manage” the government, but to eliminate those unconstitutional aspects of government that restrict human liberty in the first place.