Medved on Limbaugh, Hannity vs. McCain, Coburn

Michael Medved asks what is evidence of true conservative leadership_? :

Who gets to define which candidate counts as a “real conservative”?

Should we listen to talk radio titans and sharp-tongued pundettes who’ve never held public office?

Or does it make more sense to listen to idealistic elected officials who toil every day to put conservative principles into practice? . . .

When it comes to evaluating McCain, I don’t expect Republicans to trust me – any more than they should trust my fellow talk hosts and commentators. But they should listen carefully to heroes like Tom Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma who’s universally esteemed as one of the strongest conservative voices in Washington. Coburn has earned a lifetime rating of 97.8 from the American Conservative Union (McCain himself drew an admirable lifetime number of 83—virtually identical to Fred Thompson’s 86.) And earlier this week the Oklahoman endorsed his Arizona colleague for President.
. . .
The truth is that some of the most outstanding conservatives in recent Senate history have come together with Senator Coburn to campaign for McCain – including Phil Gramm of Texas (co-chair of the national McCain campaign), John Kyl of Arizona, John Thune of South Dakota, Dan Coats of Indiana, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Slade Gorton of Washington, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and a dozen others.

Several of the most dynamic Republican and conservative governors of our time are working actively in the McCain campaign – including Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Jon Huntsman of Utah, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Frank Keating of Oklahoma, Tom Kean of New Jersey, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and more.

In other words, conservatives who know him best attest to McCain’s consistency, his character, and his Reaganite world-view. Those associates, enthusiastically promoting McCain’s candidacy, count for more than strident and angry talkers who know McCain not at all.

Most impressive to me is the way that even Senators who’ve disagreed with McCain can attest to his integrity and effectiveness in their battles.

Senator Coburn, for instance, did not support the comprehensive immigration reform bill so passionately promoted by Senator McCain and by President Bush. Nevertheless, after the push for reform collapsed in the Senate, Coburn wrote an admiring blog on National Review Online about McCain’s role.

“As the American people, elected officials, and the commentators reflect on the heated immigration debate that came to a temporary close in the Senate this week, many will ask, and have asked, why U.S. Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) staked out a position that may in retrospect be seen as devastating to his presidential ambitions. I hope the American people, at least, step back from the obsessive play-by-play pre-season election analysis and reflect on Senator McCain’s actions for what I believe they were: One of the purest examples of political courage seen in Washington in a very, very long time.”

Read the whole thing.

Sen. Coburn gives some straight talk on politics.

First of all, you've got to respect any U.S. Senator in this day and age who's not afraid to grow a beard.



"The truth is what counts."
What will your vote count for this November?

Romney Wins by Campaigning Against Economic Liberty

By now you may have heard some of Romney's . . . devastating economic record as Governor of Massachusetts.

But in his race for the GOP nomination, he's putting his big government - big mandate - "taxachusetts" record behind him, right?

Maybe not.

Ross Douthat points out the economic fascism (big government + big industry) aspects of Romney's campaign promises to fix the economy. Romney's rhetoric

appeals to voters in places like Michigan precisely because it goes much further to the left than Mike Huckabee's substance-free talk about how the current period of economic growth isn't doing all that well by the working class, or John McCain's straight talk about how Michiganders can't expect the federal government to bring back the glory days of Chrysler and GM.

Cato's Jerry Taylor asks

What does it say about the Republican Party when the leading fusionist conservative in the field - Mitt Romney, darling of National Review and erstwhile heir to Ronald Reagan - runs and wins a campaign arguing that the federal government is responsible for all of the ills facing the U.S. auto industry, that the taxpayer should pony up the corporate welfare checks going to Detroit and increase them by a factor of five, that the federal government can and should move heaven and earth to save “every job” at risk in this economy . . . ?

Publius Endures points out not only that Romney has no appeal to libertarians, but also that Romney lost to McCain among voters who were the most unsatified with the current economy (as, I recently noted, he did in New Hampshire).

Let me just admit, for myself, I can't figure out exactly why so many people are voting for this guy.

If all you want is tax cuts* without restraint in spending, maybe Romney is fine (*so long as you don't mind "fees"). If you want to blame your woes on immigration, Romney's your man. If you like the idea of government and industry coming together to spend more of your money and increase the deficit while hurting trade, Romney's right up your alley.

But if you value economic freedom, an end to favors for monied interests, and frugality in government, vote McCain.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Just ask the Senate's"Dr. No"