Echoes in Eternity

Without further delay, here is Romney's concession speech at CPAC today. We will see you at the next election, Mitt.

(HT: Joe K.)

To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century-still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable. Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. "First," he said, "I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world." The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America!

And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.

Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations. I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he's a liberal--I guess that's redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history. After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this:
If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity-opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don't have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves-a "Purpose Driven Life." And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation's strength and they always will be!

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960's welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven't given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug-we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography-even celebration of it-and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today's grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school-and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America's vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.
...
Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign." You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today... we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.
...
If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters... many of you right here in this room... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!!

It is the common task of each generation-and the burden of liberty-to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

To this task... accepting this burden... we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the earth.

Thank you, and God bless America.

Now that Romney has "suspended" his campaign after Tuesday's poor showing (except in Minnesota, where he Romped), and Huckabee's Southern-only popularity, John McCain has become the de facto Republican nominee. One might rightly ask how it came to this point? How did the man who, over the last two decades, single-handedly undercut conservative principle after conservative principle (in doing so, ceded the debate to liberals) come to be the Republican nominee? Unfortunately, I think party pragmatism won out. As Ann Coulter said today in her column, "nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party." And "as the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat." So what are principled pro-life conservatives supposed to do (besides hope that Ronald Reagan rises from the grave and runs as an independent)? Well, I'll tell ya. One, prepare for the political wasteland. Two, either stay home or, as Coulter makes the case, vote for the Democratic candidate.

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.

Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the voters of Arizona, in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos. He opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he frets that if Roe v. Wade were overruled, women's lives would be "endangered." This is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for "flip-flopping" on abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there.

I should point out here that McCain was endorsed yesterday by Republicans for Choice (as it refers to abortion, not paper or plastic OR salad dressings).

Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme Court. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn't matter how many hearts and minds we've changed. So it's not insignificant that McCain has called Justice Samuel Alito too conservative.

We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president was actually looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the "Republican" president isn't even trying.

McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint "strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he's picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold.

That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?

In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying, it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." Really? Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old institution -- marriage, that is, not John McCain -- is part of the core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no idea.

I'm not a lawyer -- oh wait, yes, I am -- but Republicans were proposing to amend the Constitution, a process the Constitution specifically describes.

It's like saying it's antithetical to the core philosophy of Republicans to require presidents to be at least 35 years old. It's in the Constitution! And Republicans -- other than the ones who voted for McCain-Feingold -- support the Constitution. You might say it's part of our core philosophy.

Of course, back in 2004, McCain was considering running on a presidential ticket with John Kerry. Realizing that this would not help his chances to run as a Republican in 2008, when he would be a mere 120 years old, McCain quickly withdrew his interest in being on Kerry's ticket.

But he defended Kerry from the Bush campaign's suggestion that Kerry was not tip-top on national security, saying on the "Today" show: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense." So that was helpful.

McCain also explained to an admiring press corps why he wouldn't want to be anyone's vice president, not even a national defense champion like Kerry, citing the meager constitutional duties of the vice president as: (1) to assume the presidency if the president is incapacitated and (2) "to break a tie vote in the Senate." (At which point several members of the fawning horde were heard to remark, "What is this 'Constitution' you speak of, Senator?")

But McCain conveniently forgot the second of these constitutional duties just a year later when Vice President Cheney was required "to break a tie vote in the Senate" on a matter of utmost importance to liberals: federal judges.

Just one year after McCain had correctly identified one of two jobs of the vice president, he was indignant that a Republican vice president might actually exercise one of them. Better to let a gaggle of 14 Senate malcontents pick the president's judges for him.

As part of the "Gang of 14," McCain hysterically opposed allowing the vice president to break a tie on judicial nominations. Following the Constitution with regard to the role of the vice president, McCain said, "would be a terrible precedent." Yes, if members of Congress actually read the Constitution, they might realize McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There's your choice, America.

Well, a lot has changed since I wrote the first of this three-part series. Huckabee is still in the race, but for what reason, no one knows. Supposedly, he's trying to get a VP nod from McCain, but that's ludicrous, since Minnesota Governor Pawlenty has that spot wrapped up with his non-stop campaigning for McCain. Right now, Huck is merely a spoiler, giving the election to McCain. But then again, who isn't giving the election to McCain? Well, besides Republican voters, that is. The media has all but crowned the 72-year-old J-Mac as the party nominee based on a mere handful of state primaries. Never mind that a bunch of those states had Democrats and Independents voting in the Republican primaries. For example, in Florida, Romney beat McCain among REPUBLICANS. Yet he lost the primary because of the independent votes. Meanwhile, a New York paper tried to claim that Romney has a chance of losing his own state of Massachusetts, altogether ignoring the polls that put him up by 20-30 percentage points over McCain.

How did we get to a point where the likely November matchup is Hillary versus McCain? After all the talk of getting rid of the establishment and going for fresh voices and faces, how is it that we end up with the epitome of the establishment; a first lady - who, if elected, will make the Bush-Clinton reign last for a total of 28 straight years - against a career senator who's been in office since I was three. Plus, as Chuck Norris once said, if the elderly McCain (4 years older than Reagan when Ronny won) wins, it is quite possible that the VP will serve out the end of McCain's term. [I guess the silver lining is the VP will be Pawlenty, and I wouldn't mind a President Pawlenty.]

As Mark Steyn said in his "A McClinton Consensus" column this past Sunday,

President McCain? Or Queen Hillary? Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq war that it's a shame they both can't lose. Conservatives have a slightly different problem: It's a shame that neither of them will lose — that, regardless of who takes the oath come January '09, the harmonious McCain-Clinton consensus policies on illegal immigration and Big Government solutions to global warming will prevail. Where's Neither-Of-The-Above when you need him?

All this begs the question, who would Darius prefer to see in November? Well, I'm glad you asked. The strikes against McCain are myriad, but in case it isn't obvious why he is such a deplorable candidate, here are a few problems with him. One, McCain-Feingold. Two, McCain-Kennedy. Both are utter pieces of legislative trash; the first a campaign "reform" bill that is so unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has been stripping it piece-by-piece, the latter an immigration bill that, besides having Ted Kennedy's name on it, was so anti-rule of law, it was laughed out of the building by all true conservatives. Furthermore, he graded an F on the Second Amendment, his voting record recently has put him in the "most liberal" category of Republican senators, and on abortion, he said that "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade." He also said that he thinks Alito is TOO conservative. In other words, he values being a moderate and being liked more than being right. Plus, he lies about Romney all day long and then has the gall to claim that Romney is the dirty campaigner.

Now, on the other side of the aisle, I actually would prefer Clinton to win the nomination, since I believe she is relatively easy to defeat in the general election. However, I will not, as Ann Coulter half-seriously suggested she will do, campaign for Hillary if McCain wins today. But why not just leave McCain on the side of the political road right now, Super Tuesday? Why can't conservatives rally behind the man who has been endorsed by the MAJORITY of Christian leaders? Christians such as Rick Santorum (while he was a senator, he led the fight for social conservatism, and his "yes" was always yes), Dr. James Dobson, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Sowell, and Bob Jones (who would have ever thought that possible?) have all endorsed Willard "Mitt" Romney as their candidate.

Now for those who aren't convinced Romney's conversion to conservatism isn't legit... neither am I. However, as Coulter pointed out recently,

Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.

In a way, she's right, winning on conservative values is IMPOSSIBLE in Massachusetts. So Romney did what he had to do to get into power, then turned on the liberals.

After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

Plus, as a political analyst said the other day, Romney has painted himself into such a political corner that he could not switch back to moderate liberalism without completely ruining his political career. As I heard Santorum say on the radio last week, Romney had an authentic conversion on the issue of life. Most of his other supposedly "liberal" positions were much more moderate than Massachusetts was accustomed to in the past. I don't think it is fair to punish a political candidate for "seeing the light" when we wouldn't do that in our own private lives. We would welcome them with open arms. Why are Christians not so gracious with political "conversions?"

And when you hear Romney speak, he says mostly the right things, something you can't fake as long as he's been in the race. Eventually, a man's true convictions come to the top. Yet, Mitt's been spot on (except for a couple issues regarding government's role in health care and people's lives). His speech on the role of religion in public life was very powerful and, as Dr. Dobson referred to it, "magnificent." He is a man who lives his religious convictions, having been married to the same woman, his high school sweetheart, for 38 years, joining her in wedlock shortly after returning from a 2 1/2 year mission trip to France.

So, tonight, as the Minnesota Caucus gathers, I plan to vote for Mitt Romney. Those Huckabee supporters out there... consider carefully that your vote is in essence a vote for McCain.