History has taught us that when John Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off in their presidential debate, Nixon actually won the debate but Kennedy looked better.   Seemed JFK understood the power of TV and looking good on camera and dispatched his team to get some Max Factor pancake make-up.  While he didn't beat Nixon in terms of substance, he sure looked like a movie star.

So what's up with Barack Obama's make-up Friday night?

I just did a Google search to see if anyone is writing about the odd, decidedly darker skin tone that Sen. Obama seemed to possess Friday night.  Naturally, I found nothing.  After all, in a presidential race that is tinged with race, heaven forbid anyone should make an observation about the skin tone of the black candidate.

But it would be an honest observation.  Sen. Obama  had a skin color that looked, well, weird.   It was an odd combination of a darker tone and even an orange-ish tint that made him look peculiar.

I'm no conspiracy theorist.  But in an era with top-notch advisors and expert technology, could a good make-up artist be that hard for Sen. Obama to find?

Or was that by design?

I have never been prouder of John McCain.

This economic crisis puts the leadership qualities of both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama on full display for all the world to see.

John McCain made a decision to do his job.  After all, like Obama, he is a sitting U.S. Senator.    McCain announced that he's suspending his campaign, heading to Washington and doing everything he can to help get this economic calamity fixed.

Sen. Obama wants to put on the make-up and and smile pretty for the TV cameras in Oxford, Mississippi, site of tomorrow night's scheduled debate.

What a dramatic difference between these two men.   John McCain is a natural leader, Barack Obama is a wanna-be.

Obama isn't even exactly sure when the next president's duties begin.  Last night, he referenced the fact that the next commander-in-chief will be "making decisions" in "about 40 days."

Someone needs to get him a copy of the Constitution.   News flash, Sen. Obama:  the next president doesn't go to work until January.

But in any event, it is gratifying to see John McCain shine like this.   God forbid he backs down and winds up at the debate Friday night.   That would be a disaster.

Let Obama continue to play politics, fiddling while Wall Street burns.  The American people are getting a rare look at the stark contrast between these two men.

Bravo, Sen. McCain.   You have trumped your opponent simply by insisting on putting America first and doing the job you were elected to do.

That's what a leader does.

She did it. Gov. Palin did everything she needed to do tonight from the podium of the Xcel Center here in St. Paul.

I am feeling very smug today.   It turns out that I may be one of the brilliant manipulators of Democrats on the airwaves today.

Rush Limbaugh, one of my heroes, started a movement called, "Operation Chaos."   The concept is to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primaries in order to keep the Democrats in total tatters and chaos as they fail to settle on one candidate or the other.

Yesterday, Hillary clobbered Obama in the Keystone State.   Operation Chaos is working like a finely-tuned machine.

And as a proud foot soldier in the Operation Chaos movement, I played a significant role yesterday.

You may recall that I predicted an Obama victory yesterday in Pennsylvania.  Naturally, I didn't believe he would win.  But I wanted to trick Democrats in Pennsylvania into thinking that I did.  I wanted to send them into the voting booths and vote for Hillary just to prove me wrong.

In proving me wrong, I was right.  It worked.  Now, Hillary stays in the fight, maybe long enough to make it all the way to the convention and possibly twist the arms of super-delegates into picking her over Obama.  If that happens, you'll see the Democrat Party go up in smoke like a giant mushroom cloud.

I'm proud of the role I played in Operation Chaos. 

Thanks, Rush.

Ok, I've got a pretty decenty track record in predicting primary victories.   While many were expecting Sen. Barack Obama to beat Sen. Clinton in Texas, I boldly (well, maybe not boldly) predicted Clinton would win, largely due to the "chaos" factor (Republicans crossing over and voting for Hillary in order to keep the Democrat Party in "chaos".   

I was right.

And so with that cocky attitude, I will now predict that Obama is going to surprise everyone and win in Pennsylvania today.

Even though the polls are predicting a fairly close Hillary victory, Keystone State voters are a peculiar bunch.  Obama is riding an unbelievable tidal wave of momentum and I just do not believe Hillary can stop him.  Many pundits/pollsters are now pretty openly referring to her in the political past tense.   A popular YouTube video is making the rounds affirming that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to obtain enough delegates to get the nomination.  And Democrats are realizing that if they are to have any chance of winning the White House, the "chaos" has to stop.

Make a note.  Primary Day in Pennsylvania, April 22, 2008.   7:15 in the morning.    Gallagher predicts an Obama victory.

As always, if I'm right, feel free to congratulate me tomorrow.

If I'm wrong, we will never talk about this again.

As I brilliantly predicted, Hillary took Texas -- and Ohioans decided to go for her as well.   Throw in Rhode Island and you have a big night for Madame Hillary.

We should know better than to ever count out a Clinton in a campaign.

The lesson learned from her big night is that going negative, sadly, works.   Pundits say she really "found her sea legs" and her campaign "really hit its stride" the past few weeks.   Translation:  she decided to start playing hardball.   NAFTA, the empty Obama bromides, it was all on the table for her -- and it paid off handsomely.

Let's face it, watching the Democrats in total turmoil is fun for a righty like me.  Hopefully, Republicans who continue to whine and pout and fret about McCain's candidacy will be drowned out by common-sense Republicans who realize that while Sen. McCain might not have been our first choice, now he's the only choice.  No Republican worth his or her salt really wants to turn over the keys to the White House to a radical leftist.

So the wild ride continues.

I'm really a lousy prognosticator.  In fact, my track record suggests that I should really just keep my mouth shut, analyze election results and be satisfied to leave it at that.

I'm still in shock that my Dallas Cowboys didn't even make it to the Super Bowl, especially after my confident prediction that they would beat the Patriots in Arizona.  And then, while nursing my wounds, I declared, without hesitation, that New England would stomp the New York Giants.

Yeah, I'm not much of a fortune teller.  In sports OR politics.

But I just have this strong, strong hunch about the Texas primary.  And so I'm going to break my self-imposed (meaningless) rule and make a prediction:  Hillary Clinton will win the Texas primary by a whisker.

If I'm correct, I will frequently remind you of my political prowess and election-time genius.  If I'm wrong, I'll simply forget to mention it ever again.  As I said, my error-prone predictions would fill a sizable book.

But allow me to state my reasons:  first, a phenomenon known as crossover voting is happening in the Lone Star State.  When I went to early voting in a Tarrant County, Texas polling place last week, one of the poll workers told me that the Democrats were out-voting Republicans "better than two to one."  And he said that a whole bunch of Republicans were admitting to voting for Hillary in order to try and keep her in the race.

Secondly, there is great discontent in the Hispanic community with Sen. Obama.  As one Dallas-area Latina activist clumsily put it the other day, "Barack Obama has a problem of being Black."  She went on to explain that many Hispanic voters feel that black politicians have turned their back on the Hispanic community in years past.  And they are not forgetting it.

Combine these two conditions with the fairly rocky weekend that Obama had regarding his adviser's alleged comments to a Canadian official over  NAFTA and you might just have the formula for an upset victory (and let's face it, at this point in the Obama-mania hysteria, a Clinton win WOULD be an upset, right?).

Take it to the bank, it's Hillary by a Texas nose.  Feel free to congratulate me on Wednesday if I turn out to be right.

If I'm wrong, leave me alone.  We Republicans have enough headaches right now.

Gov. Mike Huckabee's folks tell us that the withdrawal of Mitt Romney is a "blessing" for them and that they are "in it for the long haul", which will make the next few weeks quite interesting,  eh?

I can't say that I blame them.  Frankly, I appreciate reading the tea leaves and realizing that getting a ton of delegates is an almost-impossible task - but if I spent millions of my own dollars, as Gov. Romney has done, and invested a non-stop, round-the-clock effort for months and months to campaign for president, I really think I'd have to stay in it until the bitter end. 

Many will say that Gov. Romney did a noble thing in falling on the sword and doing what he feels is best for the Republican Party.  However, you didn't find much of that appreciation at the CPAC convention when he bowed out.   Shock, disappointment, sadness and even anger were the moods expressed by these terrific conservative Republicans.

I'm sure the odds are terrifically against Mike Huckabee getting the nomination -- but kudos to him for staying in the race.  No sense in packing your tent until you actually have to!

So now the new tactic from the McCain haters is to bash his actions as a prisoner of war.

Wow.  I'm starting to get overwhelmed by this anger and contempt towards the likely Republican nominee for president.  Some of the haters are sounding more and more like rabid liberal democrats every day.

A week or so ago, I embarked on a new course:  let's stop beating up any Republican and set our sights on beating Hillary or Obama.  To me, it just doesn't seem very sincere to beat the tar out of one of them -- McCain -- and then pretend that all is forgiven and support him in the general election (something just about every one of the McCain-bashing hosts and pundits will be doing, mark my words).

I'm not backing or supporting McCain, I'm backing my country.  I shouldn't have to explain to anyone what will happen to this wartime country if a Democrat wins.  Democrats are getting a great jump in the process by recording and writing down every word my fellow conservatives are using to hammer John McCain with.  And they will shove those words down our throats when we get closer to November.

I expected to get a lot of angry emails.  I guess I didn't anticipate the dozens of messages from people attacking the fact that McCain was a POW in Vietnam.  Evidently, there are people who believe that he didn't really do anything special, he just "got shot down" and survived the Hanoi Hilton by "using questionable methods."

How ugly.    I never thought any Republican would give Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell a run for their money.

Here's a crazy idea:  I believe that any of our men and women who survive the enemy while fighting for our country are heroes.

Sen. McCain might be wrong on a variety of issues.  But let's not make a difficult situation worse by attacking his distinguished military career.

As he said yesterday:  let's just calm down.

Boy, have I been getting walloped these days.  The McCain haters are angry that the "maverick" senator from Arizona is about to become the GOP nominee.

And I can't blame them.

John McCain has created all kinds of heartburn for those of us who have been appalled at his "gang of 14", his past unwillingness to want to seal the border and crack down on illegal immigration, as well as a host of other issues that don't sit well with "movement conservatives."

But last week, I came to the conclusion that it is positively pointless to attempt to sacrifice America and hand any votes over to Democrats because we don't think John McCain is conservative enough to be the next President of the United States.

A lot of my friends and colleagues are in a foul mood over John McCain's Super Tuesday success.  But what should REALLY fire them up is the possibility of a Democrat in the White House in 2009.  And I would respectfully suggest to the "I'll-never-vote-for-McCain" crowd that you are threatening to hand the November election over to the Democrats on a big, fat silver platter.

There are lots of reasons to complain about John McCain's record.   Trouble is, there's no shortage of flaws in Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee's track record, either.  If Gov. Romney is such a conservative, why did Human Events' editors name him one of the 10 biggest RINO's (Republican-in-name-only) in America just two years ago?  They say it was because of his once-stated belief that abortion should be safe and legal to every woman who wants one.  Go to their site, you can check it out yourself.

Wanna talk flaws?  How about Gov. Huckabee and illegal immigration?   Would you consider a man who once compared illegals to slaves brought here in chains from Africa a solid reflection of core conservatism?

We can play this game all day long.  We simply don't have another Ronald Reagan in the hunt.  But we DO have Republicans running for president, every one of whom is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-military individual. 

To say that John McCain is indistinguishable from Hillary or Obama is silly.  And untrue.

To promise to vote for a Democrat, or not vote at all, if we don't get the candidate we want is music to the Democrats' ears.  

And to threaten to "punish" America for nominating a GOP candidate like McCain by hoping that America elects a Democrat for president so that Democrats can take the blame is about as sophomoric as anything I've ever heard.   

If you want to throw a temper tantrum, yell at your dog or something.  Don't help Democrats try and destroy this country.

A successful war is being fought in Iraq.  Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land but the tide is turning.  Thanks to President Bush, the Supreme Court is starting to act like the majority of Americans.  Even smash Hollywood hits like "Juno" are offering a decidedly pro-life message.

While McCain/Feingold is important, isn't the sanctity of life even more so?  Isn't continuing the fight against terror crucial, too?

Swallowing some pride and supporting John McCain will be tough for many Republicans.  But like it or not, in the battle for the country, it's the right thing to do.

And I don't mind getting yelled at by some good people who call themselves conservatives.  I'll take a licking for the good of my country any time.....

Sounds like the Mormons are getting a bit testy over all these questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and how Mitt Romney's religious practices could impact his quest for the presidency.

This week, Gov. Romney was caught on a running video camera arguing with an Iowa radio host about what Mr. Romney felt was an unfair focus on his religion.

I've noticed a number of angry and agitated emails in my inbox at mikeonline.com lately from Romney supporters who seem perfectly comfortable in labeling me a religious bigot for daring to even publicly discuss whether or not Romney's Mormonism should be a factor for voters trying to decide who to elect.

One particular emailer taking me to task actually helped make my point for me. He chided me for commenting on the sacred undergarments worn by many Mormons and wanted to know if it would matter if a presidential candidate wore a yarmulke, the Jewish head covering worn by devout members of the Jewish faith.

The politically correct answer would be, "Of course not. It doesn't matter."

But of course, the reality is that it would.

Millions of Americans would wonder what kind of president an Orthodox Jew would make, at least in terms of complicated issues like the way many devout Jewish people observe the Sabbath. I once shared a stage with a wonderful colleague, Michael Medved, at a trade industry function which took place on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, Michael appears regularly at this event, which always falls on Saturdays, but addresses his fellow conventioneers by shouting to the audience as opposed to the rest of us who are amplified with microphones. His way of observing the Sabbath at this industry convention is to refuse to speak using an electronic device like a microphone.

I was so fascinated with this practice that I invited him on my radio show to explain his beliefs.

I kept thinking about the hotel where this convention takes place with it's electronic door locks on the rooms. He helpfully described how he puts tape on the door jam so his door won't lock, puts a "do not disturb" sign on the door, and hopes no one ransacks his room while he's away. All so he can go in and out of the door without sliding the card in the electronic slot.

Now I admire Michael's devotion immensely. And I was once privileged to be a guest at Michael's home for a Sabbath dinner where I was able to witness the beauty and spirituality of the Medved family's beliefs and practices.

But anyone who thinks those type of practices wouldn't be scrutinized by the electorate in determining a president is fooling themselves. And we all know it.

And there's nothing bigoted about that.

In reading Michael Medved's typical thoughtful, reasonable, and compelling article today at Townhall.com about the ongoing dialogue regarding a Mormon in the White House, I was surprised to see him write that I had announced that I could never, in good conscience, vote for a Mormon.

Actually, I believe Michael heard me pose a hypothetical scenario during my radio show.  Heck, it might have even been my fault in the way I presented it on-air.  I remember that I was defending people who are raising the issue of Mormonism by suggesting that one should able to say, "I could never vote for a Mormon in good conscience based on the core religious beliefs that conflict with my own" and not have to be accused of being some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth bigot by Mitt Romney supporters.

But for the record, I've never said I have failed to consider ANY of the Republican candidates for president.  It's way too early and besides, I continue to struggle with the issue of the strangeness of a number of various Mormon beliefs.  But that doesn't mean I'd ever suggest that I'd never vote for Gov. Romney.

While Michael makes some convincing arguments that should make Romney supporters happy, I noticed that the pre-1978 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints opinion of Blacks was missing from his column.  Evidently, prior to 1978 the Mormons had a pretty dim view of people of color.  But in 1978, presto!  there was some kind of revelation or inspiration or some auspicious occasion where Blacks were suddenly allowed to be on an even playing field with Whites.

Again, as I understand it, this was 1978.  Not 1878.

Is it fair and reasonable to wonder if a man who is part of a religion that held such a horrible view only 29 years ago would be a good choice for the president of a country that seems to constantly be struggling with race relations?  Can we at least consider the question openly and without condemnation?

I sure hope so. 

Meantime, not that it matters much, but when I decide who to vote for in 2008, I"ll let you know.

The Republican debate last night in South Carolina seemed to prop up one of the candidates and say good-bye to another.  When Texas Congressman Ron Paul suggested that our foreign policy is the reason we were attacked on 9/11, Rudy Guiliani buried him.  In that brief exchange, the former New York mayor demonstrated what a strong, decisive, tough-as-nails guy sounds like, while poor Congressman Paul just twisted in the wind.

It was like watching a big leaguer play catch with a little leaguer.

More importantly, Guiliani's performance is a reminder that he is, indeed, a very viable GOP candidate.  Isn't it wise to consider a guy like Rudy as a wartime president?   And isn't it true that a battle-scarred, street fighter like "America's mayor" would be the perfect opponent  to Hillary?

Let's face it, most of the men up on that stage last night are nice guys.  Pleasant, affable fellows all.  With perhaps one exception.  Rudy Guiliani is a lot of things, but a touchy-feely nice guy he is not.  He's tough, edgy, to-the-point, and capable of going toe-to-toe with anyone who crosses him. 

Do you really think Hillary Clinton would best him in a debate?  Let them discuss 9/11 and her previous support of the war on terror and he'll make mincemeat out of her.

I certainly struggle with Rudy's ideology on some crucial social issues, especially abortion.  But when Rudy Guiliani says that he's willing to appoint constructionist judges, regardless of his personal views on abortion, I believe him.  Besides, we've had years of pro-life presidents and so far, Roe v. Wade doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

More and more, I'm starting to believe that if Republicans have any chance of winning the White House in 2008, we'd better put a seasoned, tough cookie up against Madame Hillary.

They don't come much tougher than Rudy.

 

 

We get so caught up in the rhetoric and passion of politics that I fear we often forget the human beings behind the headlines.

The announcement today that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has returned has made me particularly sad.  There is very little with which I agree with when it comes to  John Edwards idealogy.  But as someone who has had every single member of his immediate family shattered by cancer while I was growing up, I certainly can relate to what the Edwards family is going through. 

My radio producer wants me to devote some time on the next show I host to discuss whether John Edwards is making a mistake by continuing his campaign, now that he knows that she has cancer that has spread to the bone.  I just can't really go there right now.

Right now, I just feel like praying for her.

Politics aside, shouldn't we all do that?

 

I'm positively amazed at all the serious American conservative voices who are throwing right-wing flamethrower Ann Coulter under the bus for her schoolyard joke about political correctness and the word "faggot."

The snorts of disapproval and huffs and puffs are pouring in.  "I was not amused."  "She hurts the conservative movement."  "We should never name-call."  "She was a distraction from the serious straw poll that featured strong showings by Romney and Guiliani."   And on and on...

Why are so many conservatives afraid to fight back?

Time and time again, we're called a variety of names by liberal Democrats.  We wag our finger at them and warn them to stop calling us Nazis and liars and warmongers and the like.

So when one of our own gets under the skin of wimpy liberals, we burn her at the stake?

I hope everyone who wants to bash Ann Coulter had a chance to see her on "Hannity and Colmes" last night.   As the videotape proved, her entire speech to the CPAC crowd included a series of zingers and punchlines and potshots at the other side.  And as she said on the show, her joke was intended to be a commentary about the idiocy of sending a Hollywood actor into rehab because he used a bad word.  Besides, unless John Edwards was preparing to announce that he's coming out of the closet, the happily married man with children should have no real worries about being called something he's not.  She intended it to be the schoolyard taunt of "wuss", something said all the time.

Well, I'm not going to cave with the rest of the weenie liberals and pompous conservatives who like to eat their own.   I think Ann Coulter is gutsy and terrific.  Besides, she's a commentator, not a U.S. Senator.