John McCain served his country beyond honorably.  There’s no debate.  He’s clearly a real live true American hero.  As often stated here, America owes John McCain big time.  But he’s still got to earn the presidency.

And if you’re running for president, you owe America more than someone who makes Americans yearn for the days of Dan Quayle.

The simple fact is that in naming Sarah Palin as his running mate, Senator McCain put his personal ambition above what’s best for America.  So much for “Country First”, but Sarah Palin has certainly served him well so far.  She’s been a home run for McCain as Palin has the GOP’s core all fired up and seems to have brought on board many more undecided women than I would have ever thought possible. 

The first question, is will she continue to serve McCain well?

The second question is can she serve America well?  Is she ready to be president? 

The simple answer to both questions is no.  She’s just not ready for prime time.  If she can’t convince Americans that she’s ready to be our commander in chief, I bet you’ll see the enthusiasm among swing voters die down.  And as much as she’s energized the GOP base, I believe the scare she’s thrown into the Democratic leaning independents will have them rallying back to Obama and bringing there friends and family.

Either way, it’s going to be a very tight race.  And now onto the proof of Palin’s not being up to the job!

Click on the video below to see ABC’s Charlie Gibson talk foreign policy with Sarah Palin. 

The highlights for me are: 

“The Bush Doctrine” – 8 seconds “In what respect?”, 15 seconds “his world view”- She doesn’t know what it is & clearly stalls for time like some college student who crammed for the final after skipping class for the whole semester.  Ask yourself if Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge or even Mitt Romney would have been able to answer this question.

“Our Right to invade” at 1 min, 19 secs – could just be a verbal gaffe but she talks about American forces invading Pakistan.  My perception is she’s just not too clear on what we are doing on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and she’s trying hard not to misspeak.

“Right to invade” part two – whether a gaffe or not, notice that she simply won’t answer the question.  Again, my perception is she clearly isn’t up to speed

Gibson rude at 2 min, 7 sec – He simply didn’t have to go to the “I’m getting lost in a blizzard of words” thing when he was calling her on not answering the question about American forces crossing into Pakistan.  Clearly he’s being rude or flippant at best.  However, as much as GOP types squawk about the treatment, it won’t change the fact that they set her up for this by nominating her for a job over her head.

Remember that as much as she gave a great performance at the GOP Convention, she didn’t actually write the speech.  It wasn’t something she created.  I was a speech that had been written way in advance for a presumed male VP nominee.  Palin did a good job delivering it no doubt, but nothing more.  People in general and press coverage too seem to give her credit for so much more than a good acting job before a home town crowd.

Let’s see how Palin stands up to real scrutiny. 

So far, she struck out in her first real time at bat.

PS – for more of the Charlie Gibson interiew go here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5783816

Today’s BFD… Mitt Romney endorses John McCain.  Wow!  I’m shocked. 

You mean after all that bad blood, Romney is going to turn around and say that John McCain is the best guy to lead our country after all?  Romney changing positions, that’s new…

But really what choice was Mitt Romney left with?  Was he really going to bet his political future on “Miracle” Mike Huckabee?  Don’t think so.

Romney is a flipper but an endorsement of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama seems a stretch even for him.

Everyone loves a winner and of course, so does Romney.  It’s his best shot of staying relavant.

So, it’s no surprise that Romney has endorsed McCain.  But, what exact value does the Romney endorsement bring to the McCain camp?

Hmmm…  Guess we’ll put Utah in the McCain camp. 

Other than that, with a campaign that sqaundered away tens of millions only to find a complete lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy, I don’t see how a Mitt Romney stamp of approval is going to help McCain.

Watch the above clip and just think what might have been.  Four years of extreme awkwardness.

Nothing like quoting an 8 year old song to show the kids you’re still “down with it” on Martin Luther King Day.

Mitt Romney went out of the 2008 Presidential Campaign the same way he got into it, lying.  Here’s what he said:

“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. I hate to lose,”

“If this were only about me, I’d go on. But it’s never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country.”

Let’s analyze:

Big Lie #1 – anytime a politician claims it’s not about them, they are lying.  Romney wouldn’t be human if a big chunk of his desire to be president didn’t have a lot to do with his own ego.

Big Lie #2 – he’s getting out of the campaign as a sacrifice during a time of war.  Let’s be honest.  He’s getting out cause he blew about 40 million of his own fortune and realized he wasn’t getting the job he was chasing.  I would respect him more if he simply said “I’m getting out because my wife is uncomfortable with me spending any more of our money on a now clearly futile campaign for the White House”

Biggest Lie of All- Hillary or Barack will be “surrendering to terror”.  I’m sure that’s at the top of each of their first day TO DO LISTS.    The American people wouldn’t stand for it.  Romney knows this, yet he tied his getting out to making sure America would be safer by increasing the chances of a Republican controlling the White House and continuing to wage the war against terror.  Does he really believe that if Clinton or Obama becomes President that we’ll stop our efforts against Al Qaeda?  Not likely.  But as we’ve seen with Romney, he’s not one to let a little truth get in the way of a good story.

Let’s go back in history and ponder “what if Al Gore had been in the White House on 9/11″.  Here’s what I think would have happened for all of you wondering how a Democrat would have responded.  Our response would have been exactly the same. 

We would have demanded Bin Laden.  Given a timetable and then attacked the Taliban when they declined to turn him over.  In fact, I think the Bush Administration should get high marks for restraint and an appropriate and timely use of force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. 

(PS – I’m sure the paragraph above is going to manage to tick off both Republicans and Democrats.  Deal with it.)

Where the Bush Administration faltered, and where Gore might not have, is they simply lost track of the plot.  Bin Laden went from “wanted dead or alive” to not being important enough anymore for us to worry about whether we’d captured him yet.  Bush couldn’t help himself from getting us involved in Iraq.  Now John McCain says we may be there a 100 years.  And still Bin Laden roams free.  Where’s the outrage over that?

If we hadn’t attacked Iraq, perhaps we’d have caught Bin Laden by now.  Perhaps we’d be safer.  We’ll never know. 

But the bottom line is that it’s a myth that Republicans are automatically better than Democrats on nationally security.  It really comes down to the judgement of a particular administration.  In Bush’s case, they blew it with Iraq.  Not because he was a Republican, but because George Bush has little intellectual curiosity and lacks judgement tempered by that and a knowledge of history.

On the other hand, he is by all accounts a great guy to grab a beer with.  Happily, now Romney has lots of time to join him. 

But please, make sure to buy the next round for Mitt.  He’s a bit tapped out right now.

PPS – I believe Mormons aren’t supposed to drink alcohol.  Didn’t mean literally that Romney should begin drinking.  I’m all about respecting people’s religious choices.

With upwards of 40 million dollars of his own cash sunk into his campaign, Mitt Romney dropped out of the Presidential Race today.  Inside, he must be wondering if it had been a wise investment. 

For 40 million, you think he would have bought California or at least New Jersey.  Instead he ended up winning the two states he and his father had governed, Utah a gimme state for a Morman candidate and a handful of other states, most of which have higher animal than human populations.  For someone touting his business credentials, he’s a little fuzzy on the concept of return on investment (bang for the buck to you and me).

Which brings me to the question of how candidates like Romney get taken seriously in the first place.  It goes to the American character.  We admire the rich.  We somehow think that they must be smarter than the rest of us.  We believe that if someone’s made a fortune then they must be competent at all things. We ignore all the jobs Romney lost while running companies into the ground.  We only see the money he was able to get away with for himself.  Furthermore, we ignore the basic truth than excelling in business and excelling as a government leader are two different skill sets.

As for me, if I have any bias, I must admit I am completely turned off by self-financed candidates.  I think it has to do with my upbringing.  In our family, we had more of a European point of view.  Namely, unless we were one of them, we did not trust the rich.  We viewed the rich in many instances as simply more lucky than us or better connected.  The evidence told us we were right.

When you think of the long history of Europe it makes a lot of sense.  In old Europe, your lot in life was often determined way before you’d ever been conceived.  You either had a silver spoon or you didn’t.  And if you were born to wealth, you seemed destined to only get more richer in your lifetime.  Sadly, America is becoming more like old Europe.  John Edwards will explain…

My family understood that the rich have it plenty good in America.  Despite the easy target of social entitlements for the poor or middle class, we knew not the fall for that old diversion.  While everyone’s up in arms about spending money to insure poor kids, the truth is America does much more for its rich than its poor. 

America is a great place to be rich.  America should be business friendly.  We must continue to make it a country where people have the ability to rise and fall based on their own abilities. This is after all what brought my family to this great nation. But, as with anything, there’s a limit.  We need to work on closing the ever widening gap between the rich and poor in this country.

Maybe when that’s done, I’ll believe a sob story from a guy wiping away his tears with 100 dollar bills.

Word came out that action hero Wesley Snipes beat the tax cheat case against him today.  If  you’re following politics at all these days, you know it’s all the rage if you’re a Republican to have a tough guy action star endorse you.  Huckabee’s got Chuck Norris.  And McCain just grabbed Arnold’s backing.  It’s time for Romney to make a call.

Yesterday, I outlined a few folks Mitt’s campaign could consider.  I left out Snipes because of his involvement in the tax case.  Now that he’s got a clean record on the issue, here are the pros and cons for the Romney campaign to consider as decide whether or not to seek Wesley’s support:

 Wesley Snipes

Pro:Think at this point, he’s probably tougher than either Chuck Norris or California’s Governator.  That could come in handy.  Snipes could help widen Romney’s appeal.  And finally after his court case, you know Wesley must be anti-tax, anti-big government just like Romney is now.

Con:Conservatives won’t dig that he played a drag queen in “To Wong Fo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar”.  And you never know when he’s going to leave the campaign for the latest sequel to Major League.

Hmmmm…  Stallone, Chan, Van Damme, Seagal, or Snipes.  I’d hate to have to make that call. 

If nothing else, it will be a good test of Romney’s decision making skills.

Mike Huckabee started it off with Chuck Norris. Today, John McCain jumped on board with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governator of California.

If you’re a Republican presidential candidate in 2008, an endorsement from a celebrity tough guy is a must have.

You know Mitt Romney, currently running second to McCain and with no tough guy endorsement, has to have staff scouring ’80s action films and TV series.  Given that I spent a lot of the ’80s (OK, who’s kidding, a lot of my life) watching bad TV and film, who better than me to lend the beleaguered Romney campaign a little free advice?

Here’s one man’s short list of action stars that Romney could draft to support him along with some pros and cons for each:

Sly Stallone

Pros: Plays not one but two iconic figures, Rocky & Rambo, both of which start with the letter “R” as in Romney or “Reagan” who “R”epublicans worship.  Also, both of his characters are underdogs who win in all at the end, which would dovetail nicely with a Romney comeback.

Cons: Rambo couldn’t take the top box office spot this past weekend, coming in second to Meet The Spartans.  Could Stallone’s appeal be slipping?  Then, there’s the baggage of his recent admission of human growth hormone usage.  Why would Romney risk getting caught up in that mess?

Steven Seagal

Pros: Still has wide appeal with straight to DVD audience.  Speaking of wide, has put on some pounds and would be slimming next to Romney.

Cons: There’s the hair.  There’s his ambition to make music.  And simply doesn’t have the name recognition of a Stallone.

 Jackie Chan

Pros: Known world around.  Does his own stunts.

Cons: There’s the language issue.  And he’s not an American citizen, which could backfire on Romney given his stance on immigration.

Jean-Claude Van Damme

Pros: I see the bumper sticker already.  Dammit all, I like Romney!

Cons: Another non-U.S. citizen.  In fact, he’s from Belgium, which most Americans don’t believe exists and would find confusing. In addition, he’s been married like 30 times, which would be awkward for Romney’s family values platform.

If none of the above work, don’t panic.  Romney could always set his sights on A-Lister Bruce Willis or go real old school with pistol packing Chuck Heston.  That’s old testament conservative, baby!

This election already ranks as  the most interesting in my four decades on the planet and it’s not close to over yet.  It’s truly exciting to think about how many firsts we’ve seen so far.

The big headline of course is of what may be.  2008 may give America our first female or first African American President.  I keep hearing from people  (among them women and African Americans) that Americans are not ready to vote either a woman or an African American into the White House. 

Hear it here and here it clear.  America’s ready.  I think the turn out on the Democratic side proves it.  Those people in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina among other places, weren’t coming out for Republicans in that same way.  And they certainly weren’t coming out to vote for John Edwards.  They were coming out for Clinton and Obama.  We are a nation ready for change and hoping it’s going to happen.  The only question is whether Clinton and Obama are respectively the right woman and African American.

Though we are a nation looking for new direction, that does not guarantee a Democrat is going to get into the White House.  On the Republican side, while the possibility of the first Italian American President is temporarily gone, John McCain may yet prove to be the first candidate to rise from the dead to claim the title of Commander In Chief.  Of course, if McCain fails, we may get our first ever Morman President.  Governor Romney may also prove to be the first presidential candidate to at one point have supported every position possible on every issue.  Let’s just say he keeps all his basis covered.

Taking another second on the conservative side of things, another first is that no matter who leads the Republicans, it will be the first time in decades that the Republican candidate has questionable conservative credentials.  McCain is many Democrats favorite Republican for his stands on immigration, ethics reform and general willingness to break ranks with his own party.  Romney, despite his current protests, wasn’t particularly conservative while serving as governor.  And though he’s in need of a miracle, it’s worth noting that Huckabee too has been accused of liberal views. 

When you add it up, it looks like conservatism may be fracturing making it a tough year to be Rush Limbaugh.  Even if his side wins, he loses.  Then again, on some level, I guess that every year is a tough year to be Rush Limbaugh.

If you watched the Republican Debate the other night, then you know who’s the Democrat most loved by Romney, McCain & friends.  It’s our former First Lady and current Senator from the great state of New York, Hillary Clinton.

Frankly, I’ve seen this coming for a long time.  Clinton is a smart woman who might make a terrific president.  I just don’t like her chances for getting there. 

First, she is a very polarizing figure.  A lot of people really hate her and equate her with all that’s wrong with politics and politicians in this country.  I don’t feel that way but I can’t deny that sentiment is out there.

And second, she comes with a ton of baggage.  Baggage, which makes prospective opponents on the Republican side wake up with joy (if not an actual erection) each morning at the thought of running a campaign against her.

You know the minute (who am I kidding, it’s already started) she clinches the nomination, Republicans are going to the skeleton closet to drag out Vince Foster, Travel Gate, White Water (my favorite waste of time and massive money) and of course Monica Lewinsky.  It’s going to be like buying a Republican Greatest Hits CD.  All their old favorites are going to be on it.  Let’s just say Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their brethren are counting down the seconds.

And the question is how is any of this going to move the country forward?

This blog was not approved by Hillary Clinton.

Bonus pic of scary right wing talk radio hosts:

Call him the new comeback kid.  McCain wins New Hampshire for the second time and completes his comeback to front-runner status.  What an amazing ride for the Senator.  His campaign was left for dead this summer and now thanks to the Granite State, he’s out in front of the pack despite being outspent something like two to one by rival Mitt Romney.

Given that independents can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary, I wonder if McCain’s big win at all affected the votes that came Barrack Obama’s way.

With Huckabee winning Iowa, McCain taking New Hampshire, Romney loaded with money and Giuliani still pinning his hopes on Florida, this contest (like the Democrat’s) won’t be over for a while.   Is Fred Thompson just napping or is he still in the race?