[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]
If you’re among those Republican voters still agonizing over the choice between Mitt Romney and John McCain, the Los Angeles Times has just made your decision much, much easier. This afternoon the Times came out with its endorsement for McCain, making Romney the clear choice. (They endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.)
And if you’re among those stubbornly clinging to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul fantasies, remember it was the Ross Perot voters who held the door open for Bill Clinton in 1992.
[Guest post by DRJ]
Recently, Patterico asked if there was any reason other than judges for a conservative like him to vote for McCain over Clinton. I’m not a McCain fan but I think Timothy Carney of the DC Examiner (via the Instapundit) has found one:
“Earmarks, and their use of tools of corruption, could play a large role in the 2008 presidential contest if the current front-runners succeed in grabbing their respective parties’ nominations. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a leading opponent of pork and one of the only lawmakers to forswear earmarks, while Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is Congress’ leading porker.
Clinton’s earmarking is not merely offensive to procedural purists who demand spending go through standard channels. It also is not merely a transgression against fiscal conservatism. Clinton’s earmarks often directly benefit specific corporations and businessmen, who, in turn, make large contributions to her campaign. This “pay-to-play” earmarking, as one left-leaning budget watchdog group put it, highlights the truly dirty side of earmarks.”
Last November, Karl Rove identified corruption, not Iraq, as the central theme of the 2008 elections. If this election becomes a choice between a not-very-conservative McCain and a corruption-prone Hillary, that makes voting for McCain in the general election a little easier for me.
I’m still undecided how to vote in the GOP primary, although like Patterico I would pick Mitt Romney over John McCain.
There’s an old lawyer joke that goes something like this:
Q. What’s the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?
A. One’s a scum-sucking bottom-feeder . . . and the other one’s a fish.
I have a related joke for you.
Q. What’s the difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain?
A. One has a grating, disagreeable personality; has a history of financial scandal; has spoken of setting benchmarks for withdrawal from Iraq; has said the Bush tax cuts benefitted the wealthy at the expense of the middle class; has derided Sam Alito as too openly conservative; has supported amnesty for illegal immigrants (and then lied about it); has said that we shouldn’t drill in ANWR because it’s “pristine”; has misrepresented the positions of Republican candidates; wants to close Guantanamo; has spoken of sending “greedy people on Wall Street” to jail for their roles in giving subprime loans; has been endorsed by the New York Times; supports blatantly unconstitutional limits on free speech; and is hated by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin . . .
. . . and the other one’s a Democrat.
It’s not too late, Republicans. This is why I am supporting Mitt Romney for President. I even have an inspiring slogan; see what you think of it:
Mitt Romney: He’s not John McCain!
The Romney campaign can have that for free.
It’s now one entire month since I told the L.A. Times about an error made by an op-ed contributor, who claimed that George W. Bush had “[e]rroneously said Nelson Mandela was dead.”
One month. I wrote the Readers’ Representative on New Year’s Day.