Stop the presses! I hear wagon wheels accompanied by the sound of music.

Today I posted a negative McCain ad aptly entitled, McCain bad for America? Folks, he might be bad for America, but certainly not for Florida voters who rewarded McCain's overtures to their state by giving him a narrow victory over the more conservative, Mitt Romney. Call me me crazy, but I am beginning to get the impression that the GOP is becoming more liberal. And why not? Look at who's swinging the primaries for McCain. According to a number of media outlets, it was social liberals and so-called moderates who put him over the top in Florida.

"The Arizona senator bested his chief rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, after drawing on the support of moderate and socially liberal voters … Mr. McCain received much of his support in Florida from independents, moderates and socially liberal Republican voters, according to exit polls. More conservative and more affluent voters turned to Mr. Romney."

Along with that negative McCain ad I quipped that I could "hear a bandwagon coming," and it looks like Florida is, now, on it.

While "Editor-In-Chief" ( he hates it when I call him that) Chad Phillips is away on assignment with the Alan Keyes story. I've been asked to run interference on MTW this week.
So, what shall we talk about today? Well, how about the favorite front runner for the GOP presidential nomination, John McCain.

Of late, he's the odds on favorite with not only a great many "conservatives," but especially the media. I mean, when The New York Times offers up an endorsement for him, what does that tell you about his politics? The Times is arguably the most liberal paper on planet earth. That's why we were not surprised they endorsed Clinton, but when they endorse a GOP frontrunner in the same breath, that get's my attention. It also tells me the editorial board at the Times either thinks the GOP electorate is braindead (maybe they're right), or that their (the Times') opinion on GOP candidates is the objective reality of the universe and, so, should prompt "intelligent" conservatives to heed their advice.

Actually, we don't need The New York Times to endorse and, therefore, give credibility to any of the GOP candidates. Specifically with regard to McCain. All you have to do is look at his behavior and posture during his tenure as a "public servant." Part of the notorious "Gang of 14," McCain collaborated with the enemy to stay the execution of the filibuster when House Democrats were using it to stop conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. Let us also not forget how McCain, along with his partner in crime, Ted Kennedy, (and with the full backing of the Bush White House) tried to force their amnesty for illegals legislation into law against the will of the American people.

There are other concerns as well with McCain's brand of conservativism, not the least of which are his takes on free trade, ANWR, campaign finance reform, and taxes, (he twice voted against Bush tax cuts).

Now that McCain is running as a genuine conservative, you'll find at least of couple of these positions amended. But don't let the turn about in ideology scare you. I'm sure he won't change his mind again…

Columnist, Dick Morris wrote and interesting piece today entitled, Michigan’s Meaning: GOP Chaos.

In it he makes an appeal for the base to put aside their differences to unite behind one of the GOP Presidential candidates. He also has some interesting observations with regard to the GOP’s apparent lack of unity.

For example, he points out that among the top contenders the Party is, basically, divided into thirds, with a portion going toward Romney on the economy, Huckabee on social issues, and McCain on national security. So far, it would appear that the Republican Primaries have born this out.

Morris goes on to place the blame for the Party’s lack of unity squarely on the shoulders of Bush Jr. He writes, “President Bush has been unique in refusing to help his party choose a successor. The result is the fissure now is tearing the Party apart.”

While President Bush’s reticence in endorsing a candidate as his successor may be a factor, it is certainly not the primary reason the Party is tearing itself apart. Here’s why.

First, true conservatives have, in great measure, lost “faith” in Bush Jr., and it’s the true conservatives who make up the base. Therefore, any endorsement from the Prez is going to have minimal results with that voting block anyway. The Republican Party’s political strategists know this, which is, in large measure, why Bush Jr. remains incommunicado on the successor issue. If the Party’s fracture remains, strategists may indeed have to haul the President out of mothballs in a last ditch effort to galvanize the Party.

Second, conservatives are still looking for a candidate which represents the cause of conservativism. And from where I'm sitting, none of the candidates listed pass muster. Fed up with neoconservative zagnut policies, classical conservatives don’t see a candidate, which represents their values, and are sick and tired of not voting their conscience. In response, they are holding out, and demanding that the Party produce something besides mediocrity. Meanwhile, the political powers that be have gambled that conservatives will do the “right” thing, as they have in the past, and settle for less than what they really want. The question is will the conservative base call the political machinery’s bluff? If they do, the Party will, almost certainly, lose the White House even as the Party itself disintegrates into smaller warring factions.

Sounds dismal, I know, but if that’s what it takes to bring the GOP back from the abyss, then so be it. Perhaps, only then will the Party’s backroom decision makers listen to the base and produce something besides substandard.