 | ||||
Abernathy Strategies
RepublicanGazette
Thursday, February 7, 2008 "When news breaks, we fix it" Published daily except some days
Submissions welcome
The Republican Gazette welcomes Emails to the Editor and press releases. All submitted items must include the name and contact information for the author of the article, and all articles will only be published with the author's name included. Thank you for reading and participating in The Republican Gazette, another of West Virginia's most biased publications.
All opinions are those of The Republican Gazette and its editor, Gary Abernathy, except letters or commentary signed by others, and do not reflect the views of anyone else, including clients of Abernathy Strategies.
-------
With McCain on verge of nomination, conservatives need to drop 'lib' attack
(From invitation)
“Friends to KEEP Kelli Sobonya in the House”
Request the pleasure of your company
At a Kick-Off Celebration
As
Delegate Kelli Sobonya
R-Cabell/Wayne
West Virginia House of Delegates
Throws her hat into the ring once again
As she seeks a fourth term
in the West Virginia House of Delegates
District 16
Thursday, February 7, 2008
6:30 PM
4-H Camp
Booten Branch Road (Alternate 10)
Barboursville
Live band (sounds from the 60’s, 70’s, & 80’s)
Food & Entertainment
Chilifest
Hotdog Cookout
Family event
Donations will be graciously accepted, but not necessary for attendance
Friends to Keep Kelli Sobonya in the House of Delegates
P. O. Box 367
Barboursville, WV 25504
CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR ATTENDANCE:
WV Supreme Court of Appeals
Attorney General
Governor
This is an opportunity to meet the candidates and discuss issues.
For more information, call: Amy Hogsett at (304)-416-4446
Kelli has stood up for our West Virginia and Huntington area families–
now let’s stand up for her as she seeks to run for re-election to the House!
www.vote4kelli.com
Public employees please disregard
Paid for by “Friends to Re-Elect Kelli Sobonya, Phyllis Martin Treasurer”
Kelli Sobonya fundraiser Thursday in Barboursville
It has always been interesting to read or listen to individuals who have decided they -- and almost they alone -- understand what it means to be a conservative, and which politicians are conservative and which are not.There are Republicans who are completely convinced that the candidates they support are the only "true" conservatives. Ron Paul's supporters typically identify their candidate as the only true conservative in the 2008 campaign. Mitt Romney's backers, along with the candidate himself, fervently promote the notion that he is the real conservative in the race. Mike Huckabee's followers certainly view him as the true believer from a religious right point of view, and when Fred Thompson won the Right to Life endorsement, Huckabee forces were outraged, because, well, their candidate was the one who was really opposed to abortion. Then there's John McCain. After Tsunami Tuesday, only a real tsunami could keep McCain from locking up the GOP nomination. Some conservatives who support any of the other three candidates left in the race have taken to calling McCain a liberal, which is amusing. McCain is a maverick, no doubt, but he is about as liberal as Ronald Reagan. In fact, almost exactly as liberal.Ronald Reagan, whose holy name is invoked roughly once every 4.5 seconds in any GOP presidential debate, was not always the consistent bastion of conservatism many of us like to fondly recall. As we all know, Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. He banned the import and sale of assault weapons for private ownership. He negotiated arms reduction treaties with the Communists of the Soviet Union. He was divorced, almost never attended church, and as governor of California he signed into law one of the most permissive abortion laws in the nation. Despite his many declarations damning big government, goverment in fact grew enormously under his watch, along with the deficit, and it can't all be blamed on a Democratic Congress.If Reagan was in the race today, one can only imagine how today's "true conservative" supporters of other candidates would be attacking him.Reagan, of course, was, generally, a bastion of conservative thinking. He became adamantly pro-life, was a true tax cutter, and is single-handedly responsible for bringing down the Soviet Union. More than anything, he was the most gifted individual ever at communicating the conservative philosophy with his eloquent words.John McCain is every bit as conservative as
John McCain walks with President Reagan in the mid-1980s. McCain was elected to Congress two years after Reagan was elected president.
If Reagan was a candidate in the race today, it's not hard to imagine the attacks against him that would come from some 'true conservatives'
Ronald Reagan ever was, but is under attack from some conservative quarters over some of the same issues, along with some new ones -- too soft on immigration, too willing to compromise, too eager to ban money from the political process (i.e. McCain-Fiengold), too liberal on environmental issues.
Frankly, I disagree with McCain on most of those issues, too. But I agree with his pro-life record, his support of the Second Amendment, his aggressive support of the military, his dedication to tax cuts coupled with spending cuts, his devotion to ending earmarks, his determination to win the war in Iraq and his commitment to hunting down terrorists including Osama Bin Laden. The man is, and always has been, a conservative, with some exceptions to the rule, just like Ronald Reagan. Conservatives who, out of principle or anger, are currently making noises about not supporting or voting for McCain in November apparently care more about their pride than about the conservative cause, or about keeping Hillary or Barack out of the Oval Office. If Mitt Romney won, I'd support him unequivocably. Same for Mike Huckabee. Frankly, same goes for Ron Paul, even though I completely disagree with him on the war. And I have questions on different issues about the "true" conservatism of each of those gentlemen.I happen to support McCain, and I'll do whatever I can to see him win. But McCain losing would not cause me to leave the reservation, and I hope the time comes very soon when such chatter from supporters of other candidates becomes a thing of the past -- even among all "true" conservatives.Convention: 2nd place was destined for 1st
For several hours after Tuesday's Republican Presidential Convention, I fielded calls from reporters around the nation about the outcome. After an initial interview, a reporter from the New York Daily News called me back and asked who was responsible for the "brilliant" strategy by the John McCain campaign that resulted in a Mike Huckabee victory over Mitt Romney.A variation of that question came from several reporters. I replied to them all that there was nothing brilliant about the strategy, and no one person was responsible for it. The strategy was obvious to almost everyone. The only question was whether to implement it on the second round or the third, and which campaign would end up the beneficiary. Frankly, the Romney campaign's only hope for victory was a first round win. Going in, it was pretty clear Romney would finish first and Huckabee second in the first round of voting. The McCain camp hoped for a better first round showing -- maybe even a win if most of the undecideds, coupled with former Thompson and Giuliani supporters, went McCain's way. Failing that, Huckabee finishing second was better for the strategy to topple Romney than if McCain had finished second. Even at the urging of their leaders, it probaby would have been difficult to convince enough Huckabee and Paul voters to support McCain than it was to convince most McCain and Paul supporters to vote for Huckabee.The McCain camp's reason for engineering a Romney loss was obvious -- as McCain's chief rival, a Romney win would harm McCain much more nationwide than a Huckabee win. But among other campaigns, why was there a general, almost unspoken, unanimity to deprive Romney of the victory? It's hard to explain exactly. A lot of it was probably just old fashioned resentment that Romney had been in a position to spend God knows how much money here for at least a year, swamping all other campaigns combined. As a Romney operative told the press early on Tuesday, “We have had the only organizational presence in West Virginia to speak of. It’s all Romney all the time.” That statement was not entirely accurate, but it was true enough in comparison to the Huckabee and McCain campaigns. Romney was the political equivalent of the schoolyard bully of the campaign, and binding together to knock himoff was no doubt a factor for campaigns outside of McCain, who stood to gain the most for political rather than personal reasons.
It may be that such an impression actually hurts Romney in many states around the nation -- no one loves the guy with the deepest pockets and the air of invincibility. It's an unfair indictment, and it is no reflection on Romney's rank and file supporters. But the temptation for David to slay Goliath is universal and eternal. When the first round ended as it did, with Romney leading (but short of the needed 50 percent), Huckabee about 90 votes behind, and McCain trailing weakly in third, it didn't take a few of us long to make the decision to ask the McCain delegates to support Huckabee on the next round. There was no reason to risk a Romney victory on the second ballot. McCain state director Larry Swann and Gov. Buddy Roemer each stressed that we should not try to strong-arm McCain delegates. The strategy should be explained to them, Swann and Roemer insisted, and hopefully they would agree. So, about 95 percent of the McCain delegates united with an eye on the bigger picture down the road.Huckabee director Mike Ankrom did not engineer a deal with McCain, but he did perform admirably to put his candidate in a position to be the benficiary of the strategy. For the McCain camp, it wouldn't have mattered, under the same circumstances, whether its votes went to Huckabee or to almost any other campaign (with the exception of Ron Paul-- no one outside of Paul supporters would want the publicity of Paul winning the state). Huckabee happened to be the candidate in second place, and that was all that mattered. For the McCain campaign, depriving Romney of picking up a Tsunami Tuesday state and gaining momentum was the objective.And had the situation been reversed -- if Romney was the national frontrunner with McCain close behind, and McCain had finished in first place and Romney third after the first round of voting in West Virginia -- the Romney campaign would have tried to do exactly the same thing, if necessary, to deprive McCain of the convention victory. And that would be smart.That's the strategic opportunity that conventions provide, and you do what you can do within the rules to ultimately win the nomination, or you aren't doing your job.