When you're trying to win the Republican nomination and have many conservative voters suspicious of you, you can't afford many moments like this one.

On the left, Barack Obama, standing in church and in front of a cross. The media loves it! On the right, Mike Huckabee, in his Christmas ad, standing in front of a section of a bookshelf that resembles a cross (or a plus sign. Maybe he likes both math and miracles). Huckabee's semi-cross lit the fire of anti-religious liberals who started shouting "church and state! church and state!"

I guess you have to be a liberal Democrat in order to talk about God without the media pouncing you. My, how times have changed.

Every week, a different McCain supporter steps up and asks for Governor Mike Huckabee to step aside and withdraw from the GOP race (after all, the people of California, Wisconsin, and New York have spoken). And it happened today again,courtesy of yet another Washington Insider, Senator Bob Bennett. (I love it when politicians who have been in Washington for decades decide to support one of their own who is going to finally change Washington!!)

What I'm trying to figure out is, don't people want to win by actually beating the other guy until either he quits or the game is over? If the other guy keeps getting up, the boxing match isn't over, right? In the general election, is anyone going to make it easy for you?

Why would anyone want to win an election simply because the voters have no one else to choose from? And for a party that proudly touts that the marketplace should decide the outcome of things and that competition spurs excellence (and they're right), why wouldn't they want to apply that principle to the selection of the party's next leader?

Senator McCain is an American hero and has exhibited bravery and willingness to take risks in a variety of scenarios in his lifetime. He is generally not known for being unwilling to take risks or to shrink back from confrontation.

All of which makes his avoidance of a debate against his competitor, Governor Mike Huckabee, all the more inexplicable. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee wrote a letter to Senator McCain yesterday asking him to debate prior to the March 4th primaries. At first, McCain seemed to indicate a willingness to participate in what would be the only debate to feature less than four Republican candidates. After giving further consideration overnight, McCain indicated today that he did not think he wanted to debate after all.

Although McCain has a massive lead in delegates over Mike Huckabee, the delegate tallies are not the best measure of their relative strength among the voters who would be responsible for any Republican taking the White House next November. For example, most of McCain's stateside wins have occurred in "blue" states, most of which have not voted for a Republican Presidential candidate in at least twenty years. He won six traditional Republican states but won all but one of them in very close contests against a number of candidates who divided the conservative vote. The majority of his wins have also come from winner take all contests, most of them in Democratic states, and a few in Republican states that he won by a generally slim margin. And though he holds a commanding lead over his nearest competitor for the Republican nomination, there are many Republican voters who hold bitter feelings toward him and many who have proclaimed they will not vote for him. And so his delegate margin is probably not a reflection of the percentage of Republican voters whose support he has won.

It seems obvious why political advisors might strongly discourage McCain from taking part in a debate with Huckabee. The former Governor is a stunning orator and an inspiring communicator. McCain, although witty and engaging, is not thought by many to be as effective a speaker and has taken numerous positions that are more popular with Democrats than Republicans. The conventional wisdom is that when you hold a significant lead, the smartest thing to do is to pretend that your competition doesn't exist. But one problem with the "ostrich strategy" is that this competitor is not going away. Huckabee has spent extremely frugally, has a loyal group of unpaid volunteers supporting him, and could theoretically be a constant presence in the race all the way to the Republican convention.

In this case, the disadvantages of refusing to debate outweigh the risks of agreeing to. A large portion of the Republican electorate that continues to be wary of Senator McCain will not warm up to him simply because they feel forced to. Another aspect is because of the possible appearance of ducking a challenge - a challenge that Huckabee has now formally and publicly issued. And although by my count, McCain participated in seventeen of the twenty Republican debates, he declined to participate in three of them - two GOP forums for African American voters and one debate for conservative "Values Voters." The refusal to debate Huckabee in a one on one setting would effectively be his fourth refusal to participate in a debate. McCain needs to be careful to avoid a perception that he is now, unlike most of his life, choosing to avoid situations in which he may risk being exposed to criticism. And, should McCain be the Republican nominee, the apparent strategy of avoiding a skillful and charismatic opponent will not benefit him should he face the probable Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.

And speaking of Obama, the Democratic frontrunner, who has both a delegate lead and all of the momentum over his opponent, has continued to acquiesce to Senator Clinton's requests for debates. It will not make Senator McCain look good in comparison if the Democratic frontrunner continues to embrace competitive challenges while the Republican frontrunner continues to decline them.

And if all the pundits are correct and McCain's victory is inevitable (we all know that nothing is inevitable in Election 2008), debating Huckabee will only serve to McCain's advantage. He will have stood on the same stage with the more socially conservative and more charismatic Republican candidate and withstood the challenge. This would earn him respect of a greater percentage of the Republican voter base than he enjoys now. And, from a practical point of view, if McCain does win the GOP nomination, what better preparation for Barack Obama could he have than a debate with Mike Huckabee? But if he refuses to even debate, despite all of the bravery he is known for, he will look to many as if he is choosing to cut and run. This could end up actually hurting him in Texas - a place where people don't back down from a challenge.

In December, the Republican Party Establishment types and the "conservative" media fraternity declared holy war on Mike Huckabee, whom they really liked before he was a threat to them. Their claims:

• They claim that he wanted to raise our taxes (despite the fact that he's the only candidate in favor of scrapping the income tax. For fun, try to talk to a brainwashed person who trusts every word from the mouth of the "conservative" media who doesn't get this concept. Tell him "Mike wants to lower the Income Tax rate to 0%". The answer: "Well, he's a liberal who's going to raise my taxes." ?????)
• They claim he's the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. This from Ann Coulter, who says that she's going to campaign for Hillary Clinton in the general election if McCain is the nominee.
• They said that he loves letting violent criminals out of prison and is soft on crime
• They said he's soft on immigration and is for open borders
• They said that he's not strong enough on defense
• They called him a "pro-life liberal"

But, now, while he's still running for President, they are urging him to run for the U.S. Senate. Wait, I'm confused. I thought they said he was supposed to be a Bible-reading liberal hippie. So, why would they want to put a person who was all of the bad things that they said he was in a position where, in a narrowly divided Senate, he can:

• Be a decisive vote on tax policy
• Provide critical votes in sentencing and criminal law
• Have serious influence over immigration policy
• Have a decisive role in the direction of our military operations and funding for current and future conflicts

The only conclusion: they didn't really mean any of that. They just didn't want him to be the President.

Another bogus claim: that he destroyed the Republican Party in Arkansas. Which, of course, would totally explain why in the Arkansas GOP Primary, Huckabee earned three times the votes of his nearest Republican competitor. While John McCain won his state by a mere 13%.

We all knew that when the GOP primaries whittled down to two class acts like Senator McCain and Governor Huckabee that it would be a civil contest and not a Romney-style street fight aimed at wiping out the nearest Republican in sight. Respectful. Peaceful. Courteous. But I didn't know that meant they were never going to talk again in front of the voters. That's TOO civil. That's radio silence.

Mike Huckabee wants to debate John McCain. A reasonable request, since they're coming up on primaries for two of the most important red states, Texas (the largest Republican state) and Ohio. Don't these people deserve to see the two remaining candidates debate? Democratic voters still get this opportunity and so should Republican voters.

I know that John McCain is a brave man and an American Hero and am not questioning his character by saying what I'm about to say. But I have been disappointed at some of the opportunities to talk to the voters along with other candidates that he's missed. Last September, he, along with Romney, Giuliani and Thompson, skipped out on a GOP debate for African American voters in Baltimore, two weeks after all four stiffed a Values Voters debate in Florida. He attended every other Republican debate - except for a forum at the NAACP convention that only Tom Tancredo attended.

What if everybody's right and Mike Huckabee can't stop McCain? Wouldn't McCain earn more respect from Republicans by granting the debate request and then winning the delegates (assuming he does)? That way, it won't look as much as he's the winner by default, because many of his delegates were earned in Democratic States, in winner take all states, and against multiple competitors that divided the conservative vote.

I'll put it another way. If the conventional wisdom is that the fall contest will be between Senators McCain and Obama, and Obama is confident enough to risk debating Hillary Clinton (which always looks like lots of fun) at a time when he has a commanding lead and all the momentum, what will voters think that it says about McCain if he isn't willing to extend the same courtesy to the competitor he has a commanding lead over?

I'm hoping for and looking forward to a respectful debate between two honorable men who have run among the classiest and cleanest campaigns. Anything less would be uncivilized.

The Chart on the left shows the number of contests that Senator McCain has won, divided by blue state (voted for Democrats in 2004 and likely to do the same here), red state (voted for Republicans in 2004 and likely to do the same here), along with whether or not the state employed "winner take all" or proportional distribution schemes to allocate its delegates. The chart on the right shows the number of reported delegates distributed between blue state/red state/ wta / distributed. Because of the complex scheme for delegate allotment used this year, only reported data on states allocated delegates (through Wikipedia) was used. This also does not include any of Mitt Romney's delegates.

Counting the three U.S. territories that will not vote in the Presidential Election this fall, of all the contests that Senator McCain has won in the primaries, about 55% of them came from blue states that are very unlikely to pick a Republican over either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. 40% of the Senator's wins have come from blue states with winner take-all policies. He has won six Republican states by much a more narrow margin. In all but one of these states, he faced multiple competitors who received both substantial portions of the vote and of the conservative vote in particular.  And of the contests that he has won, 20% came from four red states with Winner Take All policies and 10% came from states that distribute the delegates according to the proportion of the vote, which in the red states was generally very close.

Compared to his competitors, Senator McCain has benefited greatly by the fact that some states have employed winner take all policies while others have not. Compare the three most successful GOP candidates and the proportion of their delegates that have come from Winner Take All states and states that proportionately allocate delegates. I don't personally believe winner take all is a bad policy. But when it isn't universally applied, it may lead to a delegate total that is not representative of the desires of the Republican electorate.

The above charts clearly show how much Senator McCain has benefited from winner take all states. Had either this policy been universally applied or not applied at all in the GOP primaries, it is likely that the nomination delegate picture would be different than it is today.

With the news that Ralph Nader is becoming a candidate in Election 2008 came endless news accounts of how he caused Gore to lose Florida and thus the Presidency. No matter what channel I turn to, I keep hearing essentially this same story line over and over again. But in describing the Election of 2000, the media continues to leave out a critical part of the story.

Al Gore lost the Electoral Collage vote by the tally of 271 to 266 (he would have had 267, but an elector from D.C. withheld a vote in protest). Because he needed 270 to win and the Constitution mandates that no state or the District has less than three electoral votes, this means that had Al Gore won one more state - any state - he would have been the 43rd President.

Florida was just a mess. Not only did we have the badly designed ballots that clearly left some people who intended to vote for Gore with their votes uncounted. But in addition, the network gurus started calling the election at 7 PM Eastern - before the polls in the western part of the state were closed (Florida spans two time zones). We'll never really know for sure exactly what would have happened in the state had everything gone right. And in this most narrow contest, Ralph Nader's votes, if given to Gore, would have allowed him to become President by winning the state. And this part is all the media focuses on.

But, Florida was not the only state that Gore lost that night rather narrowly. He also lost his home state of Tennessee. In the entire history of the United States, only two men have managed to win a Presidential Election contest without winning their home state (Polk and Wilson). And if Al Gore had taken care of business at home, Florida wouldn't have mattered. He would have won the Electoral College vote by a margin of 277 to 260 - even with the D.C. elector refusing to vote.

What especially is striking about this home state loss is the fact that Gore's father, Al Gore Sr., represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate for 18 years. Gore the son then served Tennessee for eight years in the U.S. House of Representatives and then was elected to represent Tennessee in the U.S. Senate. Bill Clinton and Al Gore twice carried the state in their 1992 and 1996 Presidential Campaigns.

But, in 2000, with over two million votes cast, Gore lost to Bush by more than 80,000 votes. Another Nader spoiler here? No. In fact, there were nine different candidates on the Tennessee ballot in 2000, in addition to several hundred write-in candidates. And even if Al Gore had gotten every vote cast for every other candidate other than George W. Bush, he still would have lost his home state by 47,717 votes.

I have nothing against Al Gore. For what it's worth, it seems like he's had a pretty good life for the last seven years, and though I disagree with him on many issues, I'm glad he seems to have moved on with his life. But to peg him as some sort of a victim against a big, bad, Republican conspiracy is not an accurate description of why he lost that election. Even if there had been some plot to print the ballots in Democratic Florida counties in Chinese, to let loose live alligators in front of Democratic polling stations, burn half the ballots and play other dirty tricks, none of it would have mattered had Gore won Tennessee. He would have been the President and would have had executive authority to prosecute any wrongdoing that had occurred in the election.

For the record, I am not excusing any improper acts that take place during elections. I think that whenever someone improperly influences an election - in either direction - they and all involved should be prosecuted. No one wins when all the votes aren't properly counted. But I am saying that this isn't an excuse that explains away why Al Gore lost in 2000. To hear some Democrats tell the story, it was about a bunch of crooked Republicans in Florida and a crazy man named Nader who sabotaged America. And in describing the story with Al Gore purely in the role of a victim, they are missing an important point that all politicians need to keep in mind.

And the lesson I hope the pols take away from that election is this: take care of your own business. Stop worrying about trying to force the other guy out of the race or to stop this or that person from running. You have to win your own battles and the hearts of the voters and stop aiming to be the winner by default by virtue of the voters having no other options than you. Ralph Nader didn't actually prevent Gore from winning, because had he had won at home, neither Nader, Bush, or anyone else would have stopped him from winning it all.

I'm sure that there are a lot of otherwise smart people within the GOP Establishment and within the Conservative Media Elite. But this Presidential Election Season, they couldn't have exhibited a worse track record for picking candidates. Every candidate that they've cast their longing eyes on, hoping to see in them the "next Reagan," has bitten the dust in a most dramatic manner. Like the wayward daughter that is every father's nightmare, the elites have continued to display a most uncanny talent for picking Mr. Wrong. Over and over again.

If we go all the way back, the first GOP Dream Date for Election 2008 was Senator George Allen of Virginia. He was a conservative's conservative. He was charming and young. He had plenty of allies and hailed from the state known as the "mother of Presidents." But, one day during a campaign stop in the summer of 2006, he mocked an Indian-American campaign worker of a rival campaign who was taping his speech. And in the era of YouTube, he called the guy who annoyed him a Macaca (a word referring to a primate but also an ethnic slur) and welcomed him to America. From there, his campaign went literally down the YouTube. All sorts of interesting facts soon turned up about him, including the fact that he used to keep a noose in his office while serving as district attorney in his thirties. The fact that he appeared to be embarrassed for whatever reason about the fact that his mother was Jewish. The fact that he really had a love affair with the Confederate Flag. That his sister claimed that he terrorized her as a child, dangling her by the feet over Niagara Falls. And in the span of three months, a political career that took decades to build was all but demolished. And although it's easiest to see why the GOP establishment went wild over Allen, who appeared from a distance to be a perfect conservative and a shoe-in for the GOP nomination, this was really the first of many bad infatuations the party leaders had for candidates. Allen was the first of many Mr. Wrongs.

Before the tears were dry, along came Mr. Giuliani, who was supposed to be the next White Knight that would ride the party over Hillary mountain. Now, what is the last thing that a party that has been beset by sexual scandals and that has made a huge issue over abortion and same-sex marriage needs? I would guess it would be a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage social liberal who met his second wife while still married to his first and his third wife while married to his second. But, surely enough, the sparks flew and Rudy, Mr. 911, became the next suitor who had captured the hearts of the "conservative" leaders in New York and Washington. But, he had evidence of major character flaws (if the marriages weren't evidence enough, he had a lot of friends in legal trouble) and an even worse campaign strategy. And after months of a budding romance, it all fell apart last fall as the good ship Rudy started to sink. The GOP Establishment was broken hearted again. Strike two. Another Mr. Wrong.

Fred Thompson was supposed to be the Mr. Right who would right all the wrongs of the others who had come along before him. The biggest problem there was that all of his supporters wanted him to have the top job more than he did. He epitomized apathy and lack of enthusiasm. He made Bob Dole's 1996 campaign, by comparison, look as energetic as the Giants Defense in the Super Bowl. He announced that he was running for President and the establishment went nuts. And then ... ... ... nothing happened. And then he dropped out. Arrggh. Scorned again. Love is cruel.

And you'd think that after 2004's blitz of John Kerry, his tormentors would have known how much the public disliked a flip-flopper who gave the impression of saying anything to get elected. But, surely enough, our wayward GOP leaders fell once more for someone who was very much like their former foe - Mitt Romney - who has changed most of his positions since the 2004 election. He said what they wanted to hear and so they ignored the fact that he had said the exact opposite just a year or two before hand. It was love. But although the GOP Establishment gives its affection to those with a flashy image, name recognition and a lot of funding, the American people's love couldn't be bought. Romney flopped after spending as much as a quarter of his personal fortune to push a product that not enough people wanted - himself. And the heartbroken GOP Establishment and conservative media still isn't over this heartbreak.

The whole time the establishment has been falling in love with every candidate only to learn that they weren't "the one," there has been one guy they've been unwilling to go out with. Mike Huckabee is the most solid social conservative. He wants to do more than promise not to raise taxes; he wants to eliminate the income tax. He has a great presence and is in many ways like a dream candidate - conservatism presented in a way that actually builds on the coalition, with great dashes of the Great Communicator thrown in for flavor. But the establishment wouldn't give him a second look. They thought to themselves "he isn't from the right neighborhood". "He doesn't have the right family name." "He doesn't have enough money and he talks funny." And the great tragedy is that the party elite have rejected the person who would be perfect for them and for the future of the party. Mostly on the basis of appearances.

And now, they've decided to settle down and to settle at the same time. They're headed for the altar with Mr. McCain, the guy whom they passionately hated oh say ... two weeks ago. But they see him as the person who, although they don't love, perhaps they can learn to love. Or at least pretend to. Yes, he has multiple problems that might make him another Mr. Wrong, but, in their thinking, they've got to marry somebody and he's the only one left. It's either him or the pauper. And the pauper is ... well ... not in their class. So, they're determined to marry the guy they never wanted because they think he's better than the one guy they never tried. And the more they hear others talk badly about him, the more resolved they become to go through with the wedding. So, they do as many brides of doomed marriages do - they suppress their intense doubts and go full steam ahead. And they're hoping that if they smile enough and act happy, maybe their friends and family will show up at the wedding and celebrate with them.

We can all see where this tragedy is headed as of now, can't we? Let's pray that they realize that the person they've rejected is really their Mr. Right. Before they marry Mr. Wrong and have a most messy family breakup and disaster in the near future.

Eleven of the 17 contests that John McCain has won so far have come in states that voted Democratic in 2004.

Ten of these states have voted Democratic in the past four elections. Eight of these states were Winner Take All, giving McCain 309 delegates from states that have practically a zero chance of voting Republican in the fall.Two other states, California and Illinois (home state of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton), gave McCain a whopping 170 delegates, giving him a total of 479 delegates from states that will never vote for a Republican in the General Election.

If John McCain does win the Republican nomination, he has to thank not only the Republican Establishment which has coalesced around the only Washington Insider left in the race. He also has to thank the voters in eleven states that did not vote Republican in 2004, including ten states that have voted for Democrats in 2004, 2000, 1996, and 1992. Although some would claim that this is a good indication of how well McCain does with liberal and independent voters, the reality is that there is practically no chance that any of these states that have helped give McCain a massive delegate lead will vote for the GOP candidate in the fall.

Here are a few observations based on analyzing the contests held to date:

• In states that haven't voted for a Republican in the past four elections, McCain won 97.98% of the delegates available and edged out his competitors by an average of 22.75% in the popular vote.
• In the six states that McCain won which voted Republican in 2004 (and which Republicans need if they will win the White House in November), McCain edged out his competitors by an average of 5.95%. In five of these six contests, McCain faced more than one challenger who earned more than 5% of the popular vote. Excluding Virginia (the one red state where he faced a sole competitor who earned more than 5%) and his home state of Arizona, McCain edged out a set of competitors who likely divided the conservative vote by a miniscule 3.25%. In many of these traditional states, the Democrats have shown surprising strength.
• In the red states that McCain won (almost all by a very small margin against multiple competitors) - South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Virginia - Democratic Primary turnout edged out Republican Primary turnout by an average of 15.25%. In every state except for Florida, where the delegates were not supposed to be sent to the national convention, and McCain's home state of Arizona, the Democratic turnout exceeded that of the Republican turnout by an average of 48.5%, magnifying the risks to the GOP of running a candidate who does not motivate every available Republican voter to go to the polls.

In contrast to McCain, all of former Governor Mike Huckabee's wins have come in states where a Republican must win in order to win the General Election.

The bottom line is pretty clear: McCain has a huge lead largely because of voters who are not representative of the those who have given the GOP its most recent victories. And one additional issue is evident. Ability to attract swing voters is not such an asset in states that have a prolonged history of voting for Democrats during a year in which there are two popular Democratic candidates and an unpopular Republican President. And when the popular leading Democratic candidates is showing unusual strength in places where the leading Republican candidate needs to win but is not winning by much, it spells trouble in November according to the current course.

McCain is the candidate that many voters strongly prefer. Just ask those who live in the states who won't vote for him in November. Or the Republican Establishment, which has to be completely freaking out. Or the media. Just don't ask many of the voters who live in red states, who either answered "no" - or who haven't been asked yet.

1. If McCain is winning states in the GOP primaries that are legally owned by the Democrats, what does that mean in November if he's the nominee? In the words of Edwin Starr, "absolutely nuthing. Uhh!"
2. If McCain is barely winning the GOP primaries in the states that Republicans can't win the general election without, at the same time that the Democratic leading contender is generating significant turnout and wins in traditional red states, what does that mean for November if he's the nominee? Just like the old Surfaris' song: WIPEOUT

The Republican Party establishment, which has had it out for Mike Huckabee for months, is now pressuring him to leave the GOP Primary race before a winner has been determined. Many of the people who have campaigned on the theme of refusing to prematurely concede defeat in Iraq are now hoping that the alternative to the establishment candidate prematurely concedes defeat in America. They push for this even though the frontrunner, Senator John McCain, has won two-thirds of his primaries in states that have no prayer of falling for the Republicans in November and although he's shown weakness in the states that Republicans must win in order to gain the Presidency while Huckabee and even Barack Obama have shown substantial strength in those areas. The core belief that the establishment types have that drives the pressure they're putting on Mike is familiar to them but yet flawed. They believe that he needs to fall in line. And that once he does, that his supporters will also fall in line. After all, they would say, it's for the good of the party.

Those phrases - "fall in line" and "for the good of the party" - are pretty much the life mission statement for many of the Establishment types. We need to understand the way they think in order to understand why they don't understand how many of us think. I feel a little sorry for them. Many of them are good people who came to politics in part because they had some convictions about one or more issues. At some point in time, though, after becoming part of "the team" in order to address the issues they cared about, "the team" became more important to them than those issues. Twenty years ago, they may have been passionate, for example, about having low taxes and smaller government, and with that passion, came into power so that they could change things. Now, they are passionate about "the team" winning and the other guys losing, and, if there's still time and political capital left, maybe doing something to lower taxes and shrink government. Many of today's hard-core establishment people are yesterday's issue champions who have changed their core allegiance from their principles to the party.

And, so, when they speak of the need to "fall in line" and think of "the good of the party," many of them are speaking of the only things that they now know and the only things that they now think about. Ask them about stopping abortion-on-demand. They'd answer, let's just get our team in power and maybe, one day, eventually, we might get to that.

They would counsel us to be pragmatic. They would argue that the team might not win if they take this position or that position. But, if we just fall in line, eventually, one day, they'll try to get to our issues. Maybe. The sad truth is, many of these people are really a shadow of their former selves, conditioned by decades of playing a centuries-old sporting match that the American people work hard almost half the year to pay for but are not in the least entertained by or served by.

What they don't understand anymore is the mentality that some of them used to embody decades ago. They don't relate anymore to being more motivated by conviction for issues than over the idea of winning. Their priorities are the opposite of ours. And so, they fail to realize that every push they make in one direction affects many of us in the exact opposite manner.

Every time I see an establishment Republican - a member of the team I view responsible for abandoning the unborn, for contributing to the spending that has left our nation nine trillion dollars in debt, and for tolerating incredible acts of terrible hypocrisy while proclaiming to protect morality - tell me that I am supposed to vote for John McCain, I am more resolutely determined to vote for Mike Huckabee.

Each time I hear Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Fox News (or anyone in the conservative elite stratosphere that dispenses wisdom down to the rest of us), explain to me why I should vote for John McCain - after spending months trashing him - their words have even less value or credibility to me.

When I see Mitt Romney, who spent months implying that McCain is a liberal and who has relentlessly attacked him with his hundred million dollar air ball of a campaign, cozy up to McCain while endorsing him, I get the sickening feeling that he is even less sincere than I thought he was. I didn't think it was possible.

And the more I hear people telling Huckabee to drop out of the race, despite the fact that 100% of the states he has won are the states that Republicans won in 2004 while only a third of the states that McCain has won are states that have any likelihood of voting Republican this fall, the more I see a party racing eagerly toward a cliff. And I don't want to be aboard for that ride.

When I see the people who are responsible for the fact that many Americans - even many conservative Americans of all ethnic backgrounds - associate the once-proud Republican Party with an insular and out-of-touch group of elites, telling me that it's time to support the team, I become even more convinced that it's time to change General Managers and to purge the front office first.

The establishment types, in their world, think that their pushing will eventually result in us eventually bouncing back to the status quo that favors the team but undermines the issues that drew us to the team in the first place. But they really need to understand that with the same force that they are pushing, some of us are being pushed away.

On the left, the 49th parallel, part of the border that separates the 48 Contiguous U.S. States from Canada, "protected" by a six foot gap free of brush and vegetation. On the right, another part of the border that separates Alaska from Canada. The borders that politicians don't bother to mention protecting.

Hearing most politicians speak for any length of time on practically any subject, you're likely to hear the term "the border" crop up every couple of minutes or so. And there is no doubt that the issues of illegal immigration and border security are extremely important topics that must be addressed by the Federal Government. But, if you've never looked at a map and only listened to stump speeches, you might have the impression that America is a giant peninsula, sharing a perilous and porous border with Mexico but having no other borders to worry about. But this exclusive emphasis on protecting "the border," meaning the southern one, is one of the most dangerous aspects of our attitude toward our nation's national security.

Let's do some quick stats:

• The U.S. Mexican Border (otherwise known as "THE border") is 1,969 miles long
• The USA48/Canada border is 3,983 miles long
• The Alaskan/Canadian border is 1,539 miles long

So, why are so many people only concerned about the southern border? Is there some rule that says that a terrorist would be duty-bound to enter from the south? Folks, the United States has three long, undefended land borders. And the really scary thing is that the Mexican border is the most secure of all three of them.

I know what many people are automatically thinking. The illegal immigrants are not coming through the other borders, but through the Mexican border, right? Actually, this is mostly true, but it's also true that we have no clue who is coming through the other two borders. But what we need to realize is that the issues of illegal immigration and border security are two slightly overlapping but different problems.

Millions of illegal immigrants have indeed crossed the southern border. Many have crossed multiple times. Illegal immigration is unfair to those who are seeking to immigrate legally. It also overloads the system by causing more infrastructure to be needed to support people who are not paying income taxes to the states and the Federal Government to offset the increased infrastructure costs that illegal immigration incurs. But, even if people suddenly decided today to altogether stop coming to the United States by crossing the southern border, would we be one bit safer from the prospect of a terrorist getting on American soil? No, we wouldn't. And if we build a fence on the southern border, we won't do anything to stop one from entering through one of the other two borders.

Think of it this way: if you put an extremely strong storm door with a triple deadbolt lock on the front door of your home, but leave the garage door and the patio door unlocked, would you be wise to think that you're safe because you've secured the front door? You definitely shouldn't. But we have bought into the political argument that simply securing the southern border will make America safe from terrorists. But it's just not true. It would slow the rate of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border. But it wouldn't even eliminate the illegal immigration problem as not all illegal immigrants are from Latin America. And it would do very little to protect the nation from terrorists.

Believe it or not, Canada has more liberal immigration policies than Mexico does. Mexico, for all that nation's contribution to the immigration mess, has troops on its southern border. Also, let's imagine that tonight there existed a giant 2,000 mile fence blocking the border with Mexico. Speaking of the heated immigration issue, what would stop a Mexican immigrant from taking the money they used to pay to smugglers and instead buying a plane ticket into Canada and crossing into the USA from there?

In addition, there are three airports that are exactly on the 49th parallel - better known as the northern border with Canada. There are many places in which the International Border into the United States is a median strip or just open land. Many places on the unmentioned borders are a lot less busy and populated than the southern border - not many border agents, Minutemen, or immigrants passing through. And on the Alaskan border, part of that 1,500 mile border is north of the Arctic Circle, which means that it it is not only isolated and open, but also dark for most of the day for several months a year. If you were trying to get into the United States covertly, which means of entry would you choose?

The joint problems of international terrorism and illegal immigration have a lot of us fired up and very emotional about the issue. But we still need to actually think and analyze the problem at hand and not just shout Amen to politicians who give us the obvious solution of protecting THE border. We have to protect them all. Or otherwise we should keep the money and use it to pay down our national debt.

(Character from the film Point Break)

In the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, we find of a plan to officially develop and launch Reagan 2.0

Turns out that after the applause died, Romney huddled with “some 50 stalwarts of the political right” to discuss making the former Massachussetts governor “the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win,” the Washington Times reported this weekend.

The Washington Times reported:

Some 50 stalwarts of the political right privately met with Mitt Romney minutes after he dropped out of the Republican nominating race to discuss the former Massachusetts governor becoming the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win.

All I'll say is the following. The LAST thing that the Republican Party - or any party - needs is to have a bunch of power brokers getting together and crafting someone's image to serve a role that the individual can't fill. Leaders that will have the ability to convey authenticity, passion, and conviction are not built in a laboratory.

Romney is a very, very smart man who really, really wanted to be President. But I didn't believe he really believed all the things that he said he believed. And the only thing that will make me even more skeptical is if a bunch of power brokers go and try to give him an extreme makeover. He very well may have been leading now (and even I would have considered voting for him) if he just had tried harder to be himself instead of what he thought I wanted to see.