The Condi rumor-mill is churning again, this time rumor has it that she is "actively campaigning" for the VP spot on the McCain ticket.

"Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this," Senor said.

The party strategist said Rice could represent an ideal vice presidential candidate when paired with the Arizona senator, who is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

"What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren’t that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they’re realizing is that they’ll have to have to spend 30-45 days, which they won’t have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.

"The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, I get it, that person could be president tomorrow. Condi Rice is an option."

As far as cutting-edge, minority-rights politics goes, Republican black woman on the ticket trumps either of the Democrat nominees. Particularly one that grew up in the conditions that she did, and one that is as brilliant as she is.

And to have someone who actually believes in the Second Amendment is a dream worth thinking about. Not to mention that the up-at-4am-to-stay-in-shape angle will play well with the soccer moms.

U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief to the Court calling for a ruling in keeping with the clear intent of our Founding Fathers, which ensures the Second Amendment rights of the residents of District of Columbia are reaffirmed.

Damn it. Just when I think the man’s is totally useless, he comes out and does something good. Of course, I still don’t trust him.

A week ago I predicted McCain’s victory in November because, with Hillary’s Texas and Ohio victories, the war in the Democrat party will continue with the end game being the complete alienation of half of the voters within the party, no matter who wins in the end.

The best proof that I could possibly ask for comes from the hard-left blog, Tennessee Guerilla Women. Once proud of the party that has both a woman and a black man running for president, the poster finds herself "stunned" that she may not be able to support Obama should he win the nomination:

There have been numerous statements by Barack Obama that have led me to this position. These include the persistent use of rightwing frames, the naive assertion that he can end the culture war, the repeated and absurd claim that the Clintons are to blame for the partisanship of the 1990s, the trashing of the Clinton presidency, the denigration of Hillary’s experience as First Lady, the attacks on her character, and Obama’s repeated use of sexist dog whistles. And then there is the shameful Donnie McClurkin affair, as well as Obama’s pandering to Christians. And especially, there is Obama’s failure to take a stand or speak out against the outrageously sexist media treatment of our first ever viable woman candidate. (To be fair, Obama is not the only one I hold responsible for the failure to stand up for the principles of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean comes to mind.)

There is also Obama’s arrogant assertion that Hillary would have trouble getting the votes of his supporters, while he would have no trouble getting the votes of her supporters. I’m accustomed to having my vote taken for granted, but I am not accustomed to having my face rubbed in it.

Apparently, I am not alone.

Precisely.

Another example from the opposite side of the war comes from a letter to the editor (one of many) in the SF Chronicle:

I served in President Bill Clinton’s administration from 1993-1995 as senior speechwriter for HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. I am appalled by Sen. Hillary Clinton’s repeated insinuations that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is better qualified to be commander in chief than Sen. Barack Obama.

I have never before heard a Democratic presidential candidate suggest that their Democratic rival was less qualified to serve as president than a prospective Republican opponent. Drawing sharp comparisons between herself and Sen. Obama is acceptable "hardball" politics. But by implying that Sen. Obama’s credentials are inferior to Sen. McCain’s, Sen. Clinton has crossed the line between acceptable and scurrilous behavior.

Her scorched-earth tactics are absolutely reprehensible.

After a Democrat primary with historically high turnouts, Hillary’s women will stay home in droves should Obama win, and African-Americans will fail to show should Hillary win.

The unfortunate consequence will be that Republicans will retain the White House by instilling John McCain. That will be the day that Republicans learn exactly what "Pyrrhic victory" means.

Today, Republicans are celebrating Victory over the Democrat Party.

Hillary won both Texas and Ohio, reviving her candidacy and giving her the momentum to keep her campaign going. From this point on, every Democrat primary matters, right down to the 3rd of June when Democrats in Montana and South Dakota go to the polls.

And so we have another three months of sniping within the Democrat Party and another $20 to $30 million in advertising in which Hillary and Obama tear each other apart.

Come November, three things will depress the Democrat turnout. First, all those young blacks that voted for Obama, and that gave money to a political campaign for the first time in their lives. If Hillary wins (or steals, via superdelegates) the nomination, those disaffected voters will stay home — possibly for several voting cycles.

Second, there’s all those women Boomers that supported Hillary, many of which dug into their fixed-income pockets and gave to her campaign. If Obama wins, look for them to stay home.

Third, enter Ralph Nadir, who will only siphon votes from the eventual Democrat candidate, whomever it turns out to be.

Complicating matters is the possibility of a Democrat primary re-vote in Michigan and Florida and those silly superdelegates. Both issues hold enormous emotional energy, the discharge of which could tear the Democrat Party apart.

Meanwhile John McCain gets to focus on framing his race the way he wants as he stands virtually unopposed. Huckabee has officially dropped out and Ron Paul, even though he gets to keep his day job, long ago became the Ross Perot of the 21st century.

Make no mistake, barring something on a seismic scale that alters the political landscape, John McCain will be our next president. Of the three Democrats running, he is the most electable. I only wish that there was a conservative choice that had a chance of winning.

On the other hand, I think back to the Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno last year, when every single panel member said emphatically and with great conviction that Hillary would be our next president, even the revered Captain Ed.

But for now, I’m sticking with my plan to vote for neo-Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root.

Postscript: Rush probably wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s win in Texas, but you know he’ll be chortling today.

Muth’s Truths has a number of reasons not to vote for McCain. Best quote:

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter said this week she’d vote for Hillary rather than vote for John McCain. Sounds pretty extreme, right? But guess what? She’s not alone. I overheard a Republican woman at a GOP event yesterday who said, “I’d rather slit a vein than vote for John McCain.” Nice bumper sticker. Many conservatives aren’t just saying “No” to John McCain. They’re saying, “Hell, no!”

I agree.

Guardian WatchBlog breaks his blogfast to encourage conservatives to vote for Mitt Romney. As always, a great post. Best quote:

To paraphrase an old joke: one of them is an amnesty-granting, rights-limiting, global warming-believing, terrorist-coddling, industry-destroying Democrat. The other is Hillary Clinton.

In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up. . . .

"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he’s our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she’s more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."

More

McCain touts his rating with the American Conservative Union frequently, trying to prove that he isn’t indistinguishable from a Democrat. American Thinker performed an analysis of McCain’s ACU score:

First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high.  It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online.  For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. 

Hmmm, 47th out of 100 when the Democrats have a majority. He is far from the most conservative Republican out there. 39th isn’t much better.

Further analysis shows:

So where did McCain differ from the ACU?  The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration.  There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.  He was more consistently conservative on spending and defense issues.

AT notes that in one third of the votes scored by the ACU, a swing of only two senators would have changed the outcome. In two thirds, a swing of only ten were necessary.

As someone remarked, McCain is like a baseball player who gets all his hits after two outs and no one on base, and all his outs with men in scoring position.

Money quote:

What this means is that McCain’s ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans.  The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA).  One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona.  (Arizona’s other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

Exactly. And just how much will his presidency differ from that of a Democrats?

Ann Coulter concurs, observing:

The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president — on a personal level, she’s still a little creepy.) I’d rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we’ll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility. . . .

At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they’re supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas — tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals — Republicans in Congress will support "our" president — just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush’s great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.

A McCain administration will wreck the Republican party and do irreparable harm to the conservative movement in America. God help me, I may end up abandoning Root and voting Romney, just to stop McCain.

As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.

But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?

Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?

Where was I when Reaganism died?

With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning — think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?

Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.

I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.

I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain’s "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain’s poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.

I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I’m getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don’t like much of it.

I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won’t vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).

And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That’s right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.

On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards’ and Hillary’s speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I’m joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can’t find a militia then I’m going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.

Obama’s speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.

One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).

My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]

You often hear people say that they didn’t leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn’t leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.

And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.

Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:

The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don’t think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination.  I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let’s see if we can’t have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.

To which Advised by Wolves responds:

Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.

My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together — a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary’s side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won’t come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.

Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.

So reports The Hill:

During a private luncheon with Republican chiefs of staff on Capitol Hill, DeLay — who has criticized McCain for years — stepped up his attacks in the wake of the senator’s reemergence as a top presidential contender. DeLay said McCain has no principles and indicated he would not endorse the senator if he won the GOP primary.

“If McCain gets the nomination, I don’t know what I’ll do,” DeLay said at the Capitol Hill Club, according to a source in the room. “I might have to sit this one out.”

He added that a McCain triumph for the GOP nomination would destroy the Republican Party.

DeLay, always insightful.