Previous columns have explored several themes as follows.

• Political parties and candidates should state their intentions and the values that they would implement if elected, and should work together to deliver what they promise.
• How candidates and parties voted in the past, the values and principles they acted upon or tried to implement, and the clarity of their ideas, are important predictors of what we can expect in the future.
• Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Let’s now consider what to expect if New Hampshire voters return the Democrats to a majority in Concord in the next election.

Presently, Democrats represent about 60% of the members in each house of the Legislature and also 60% of the Executive Councilors.

As a consequence, the Democrats can implement whatever legislation fits their agenda.

We’ve previously observed that the Democratic Party Platform (www.nh-democrats.org) clearly identifies the initiatives that the Party proposes to implement, including the following:

“We recognize the value of early learning and believe the State must extend the benefit of kindergarten to all communities.”

“The State should meet its Constitutional requirements to adequately fund our schools considering all sources of revenue.”

“We believe that access to affordable and quality healthcare is a right that should be available to all citizens. We believe that this right should include, but not be limited to, preventive care, mental health services, and dental care. We further believe that universal access to healthcare in our country cannot be adequately achieved through market forces alone.”

Democrats, with the power of the majority, have been quite effective in working to implement the values and programs presented in their Platform. Establishing civil unions was one example where the Democrats gave the citizens of New Hampshire exactly what was promised in their Party Platform.

What can we expect from a new Democratic legislature regarding spending and taxes, assuming that it would be consistent with performance in the current session and also with the promises made on the NH Democrat Party website?

The current legislature has adopted a budget that increases spending by 17.5% (for the general revenue fund) over the prior budget. Revenue increases were forecast to balance the spending.

The revenue sources (fees and taxes on business profits, interest and dividends, rooms and meals, liquor, etc.) actually are coming in ahead of prior years, but unfortunately not high enough to meet the budget revenue projections.

The Governor is slowly acknowledging that the budget will be in deficit, even though revenues are running at record levels, and blaming the “revenue shortfall” on “the economy”.

The economy is good enough in New Hampshire to produce revenue to the State that is higher than ever. Budget deficits (in spite of record high revenue) are also found at the Federal government.

The Federal government also enjoys majorities of Democrats in each house of Congress.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

When revenue increases, and a deficit results, then spending is the problem.

Seriously, is there any doubt that a government (or group or business or family or person) that decides to spend 17.5% more than they did in the prior period MUST be counting on additional revenue?

Not just additional revenue (the current sources are already providing additional revenue) but additional sources of revenue. More cynically, they may be assuming that the deficit crisis will influence the voters to be more amenable to raising new taxes so as to reduce it.

Along that line of thought, there are some major expenses that aren’t fully included in the current State budget, particularly the impact of funding an adequate education.

The Democrats are clear in what they propose to solve that issue.

“The State should meet its Constitutional requirements to adequately fund our schools considering all sources of revenue.”

What would “all sources of revenue” include? Perhaps income and sales taxes?

We’ve seen in the last elections a coordinated initiative advocating that we drop “the Pledge”, asked of candidates, that they commit to not raise taxes. The Pledge was formulated by former Governor Meldrim Thompson, who also said “Low Taxes are the result of Low Spending.”

When asked in early April whether the budget deficit had changed his mind about tax increases or new taxes, Governor Lynch responded “Well, I’m going to be looking at everything.” Two days later, observing that critics are misinterpreting his remarks, he stated that he would veto a sales or income tax

With their current majority, the Democrats could easily implement an income or sales tax.

One of the few things constraining them is the concern that voters might punish them at the polls if they pass a broad-based tax (even presuming that the Governor vetoes it).

That constraint will disappear if Democrats return with a majority after the next election.

By now, it should be no secret to the average New Hampshire resident that our state government is facing a fiscal crisis. How did this happen? The problem cannot be blamed only on a faltering economy as Governor John Lynch has disingenuously attempted to do. In January of 2007, soon after the Democrats took control of the state legislature, the spending spree began. In the past year, state spending has increased 17.5%, which translates into almost half a billion dollars. Right now, the state has more revenues than it did one year ago, but because of the largest New Hampshire state budget in 20 years, our state is about $100 million in the hole this year. One may ask, if the Democrats in power knew that they were going way over-budget, then how did they expect to pay for it? Two ways: 1) Increases in taxes. Already a cigarette tax has been implemented, car registration fees have increased and tolls have been hiked up (and will likely be again). 2) The Democrats gambled, hoping the economy would continue on a skyward trajectory ad infinitum.

If this is not the pinnacle of irresponsibility, then what is?

Some may shrug at a cigarette tax, increased car registration fees or tolls, but those are peanuts compared to what is coming if the Democrats stay in power in Concord, and especially if they have sufficient votes to override a veto by the Governor (Republican or Democrat) on taxes. There is already an effort underway to clear a path for bringing a sales tax and/or an income tax to New Hampshire, starting with marginalizing the anti-tax pledge that New Hampshire politicians have traditionally been asked to take. Governor John Lynch took “The Pledge” in 2006 when running for re-election, but recently has refused to state unequivocally that he will oppose new taxes. (Later, after being challenged regarding having taken “The Pledge”, he reversed (pardon me, clarified) himself.) Whether there will be sales or income tax bills getting introduced in the state legislature or new or increased state fees, expect it to be more expensive to live in New Hampshire because of the incompetence of this Democratic governor and this Democratic legislature.

To longtime New Hampshire residents and those who recently moved here to escape from a tax-and-spend state: Please do not stand idle and let this great state be irreversibly damaged by those in office. Let’s save our state while we can.

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the April 11, 2008 edition

The US military for the immediate future continues to face daunting arithmetic: continued war, and too few warriors to go around.

Shorter tours in Iraq could help. President Bush’s announcement Thursday that he is reducing Army combat deployments from 15 to 12 months for troops sent overseas later this year is aimed at reducing stress on soldiers and their families.

But 140,000 US troops will remain in Iraq at least through September, per the recommendation of top commander Gen. David Petraeus. Many military experts believe that stabilizing the situation there could require a substantial US presence for years to come.

The bottom line: Many ground units have deployed multiple times to Iraq, and “people are tired,” according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen. Army leaders say the readiness of their brigades is down, their equipment is worn, and their ability to respond to any new contingency is questionable.

“We face a large and growing gap between our military commitments and our military capabilities. Something has to give,” Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate and professor of international relations at Boston University, said in a Senate hearing Wednesday.

By most accountings Iraq is now the third-longest conflict in US history, shorter only than Vietnam and the Revolutionary War.

More than 500,000 US troops have served in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Almost 200,000 have been deployed there more than once.

In public appearances this spring, Army leaders have been blunt about the effects of this pace on their soldiers. In a recent speech Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, for instance, said that his service “is not a hollow or broken force” but that there is no question it is “stretched and stressed.”

By the Army’s count, it has conducted five surges into Iraq, including the most recent addition of extra brigade combat teams to tamp down Baghdad violence.

The current surge “took all the stroke out of the shock absorber for the US Army,” Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. He meant that if a conflict breaks out anywhere else in the world, there are no fully ready Army units that could be sent to handle it.

Army leaders are quick to say that morale remains high. But there are multiple signs of the emerging effect of this pace on the nature of the all-volunteer force. Captains – crucial midlevel managers of the Army – are choosing to leave at a substantial rate. The percentage of recruits who enter the Army with waivers because of past misconduct has more than doubled since 2004, to 13 percent so far this year.

In 2001, 91 percent of Army recruits were high school graduates. Last year that figure fell to 79 percent.

With only 12 months at home between tours, active Army units do not have time to do much else but rest and gather themselves for their return to Iraq.

“Our Army is out of balance,” said General Cody.

The Army’s long-term plan to restore balance includes increasing in size by 74,000 troops. That has been approved by the Bush administration, but construction of new units – not to mention recruiting the extra personnel in a time of war – takes time, and the target date for the expansion is 2011.

Meanwhile, the strategy for Iraq, per General Petraeus, involves no further drawdowns after July. After that, force reductions would await an improvement in conditions – or a different political situation in the United States.

To some experts, Cody’s statements about the stresses in the force are a direct comment on Petraeus and the current course in Iraq.

“[The Army’s] complaints are significant – they show a rift is developing within the military over the current strategy,” says Loren Thompson, a military expert and chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.

To others, they may represent the expectations of the Army’s leadership that it can operate in a time of conflict as it typically has in peacetime.

Today’s Army is far smaller than it was in, say, Vietnam. The fighting in Iraq understandably has strained it, says William Martel, author of the recent book “Victory in War” and an associate professor of international security studies at the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Medford, Mass.

“But in a war military, you have to cut corners to meet objectives,” he says.

Mr. Bush’s announcement that he is cutting the length of new tours in Iraq is a minor adjustment, adds Professor Martel, but also a welcome one.

It is intended to signal the military leadership that the Oval Office is at least listening to their deployment concerns, and to show troops that something is being done to ease their burdens.

“Progress comes in small doses,” says Martel

.

Jeanne Shaheen perfectly encapsulates the reason why Democrats should never be entrusted with stewardship of our economy: everything they know is wrong.

Shaheen proposes raising taxes only on people who make over $250,000, who she falsely assumes are “rich”. Many people with high annual incomes are small business owners, not oil barons. “Income” is not a synonym for wealth. On the other hand, people without any annual income may be extremely wealthy, living on trust funds and tax-free investments. The words “limousine liberal” come to mind.

President Bush’s tax cuts favored the middle class, not “the rich” from whom tax receipts have actually risen since 2001. The massive tax increase that Shaheen now proposes would fall upon middle income taxpayers, and with devastating effect. According to one recent study, the average tax increase for a New Hampshire resident would be over $2200.00 by 2012, leading to reduced incomes and a loss of jobs.

Our present deficit is the result not of low taxes, but of irresponsible Federal spending. While President Bush has failed to control these expenditures, is there any doubt that a Democrat President, enabled by a Democrat Congress, would gleefully pursue vastly higher taxes and more extravagant spending?

The U.S. economy is hovering near a recession, and according to public opinion polls, the economy – not the Iraq War — is the single greatest concern of Americans.

The stock market is down 10 percent. Oil is at $108 per barrel. Foreclosures in New Hampshire and nationally are at historic levels. Food prices continue to increase.

Facing recession, the classic response by policymakers is simple: cut taxes in order to stimulate our economy.

Why cut taxes? Two-thirds of the American economy is based on consumer spending. Putting money in the hands of consumers is and remains the fastest way to promote economic growth.

When markets are down – and energy prices, food prices and home foreclosures are dramatically higher – there is no worse time for politicians to increase taxes and spending.

Yet, strangely, that is exactly what the U.S. House of Representatives voted to do last week – to raise taxes by $683 billion. And recall the steep increases in N.H. government spending.

By voting to repeal the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the Congressional vote will have a dramatic effect on U.S. and New Hampshire households. While estimates vary, most households and small businesses in N.H. will pay several thousand dollars more in taxes.

Meanwhile, New Hampshire’s state budget is running a deficit of at least $50 million – some estimate it might $100 million or higher.

I mention these uncomfortable facts because the keys to long-term economic growth and prosperity are lower government spending, lower taxes, and greater consumer spending. For now, both Washington and Concord are moving in the opposite direction.

If we continue to move toward higher government spending and higher taxes, the U.S. and N.H. economies will find themselves more like Europe. Those economies suffer from higher taxes and higher government spending, lower growth, and higher unemployment.

The question for us all: is this our vision of the 21st century U.S. and NH economies?

In August of 2007, Congress passed the Protect America Act (PAA) which closed a loophole in U.S. laws that are designed to protect our nation from terrorists. Before last August, U.S. national security officials were required to seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court before intercepting communications from suspected foreign terrorists in foreign countries. The time it takes to secure such a warrant can result in the loss of a window of opportunity to capture the critical communications.

The PAA was authorized for only six months; expiring on Feb. 16, 2008. The Senate passed a full renewal, but the now-adjourned House has not considered renewing it, allowing the PAA to expire. The reason given is that the bill currently includes immunity to telecommunications companies that prevent them from being sued. There are 40 surveillance-related lawsuits currently pending against AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Without immunity, the telecommunications firms would most likely decline cooperation with the U.S. authorities, rendering the PAA useless and crippling U.S. electronic foreign intelligence gathering efforts.

Carol Shea-Porter and many other Democrats in Congress don’t seem to give a whit that our national security is compromised. PAA does not allow spying on U.S. citizens, it addresses spying on suspected foreign terrorists. But, even that is too much for Shea-Porter to accept. She grandstands, using liberal hot button phrases like “fear-mongering” and “scare tactics” insisting “nothing terrible is going to happen” in her effort to score political points. No one can guarantee that no more terrorist attacks will occur. In fact, the odds are that eventually another one will occur. But, it is surveillance laws like PAA that have helped keep us safe for the past seven years and Carol Shea-Porter seems intent on tearing those safeguards down all for the sake of political maneuvering.

In opposing the re-authorization of the Protect America Act (PAA) in the US House of Representatives, Carol Shea-Porter has once again demonstrated why she cannot be trusted to represent the best interests of the people of New Hampshire. Following the lead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Shea-Porter characterized the Administration’s vocal support for a bill that had passed the Senate by a 2-1 margin as “scare tactics” and insisted that “nothing terrible is going to happen”.

As a result, the existing legislative authority, previously approved for a six month period, has been allowed to lapse, and a vast amount of foreign intelligence is now beyond our reach. In truth, it is Ms. Shea-Porter who is engaging in “scare tactics”, not the Bush Administration, and her opposition has less to do with a concern for civil liberties than with big money for and from trial lawyers, more about which later.

In order to understand why the PAA statute was (and is) so vital, it is first necessary to summarize the deficiencies of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) it was designed to remedy. FISA, which was passed in 1978, served to distinguish foreign from domestic intelligence, and did so by reference to then-existent technology. Because non-US citizens acting outside US borders do not have privacy protection under US law, our intelligence agencies are explicitly authorized to monitor conversations between such actors where US interests are perceived to be at risk.

However, FISA protects domestic communications between Americans and even non-citizens from unauthorized surveillance, each instance of which must be justified and approved in advance by a secret FISA court. Anyone concerned with civil liberties would agree that such protection was, and remains, necessary.

Now here is the problem: FISA was designed at a time when communications technology was much as it had been since the Cold War days of the 1950s. As such, instead of specifically referring to “domestic” and “foreign” intelligence, FISA refers only to “wire” and “radio” communications, with domestic telephone calls falling under the “wire” label, and therefore justifying strict scrutiny. Our intelligence agencies were free under FISA to intercept radio and/or microwave signals, but had to draw the line at telephone calls.

With today’s technology this distinction no longer makes sense. A phone call that originates in Iran on its way to, say, Paris, may first pass through a United States communications switch. A terror suspect in Afghanistan using a computer to send an email to a mate in Iraq may have his message instantly routed through a hub in California or New York on its way back to the Middle East.

The Protect America Act became necessary when a FISA judge ruled that such transmissions fell within the meaning of “wire” communications. Regardless of the fact that no Americans were involved and that the link was foreign-to-foreign, it would have to be approved in advance by a court - a time-consuming process in an arena where seconds and minutes count.

So, to summarize: PAA was necessitated by technological advances that the original FISA statute could not have anticipated, but which our foreign enemies have proven eager to exploit. Nonetheless, Democrats have been tripping over themselves in a frenzy to politicize the issue, and for narrow-minded advantage at that.

House Democrats refused to pass the bill without first stripping a provision that protects telecommunications companies that cooperate in good faith with the US government in intelligence gathering, even where the companies are first given written assurances that such activities are within the law. Why? Because the Trial Lawyer Lobby, having donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats, wants to preserve their right to sue the big telecoms for billions in damages whenever anyone claims their “rights” have been “violated”.

Here is a little perspective for all of you, and please listen to me very carefully. That’s right, take off the iPod headsets first. Thank you. Now: George Bush is not spying on your mother. Karl Rove is not now sitting in his subterranean bunker gleefully rubbing his sweaty palms while listening to your Aunt Harriet divulge her cinnamon cookie recipe to her neighbor (who might be a Democrat). Dick Cheney is not checking the contents of your web browser’s history to see if you’ve been going to “naughty” places.

But - at least until recently - highly-trained intelligence operatives are listening to conversations originating overseas from people known or reasonably suspected to have ties to terrorists. And in order to do their job, our agents need to know that telephone companies will be willing to cooperate in this effort.

Our intelligence community can no longer count on such cooperation, because… well, here’s a clue: pull out a copy of the Yellow Pages. It doesn’t matter which one, any city or town will do. Turn it over and look at the back cover. You’re looking at a trial lawyer, aren’t you? Of course you are! - and so is every Democrat congressperson up for reelection, and guess who their biggest contributors are? The very same ones who want to preserve the right to sue the phone companies for billions over “privacy rights” for terror suspects.

Think about that next time you vote, New Hampshire.

One thing we rely upon is the expectation of consistency and a certain degree of common sense. We like the idea that certain things can be counted upon and that they will make sense to us if we consider them carefully.

Businesses understand this. That’s why fast food chains make their meals the same regardless of the location, why restaurants strive for a consistent presentation of food and service, and transportation companies strive to achieve on-time service. When a company consistently offers a product or service that makes sense, people will continue to use it.

The same should be true when we deal with government. Government services should make sense and perform as predicted. We expect, for example, that traffic laws will be clear and equally enforced, that contracts will be respected and that regulations will be consistently applied.

When people (and governments) develop cooperative arrangements for working together (or competing in a structured manner), a fundamental expectation is that one’s position can be explained, that it will make sense, and that one will act consistently with that position.

A reputation for common sense and consistency (doing things in a predictable manner) is close in importance to a reputation for honesty and integrity.

When we look at candidates and the political parties, it’s natural to look for these traits. How they voted in the past, the values and principles they acted upon or tried to implement, and the clarity of their ideas, are important predictors of what we can expect in the future.

The debates still occurring between Democratic candidates offer an opportunity, when combined with their past history, to assess their potential should they be elected.

Both Democrat candidates have stated that they would disengage from Iraq.

“The most important part of Hillary’s plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq’s civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home.”

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

In the most recent debate, both Democratic candidates were asked whether they would return troops to Iraq if al Qaeda reestablished a presence there after we withdrew. Senator Clinton declined to respond to this “hypothetical” question. Senator Obama said that he would send troops back.

They both also say they would keep troops in Iraq (or, per Obama, return them there) to fight al Qaeda.
And both say al Qaeda is currently in Iraq (because George Bush invaded Iraq!).

Let’s think about those statements. If al Qaeda is currently fighting us in Iraq, and fighting al Qaeda in Iraq would be worth sending troops back to Iraq, why does it make any sense for Clinton and Obama to remove the troops currently fighting al Qaeda?

Would it make sense to our allies? Or is it just political posturing.

If we’re seeking some common sense and consistency here, it’s not obvious.

Both Democratic candidates have stated they will make affordable health care available to all.

“Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law.”

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

“Hillary’s American Health Choices Plan covers all Americans and improves health care by lowering costs and improving quality. If you want to change plans or aren’t currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare.”

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

It’s clear that the costs of health insurance are an increasing problem for families and businesses, but proposing government managed health care doesn’t make sense.

Do we really want the government (which brought us FEMA, the IRS, and Amtrak) making decisions on our health care? Does it make sense that government will excel in such a complex and rapidly evolving field as health care?

Regarding consistency, Hillary Clinton was leader of the 1993 Task Force on National Health Care Reform. It met in secret, was successfully sued to force disclosure of its deliberations, and its recommendations were not accepted by the majority Democratic Congress.

Albert Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Next we should consider what to expect should New Hampshire voters return a Democrat majority to Concord in the next election. What would it do with spending and taxes, assuming that it would be consistent with the performance in the current session and also with the promises made on the NH Democrat Party website?

One thing that seems certain from the primary coverage to date (just prior to Super Tuesday) is that the influence of the media has been increasing and becoming more supportive of the Democrat candidates.

Media includes TV and Cable networks and newspapers plus the consultants, commentators, pollsters and pundits who follow (and profit from) the political scene by providing content and commentary.

The media provides voice (and cover) for the positions, leaks and “opposition research” generated by political campaigns, especially campaigns that they favor.

Continual (24/7) coverage on cable news increases demand for stories and competition to be “first on the air” results in stories being broadcast (or printed) with less time or effort spent checking on the accuracy of the story, or the particular bias of the source providing the story.

As a result, groups or individuals with an agenda can easily influence the news and the voters.

“Carville and Begalla will join the Clinton campaign as advisors, perhaps as early as tomorrow morning!”

Just prior to the New Hampshire primary, news outlets were presenting polls predicting a double-digit victory for Senator Obama over Senator Clinton. Network and cable channels predicted a “stunning” shift in sentiment toward Obama, and coverage of plans for a shake up of Clinton’s campaign staff.

If there was any critique of the methodology of the polls it was not obvious. The fact that polls can be constructed with questions worded to influence the results (push-polls, for example) wasn’t explored. It all got presented in a frenzy of “Obama-mania”.

Perhaps it would be overly cynical to ponder whether this frenzy might have been instigated to influence the New Hampshire primary by increasing turnout of Clinton supporters (to help keep Hillary from being ganged up upon by the “boys”) and simultaneously decreasing turnout of Obama supporters (who might feel less urgency to vote for him, thinking he already had a large lead).

Surely the poll results were an innocent error, certainly not a “dirty trick” nor anything related to the “politics of personal destruction”, and certainly nothing like the “innocent” comments by Clinton campaign staff about Senator Obama’s past drug use (and wondering whether he had sold drugs).

“The Straight Talk Express Rolls into New Hampshire”

You don’t have to wonder who the media supports in the Republican race.
Senator John McCain (Maverick, Straight Shooter, who personally redirected the Iraq war) is the Man.

Something is wrong when the New Hampshire Republican primary elects a candidate who is a favorite of Chris (“Let’s Play Hard-ball!”) Matthews on MSNBC, is endorsed by the New York Times and proudly co-sponsors legislation with Ted Kennedy. These are not people who admire (or aspire to promote) Republican and conservative principles!

It’s no secret that individuals, including reporters, have personal perspectives and viewpoints that shape their paradigm, their way of understanding the world. The issue is reporters reflecting their own biases when reporting events, confusing opinion with actual reporting.

Aside from talk radio, network and most cable broadcast media and many newspapers seem to favor liberals over conservatives and prefer Democrats. They have a different perspective depending on the candidate they’re commenting upon.

Senator McCain is described as “independent” and “authentic”; Governor Romney was “attacking” when he commented on the Senator’s legislative record.

Senator McCain’s record deserves comment, but the media isn’t spending much time on it.

Senator McCain’s sponsored the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (limiting freedom of speech about candidates before elections), the McCain-Kennedy Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (allowing illegal aliens to obtain permanent residency), and the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (establishing EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, with caps and trade).

His record includes votes against the Bush tax cuts and being investigated (in the Keating Five scandal) by a Senate Ethics Committee, which determined that he “used poor judgment” in accepting gifts (vacations, travel) from the owner of the Lincoln Savings & Loan business and then intervening with regulators on Lincoln’s behalf before it went bankrupt (costing taxpayers $2 billion).

Why would Chris Matthews and the New York Times prefer a particular Republican candidate?

Are they really rooting for McCain because he has the best chance to win against Clinton or Obama?
Does anyone believe that? More likely they think he has the least chance to win.

Perhaps it is because McCain’s positions are so consistent with Democrats on many issues.

If McCain is the nominee, the same media that currently admires him will be digging furiously into his record, and his wife’s, especially if it will help the Democrats.

As mentioned previously, we are selecting a person for the most powerful executive position in the world.
It doesn’t make it easier when you have to fact-check what you’re hearing and seeing on TV.