At the very least, John McCain has at least one person endorsing him. Two, actually.

First one on the endorsement trail was Sarah Palin. For whatever reason, she has found it in her to endorse McCain. But the second person shouldn’t come as a surprise, either. His name? Mitt Romney.

For those who have followed Romney’s actions, then you know that he was the architect of Massachusetts’ current healthcare system. You know, the one that is the closest thing to universal healthcare that’s out there. And predictably, the system is failing miserably.

McCain is facing his toughest challenger to date, former House member and current talk show host J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth’s diatribe against McCain? he says that McCain has supported big government spending and has betrayed conservative values  with his support for immigration reform.

Romney’s endorsement of is rather vanilla-plain, touting McCain’s “record of service and sacrifice for America is honored by all.” He further adds:

“It’s hard to imagine the U.S. Senate without John McCain.”

Of course, McCain kissed Romney back, saying:

“Gov. Romney is among the brightest and most dynamic leaders in our party, and I am proud to have his support.”

Interestingly, both were pitted against each other as both had presidential aspirations during thr 2008 election cycle. But they kissed and made up as after McCain pulled ahead, Romney started supporting McCain and sending his top aides to assist the subsequent opponent to current President Barack Obama.

The love affair between McCain and Romney is a natural, and it will only benefit Hayworth. Eight months remain until the November 2010 mid-term elections, and more endorsements for both sides will be forthcoming. I won’t endorse either one at the moment. Assuming that Hayworth espouses conservative values (not the RINOesuqe variety) and is a constitutionalist, then he has my support. Anything else is a dealbreaker.

As far as Romney is concerned, he hasn’t impressed me all that much from Day 1 with his floundering Massachusetts healthcare plan, making the decision to not support him that much easier.

The Tea Party movement represents many themes. It began last year in response to the bailout and stimulus bills that showed the government is simply spending too much money. Much to the surprise of the left-wing elite, the Tea Party movement did not stop with its rallies on tax day. On the contrary, the movement was just getting started.

The Tea Party movement now represents everything that should work about conservative government… lower spending, less government control, lower taxes, adherence to the Constitution, and respect for the individual. Candidates have risen up and won elections based on this simple, yet timeless platform. From New Jersey to Virginia to Massachusetts, candidates won by running on these principles and running against Obama and his big-government cronies. Now, it’s primary season, and the next big targets are incumbents, both Republican and Democrat who do not follow this plan. First in the crosshairs is John McCain.

Arizona Sen. John McCain has raised the ire of conservatives over and over and over again. He wore the label of “maverick” as a badge of honor, but rather than use it as a moniker for standing up for conservative values against the party, he used it to support the party over conservative values. Now, rather than an easy primary, McCain faces former six-term congressman and conservative talkshow host J.D. Hayworth.

Rachel Alexander, who is blogging for GOPUSA at CPAC, has provided a great contrast between the two candidates

The country is in the midst of a Tea Party revolt movement that began last spring and has not lost steam. The current anti-big government, anti-spending uproar has already begun voting in new leadership promising smaller government. The revolt began over the federal bailouts – and McCain, labeled “Obama-lite” as a result – voted for several of them. He voted for the $700 billion general TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, the first $85 billion AIG insurance bailout, and he proposed spending $300 billion on a mortgage entitlement bailout to buy out every bad mortgage in the country.

As Alexander notes, “McCain’s ratings from the American Conservative Union have gone progressively down over the years, dipping to an alltime low of just 63 last year. Even liberal-leaning Republican Senators Chuck Hagel, Lamar Alexander and Pete Domenici scored higher ratings than McCain last year.” On the other hand, “J.D. Hayworth, the former Arizona Congressman who is challenging McCain in the Senate primary this year, has a lifetime rating from the ACU of 97.”

In an article in the American Thinker, writer Randall Hoven summarizes the differences between Hayworth and McCain quite clearly:

McCain, the “maverick,” has been in Congress for 28 years, or since winning his first election in 1982. He is no longer fighting the establishment; he is the establishment. He personifies the compromise wing of the Republican Party, which has since become the dominant wing.

Hayworth represents the 1994 Contract With America Republicans. He first entered Congress in that historic turnaround, the first time Republicans took the majority of the House since 1952. He was voted out in 2006 when the House turned Democrat again on a referendum on Iraq, and the last time the unemployment rate was below 4.5%.

For me, McCain is summed up by the following:

He voiced opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts and said he favored “targeted” tax cuts. The word “targeted” is code for social engineering and not based on conservative principles that the money does NOT belong to Washington.

He repeatedly supported attempts to push amnesty for illegal aliens unto the American people. Americans spoke out, and neither effort such as the McCain-Kennedy bill went anywhere, but McCain continued to push.

He supported the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill which has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

He joined the “Gang of 14″ which allowed quality, conservative judicial nominees to fall by the wayside.

There is no doubt that between the two candidates, Hayworth is the conservative in the race. As noted in an article in National Review, McCain is bringing out the big guns:

To counter Hayworth’s growing support, McCain has enlisted Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, his running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign, to stump for him in the Grand Canyon State. He would also like to bring in Mitt Romney, his former opponent for the GOP presidential nomination. “I’d really appreciate it if Mitt Romney came,” McCain says. “We’d really like to have him. We haven’t made any specific arrangement yet, but I’d like to see that. He is a man I respect.”

While understandable that Palin would support the man who put her on the national stage, other candidates who vouch for McCain’s “conservative” credentials are doing a disservice to the movement. And it doesn’t look like it’s going to fly this time around. The groundswell of grassroots attitudes are emodied in the Tea Party movement, and McCain represents everything they are against. We need smaller government, citizen legislators, and a respect for the Constitution. Hayworth has been there… then been back in the private sector, working to promote conservative principles. Now, he’s looking to go back to replace a man who is an icon for establishment Washington.

H/T: Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA

I think it is common knowledge that the vast majority of entertainers are left-leaning, misguided souls who need to STFU and just read lines fed to them via cue cards or a teleprompter (just like their savior, Barack Hussein Obama). Just as the left runs everything in La-Laland, believe it or not, there’s a sizable conservative coalition of entertainers out there as well.

And they aren’t going away any time soon. I think you’ll recognize the lion’s share of them.

Without further adieu, here they are – the lefties in Hollywood:

• Clint Eastwood. I’d say that his movie roles kind of give you that notion of him being conservative. He’s been a registered Republican since 1951, supported Richard Nixon’s1968 presidential campaign and describes himself as a libertarian.
• Britney Spears. I know, I know. Whodathunkit? Yet back in 2002, she uttered this statement: “Honestly, I think we should trust our president in every decision that he makes, and we should support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.” Want to guess who was the POTUS in 2002?
• Kelsey Grammer. Those in the know pretty much knew this. He in 2008 campaigned for Rudy Giuliani; once Giuliani dropped out, he touted John McCain. Does that make Frasier a RINO?
• Angie Harmon. Yup, a Republican. She and her husband spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention; they also supported McCain. 3 RINOS…and counting.
• Chuck Norris. A big supporter of Mike Huckabee. He’s donated more than $32,000 to various Republican candidates and organizations since 1988. Chuck even subbed for Hannity when Hannity & Colmes was on the air at Fox News.
• Dennis Hopper. Surprising, huh? Yet, he financially supported the RNC in both 2004 and 2005. And he’s still one of us.
• Tom Clancy. Considering his body of work, I’d hardly suspect him of being on the left. Not only has he donated large to the GOP, but he has also, in some of his books, paid homage to some Republican figures, including Ronald Reagan.
• Naomi Judd. Unlike her daughter, she is a righty. She’s been a registered Republican for a long time and a big supporter of former POTUS George W. Bush.
• Danny Aiello. He told Sean Hannity during an interview that he is a conservative. Hey, that’s good enough for me.
• John Elway. The former Hall of Fame quarterback for the Denver Broncos has contributed to a number of GOP candidates recently. He even thought of running for office – seriously. Probably a good thing that he didn’t.
• Sara Evans. She performed at the 2004 Republican National Convention, so I suppose that makes her a conservative newbie, of sorts.
• Lee Womack. Read Sara Evans.
• Joey Ramone. Not a typo, folks. Joey Ramone, punk rock pioneer, was indeed a registered Republican. I wonder of the other band members were GOP, as well?
• Shannon Doherty. Registered Republican. Which probably explains her lack of roles recently.
• Richard Petty. The NASCAR legend has been a Republican for what seems like forever. Ran unsuccessfully for North Carolina Secretary of State in 1996.
• Marie Osmond. Old news here. Did you think she was a Democrat from Utah? Assume that the other Osmonds are comservative, too.
• Mel Gibson. Here’s the thing: Gibson, although he has never really identified himself as one of us, has tendencies that have “right” written all over it. Such as the condemnation of stem cell research and the euthanasia of Terri Schiavo. But then again, those are Catholic tenets, so the jury’s out on Mel.
• Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Like Petty, a NASCAR legend and a registered Republican. He supported “W”.
• Jackie Mason. Even the Borscht Belt has conservatives. Count Mason as one of them. He endorsed Jennifer Horn, a Republican candidate for Congress, from the state of New Hampshire.
• Curt Schilling. Former star pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, Schilling campaigned for “W” back in 2004 and supported McCain in 2008.
• Trace Adkins. Sang the National Anthem at the 2008 Republican National Covnention. Old news knowing Trace was a Republican.

Tomorrow: A popular model, a relative to Brangelina, a “die hard” conservative, and more revealed.

When are you ever going to learn Senator that Democrat-Lite does not win elections? And if you didn’t get it back then, haven’t the preponderance of nationwide Tea Parties — several of which are coming up on Independence Day — given you a clue?

Politics aside, however, what is going to take to get you to defend an honorable, accomplished woman who did nothing but praise your service to your country, extol your (dubious) qualifications and generate palpable excitement on the campaign trail? Let’s face it: until Sarah Palin came along, you were the invisible man in 2008. And there was no other VP choice that was going to remedy that dire situation.

You’ve had one opportunity after another to prove that you still have a sense of honor, but you’ve punted everytime. And now today, Bill Kristol reports in his Weekly Standard post Liberal Media and GOP Hacks vs. Palin, that it was Steve Schmidt who started the “post-partum depression” lie about the governor. Are you going to let Vanity Fair’s hit job stand? Or will you do the honorable thing?

I have a difficult time taking seriously a RINO (Republican In Name Only) when they endorse a political candidate.  Yet here was John McCain in Tustin, CA, endorsing one.  And not just any candidate, mind you.  Who might that candidate be?  One Meg Whitman, former CEO of EBay.

McCain, in front of a crowd of 500 or so supporters at the Tustin Auto Museum last Friday - and the statement of how out of touch McCain is – said:

“The woman standing beside me represents all of the qualities that will attract people to our party. We will not only tolerate, but accept people whose views are different than our own.”

I think it is statements such as that which explain why McCain didn’t win the presidential election in 2008.  That aside, Whitman’s campaign is focusing on job creation, state spending cuts and education reform.  All of those are well and good.  But she also not in favor of some things that I and other conservatives – here in California and elsewhere – believe in.  They are:

• Whitman is not in favor of drilling for oil offshore.
• Whitman is also “pro-choice” – with her definition being “It’s not that I want more abortions. But I don’t want to take that choice away from women and their doctors.”

She had some specific proposals as well.  She wants to:

• Cut billions in spending identified by current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California Performance Review – cuts that can be made without Legislative endorsement.
• Make a 10% reduction in the state’s 345,000 employees.
• Eliminate paper checks and paper food stamps in favor of electronic exchanges.
• Change the frequency of vehicle registration from an annual to biennial  (every two years) renewal.

Those proposals seem reasonable enough.  however, I take issue with Whitman and her stance on off-shore oil drilling and abortion.  Those of you who read The Republican Temple and/or listen to The Republican Temple broadcast already know I am for off-shore drilling and against abortion.  Her stances overall are very RINO-esque, so there’s no endorsement coming from me.

By the way, she has valid competition for the Republican nomination for the California governorship, coming in the form of current state Insurance Commisioner Steve Poizner and former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell.  Whitman has the early lead in the race, but I expect that to change.

Barack Obama.  Our president, for better or worse.  And as of right now, definitely for worse.  If what went down on Friday at the graduating class at the U.S. Naval Academy is any indication, then you can absolutely call it “for worse”.

Obama told the graduating class that America risked its national security when it compromised its values -presumably saying this to rally support in his bid to piece together a new legal framework for anti-terror policies.  Another case of Obama using that “fear tactic” to get what he wants.  According to Obama as he addressed the 30,000 graduating cadets and family members at the Academy,

“We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to — not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe. When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops.”

He also added:

“As long as I am your commander-in-chief, I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary.”

Folks, you can interpret that as another dig at former president George W. Bush.  This speech is just that – a speech.  A campaign speech at that.  This is basically to bring attention to the Guantanamo Bay prison situation.  Obama is trying like hell to get the facility closed within one year’s time, and this speech to these graduating cadets is supposed to garner support for the closure of Gitmo.  And ironically (or not), Senator John McCain was there at the ceremony; McCain’s son is in the graduating class. 

Speaking of McCain, he is an ally with Obama on the closure of Gitmo – which proves that he is a R.I.N.O. – a Republican In Name Only.  McCain aside, all I want to know is this:  What is supposed to actually be gained by closing Gitmo?  So Obama and Co. can transfer these obviously dangerous detainees to our soil?  Not to mention that he wants to manipulate the rules to where these detainees get rights that we take for granted as citizens of America.

Keep in mind that as detainees, they are not U.S. citizens; as such, they essentially have no rights due them.  I think that military tribunals – and not Obama’s version, either – are the way to go here.  Bringing them to the U.S. soil just makes Obama’s words hollow as he has promised that none of the detainees would come to our country.  Yet he in the same breath is looking to house some of the detainees in our Supermax prisons – which is contradictory to what he has said up to this point.

So basically folks, the NIMBY rule applies here: not in my backyard.

The G-20 economic summit, the McCain budget counter-proposal and Turbotax Timmy took center stage on the Thursday morning talk show circuit.