As in a system when a relationship is arranged, the benefactor of the arrangement has two antagonistic approaches in their cultivation of the relationship. The first approach would be to have a supercilious and dispassionate affiliation with said partner, because out of arrogance, they can. The second approach would be to reach a conciliatory relationship with said partner by maintaining your core beliefs and staying true to your values so as to not become a hypocrite just for the sake of conciliation, while simultaneously respecting said partner’s ideological differences and forging a mutually beneficial congress between the two for the sake of the greater cause.

John McCain seems arrogantly comfortable taking the first approach of continuing to cultivate an inflexible and tumultuous relationship with the Republican conservative base.

Whatever juxtaposition one would choose to view McCain’s current relationship with the conservative base of the Republican Party, it irrefutably parallels an anxious arraigned marriage with remarkable replication. He is the probable nominee and, at this particular point in the process, has settled into his position without the full consent of the Republican Party due to the arbitrarily undemocratic nominating process that always begs the question: Would he be here if the caucuses and primaries were held in the same week?

This past week, at a rally in Cincinnati, conservative radio host Bill Cunningham was hired by, and specifically told, to “fire up the crowd” by the organizers before McCain took the stage. Cunningham did not deviate from his intolerant and grandiloquence rhetoric against the Democrat party and their brand of liberalism, which is the defining characteristic of his program.

Cunningham repeatedly used Obama’s full name, Barack Hussein Obama, during his warm-up speech for McCain. Cunningham had the crowd on its feet and fired up.

When McCain took the stage, he immediately denounced Cunningham’s enthusiastic tautology. This immediately drew the ire of Cunningham, who was not a McCain backer until left with no viable Republican choice. Cunningham is an influential conservative voice on the radio. Cunningham says McCain has now lost his support. He had the following to say about McCain: “I’m gonna follow the lead of Ann Coulter. I’ve had it with John McCain.”I’m going to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president because she would do a better job in the Oval Office, I think, than the liberal John McCain. I’m done with him.” Cunningham has since created a moniker for McCain, “John Juan Pablo McCain.” This would be a direct reference to the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. The McCain-Kennedy immigration bill is the most ominous palisade that separates McCain from the Republican conservative base.

Cunningham is not the first Republican to attack the Democrat opposition in this fashion and will not be the last. McCain has vowed to control these types of messages. If McCain continues with this counter productive approach, he will be allocating a disproportionate amount of his energy, resources and focus on this battle rather than focusing on winning the war in the general election.

As the Republican conservative base tries to adjust, adapt and accept McCain as their nominee and bequeath the obligatory support that customarily comes from within one’s own party affiliation, it would bode well for McCain to reciprocate the support for his arranged and, at this point in time, unstable supporters in hopes of creating a united force in the general election— for better or worse.

There are many organized and individual strategies manifesting themselves on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries. The two primaries that could very well decide the end of Clinton’s presidential campaign. In the Texas primary, a registered Republican voter can vote in the Democrat primary and in Ohio a Republican voter can do the same if that is how they voted in the last primary, but this is a historically loosely enforced rule.

The emerging strategy of Republicans and conservatives is to cast a vote for Clinton in the primaries in hopes of keeping her campaign a viable ongoing concern. There are several compelling reasons for this methodology.

If Clinton can win either Ohio or Texas, or both, it will extend her campaign and give her hope of building momentum for the later primaries which could possibly propel her into the Democrat convention. It is at the convention that the playing ground becomes equal again and thus bolsters her chances of capturing the nomination. The Republican strategist believes this is a winning situation for their party because, with statistical and polling confirmation, she is the most beatable candidate in the general election.

If Clinton and Obama both make it to the convention, and if they are very close in delegate count, the Super Delegates come into play as the deciding factor. If it does come down to the convention to decide the nominee, it will most likely have a splitting effect on the party and if the candidate is selected by the Super Delegate vote, it will most assuredly split the party. The Democrat party will try to avoid this at all costs and will push aggressively for a brokered candidate deal before the convention. The Republicans prefer this outcome because of its capability to split the Democrat party if the Super Delegates are the deciding factor.

The Republican Party will benefit bountifully if the Democrat nominating process can be as scandalously protracted as long as possible. As the Republican candidates are playing a benign game of political Old Maid, the Democrats are playing a nasty game of political strip poker. Every negative word, comment or accusation is highlighted in the media. And every word, comment, accusation, and quote in the media by either candidate about the other rips another parcel of fabric from their opponent to expose another piece of unsavory flesh that the candidate would rather the masses not be witness to.

By the time the Ohio and Texas primaries are completed and if Clinton is still in the game, both candidates will be reduced to their under garments and shoes. If a deal is not brokered and they both make it to the convention, by the time they get to the convention, they will be standing stark naked for the world to see every conceivable flaw, blemish, shortcoming, lack of ethos that they have exposed about each other. All this while the Republican candidate will be fully clothed, relaxed and prepared with their play book for the general election written all over the naked body of their opponent before the truly ugly process heads into the final stretch.

Presidential spouses generally fall into two categories: The elected official by proxy, i.e. Hillary Clinton national policy maker, and the demurely, staid and proper role of the First Lady. Not to disparage the non-policy making spouses, but they did not campaign, were not elected, and continued their preceding roles within their families along with the customary duties of First Lady with dignity.

I use the term spouses because there is a statistical probability that Hillary Clinton could achieve the White House.

Republicans had assumed, along with Hillary Clinton and her political machine, that she was the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee. Their reasons are primal and obviously self serving: She is the most beatable of the Democratic nominees in the general election chiefly because 50% of voters would not vote for her under any circumstance. The perfect political opponent. After her overwhelming defeat in Wisconsin and Hawaii by Barack Obama, garnering his 10th win in a row, her presidential aspirations are on life support and barring some political shenanigans by the Super Delegates, her presidential campaign is effectively finished.

It seems apparent, assuming that the Democrat Super Delegates do not vote contrary to the majority of primary voters, that Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee in the general election.

Should this cause consternation for Republicans? No.

There is one other factor, other than Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming unfavorable and negative rating, that is leveling the negative playing field within the Democrat party. The one x factor that has caused a considerable credibility breech and negative publicity for the Democrat nominees– their spouses.

John Edwards, before dropping out of the race, had to deal, almost on a daily basis, with the imbecilic, idiotic and anti-American dialog and actions from his wife, Elizabeth Edwards. Not that it hurt him so much in the primaries because her rhetoric is in accordance with the far left liberal mindset that Edwards panders to. She would have been a considerable problem in the general election.

Many respected political analysts, both Democrat and Republican, have conjectured that the catalyst for Hillary Clinton’s spiraling descent from front runner status to a mathematically irrelevant candidate is due to Bill Clinton’s disenfranchisement of Black voters. He achieved this by a race baiting strategy against Obama before her candidacy headed into the southern states. His explosive temper tantrums, on air, against the press and anyone else in his or Hillary’s path to the White House has not only alienated a broader spectrum of Democrat voters, but has awakened dormant memories of his presidency and what to expect from a co-Clinton administration if Hillary is elected.

Michelle Obama stated earlier this week that, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Her comments have set off a firestorm of criticism because her remarks are viewed as unpatriotic and justifiably so. The criticism is coming mostly from conservative and patriotic Americans and has garnered a negligible adverse reaction from the left because, at this point in the game, she is preaching to the choir.

Michelle Obama, when discussing a plan for change, stated the following, “I know voters like a plan,” she said. “What’s the details, tell me about your policies. Plans are important, I agree. . . . But a lot of this stuff isn’t rocket science.” As with her husband’s speeches, she is articulates nothingness.

Contrast Michelle Obama’s patriotic void with John McCain’s wife, Cindy, “I am proud of my country.” Just that simple.

Through out the Democrat primary race for the nomination, the candidates bantered back and forth as to who was the most liberal, who could do more for people who won’t do anything for themselves, who could spend the most taxpayer money on these people, and who could turn this great capitalist country into a non-functioning socialist society the fastest. The Republicans, even with McCain as the nominee, should be able to overcome the problematic socialist ideology during a debate with either Clinton or Obama.

At this point, Obama may be equally as beatable as Clinton in the general election for two reason. He is an extremely captivating speaker. His oratory skills are more polished than any candidate from either party. He is one of the most captivating political speakers this country has seen in a long while. But, neither he nor his speeches have any definitive substance. If one reads his speeches from a script, to say it is unmoving would be an understatement. He speaks about nothing but does it with astonishing delivery. At best his speeches and ideology are nothing more than recycled socialist ideology dating back to Carl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” of 1848 and circa 1960′s radical liberalism.

First reason, he is running on change. He is going to bring change. He has never specifically mentioned what he is going to change or how, but he is going to bring change. At some point he is going to have to define what needs changed to salvage this country from the grip of capitalism. Is he going to change an economy that has seen the longest running bull market in U.S. history? Probably so with liberal economic policies and tax increases. He has stated that he would pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. Regardless if you agree with going to war with Iraq or not, pulling the troops out at this point is an exclusive endeavor from the reason to go to war. If he is elected and does pull the troops out, Iraq will become the largest breeding ground for international terrorism the world has ever seen. If given the opportunity, what type of jurist would he appoint to the Supreme Court? Some one cut from the same clothe as Ginsberg would fit his ideology. The court would, again, shift back to an activist, policy making court.

Second reason, his wife. Is it fair to go after a candidates family members? Yes, if they choose to campaign as a perceived co-candidate. No, if they are not overtly involved in the process. Taking the astutely observed roles of Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama in their spouses campaign, it is apparent that voters would be voting for a package deal. At this point, it becomes a contingent event and they should be as equally scrutinized as their spouses. Her statements are relatively benign at this stage of the process within the Democrat fold, but if she had made those statements in the heat of battle between Obama and the Republican nominee in the latter stages of their campaigns, especially when Obama is being pressed for substance, the results would probably have a catastrophic effect on his campaign.

If John McCain does indeed get the Republican nomination, and when either Obama or Clinton get the Democrat nomination, at the point the dialog gets heated and politically ugly–and it will, this is the point where Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama will do exponentially more damage to their spouses campaigns than any conceivable good they could bestow upon it considering their track records.

There are dramatic contrasts to their respective negativity that they would bring to their spouses campaigns.

Even though Clinton has some flexibility to pander, albeit at this point probably without success, to the center or just left of center with a message of change and moving forward, Bill Clinton will negate any positive gains by dragging her campaign back to the 1990′s and every conceivable nuance about him, and there are myriad, into the spotlight.

Obama has the problem of having painted himself into the radical left corner with no legitimate or convincing escape toward the middle. Regardless if Michelle Obama makes any more unpatriotic comments of this nature in a campaign against a Republican candidate, this statement will come back to haunt the Obama campaign in the general election and be used as an attack on her and her husbands patriotism. But, if she continues giving these types of insights into their foolish personal credo, especially close to November, she could profoundly aid in his campaign’s derailment.

Just as Hillary Clinton’s history of perpetually being in the same room with corruption, yet always innocent, coupled with her large negative ratings, and Bill’s ethical and moral shortcomings, it does make for a Republican dream antagonist. But, with Obama having insignificant political substance, a non-existent political track record, and no discernible accomplishments, when he does speak of anything with substance, it is a radical far left socialist ideology. If he gets the nomination, it would take little effort for a skilled politician to reveal the substance void under his thin veneer. Couple that with his wife’s insensate discourses and you should have another Republican dream antagonist.

Two factors played a significant role in McCain’s ascension to probable nominee. His position is a product of the apocryphal liberal main stream media’s calculated adoration of him and a systematically undemocratic nominating process.

The liberal media has been fawning over McCain chiefly because of his aiding them in bashing the Republican party and his liberal position on immigration: The McCain-Kennedy Bill. The media had an extraordinary influence on his surge in the polls before Super Tuesday with its pro-McCain rhetoric and damaging critical rhetoric of his opponents.

The nominating process is fundamentally undemocratic for both the Republican and Democrat party, more so with the Democrat party with the use of Super Delegates. McCain, with the contradictory primary and caucus rules from state to state, has emerged with the support of Democrats, independents and faux Republicans before half the nation has had a chance to choose a nominee of their choice.

By the time Super Tuesday was over with, McCain was the odds on favorite because of his surge in delegate count, and the departure from the race by Mitt Romney. This left almost half the states in U.S. without representation in the full nominating process. By the time their caucuses and primaries were held they were left with only two choices: McCain and Huckabee. There is also a chance that by the time Texas and Ohio’s primaries take place in March, McCain could be the only candidate left. Not only does this process run counter to a democratic process, but would also leave an enormous cross section of Republican voters disenfranchised from the nominating process. McCain has the unenviable position of trying to energize a large section of the Republican party that, by the time their caucuses and primaries roll around, and if they were Romney supporters, their enthusiasm and significance would have yielded to apathy.

The question most traditional conservatives are asking themselves is should I, could I, would I, vote for John McCain if he is running in the general election on the Republican ticket. How energized can the base be when they feel there choices are a Democrat liberal or a Republican liberal? How energized can the base be when they feel that the stronger conservative candidates have been left at the way side by the process?

There are several influential conservative pundits who have stated they will not vote for John McCain in the general election, but would rather vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. There was no mention of what if Obama gets the nomination–which at this point is more probable than not. The polling numbers do show a cross section of conservatives who will not support McCain in the general election regardless of who he runs against-they will not caste a vote.

McCain gave a very compelling speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week. He appealed to the conservative base, among boos during parts of the speech that touched on immigration, that his position is a fundamental conservative position. It was compelling but not many people were compelled. It did raise a few eyebrows and at best put McCain antagonists in a wait and see mode.

What can be expected going forward with the McCain nomination process?

McCain wants the conservative base to believe he can unite the Republican party. He is doing a lot of talking but is not doing a lot of doing. He is talking about uniting the Republican party but has displayed no action. McCain, if he secures the nomination, will come to a fork in the road that leads to the general election. He will either embrace the conservative base, which he needs to do if he wants to win in the general election, or he can turn left, which history dictates he will and try to win with the Hispanic and independent vote, thus freeing him from any obligation to the party he has become antithetical to.

He seems to be positioning himself to turn left by keeping Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio on his campaign staff. These two individuals were on the wrong side of the phenomenal grass roots movement that killed the McCain-Kennedy illegal alien amnesty bill. They are still on the wrong side and so is McCain by association. By eliminating Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio from his inner circle he could prevail upon a sizable number of anti-McCain Republican voters.

Illegal immigration is the albatross around McCain’s neck. McCain has two options at this point concerning illegal immigration: First, he can actually take action and disassociate with Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio and embrace the will of the people and choose to not only close the borders with a fence but declare he will not let any piece of legislation pass his desk, as President, that grants amnesty to anyone in this country illegally. Second, he can stay on his immigration course and hope that the Hispanic vote will get him elected in the general election rather than a Democrat.

The media will start cannibalizing their creation, McCain, the moment there is a definitive Democrat nominee. His only salvation with some, not all, of the media is to revert back to bashing the Republican party and highlighting his leftist views. This still will not help him win the general election.

One scenario equally as important as McCain’s immigration policy is his vice-presidential choice. A few names floating around are some of his apostate Republican brethren: Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida and Mike Huckabee. Also in the mix is Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman. Any one of these potential candidates has the ability to help McCain or hurt his campaign in the general election. If he choses the right fork in the road, each and every one of them would make it difficult to energize the Republican base in the general election. But if he choses to take the left fork in the road they would be assets to his campaign.

McCain is going to have to make some hard decisions whether he is going to be who he really is or who he needs to be to get elected in the general election. At this point, either direction is truly, at its core, unacceptable but possibly palatable if you hold your nose.

Political pundits that rebuke voters and the media for not delving into the issues of the candidates in the stead of focusing on the person, their race, their gender or their religion–is, at best, sophomoric political counsel. Before casting a vote for a candidate, especially for the office of the President, one should do at the very least a perfunctory political due diligence of the candidates contemplated.

The minimum consideration of a candidate should be: The person, the candidate’s character, the issues they represent, the probable cabinet nominations they would add to their administration, the probable judicial characteristics they are likely to be guided by when nominating federal jurist and Supreme Court jurist, their endorsements, and their political trending. The culmination of the preceding concerns should be the standard investigation for any voter endowed with common sense before casting their vote.

In disregarding and reckless fashion, many plebiscites rarely penetrate the veneer of a candidate. Some voters settle for just a fraction of the person running–perhaps never looking beyond their gender, race, or religious affiliation. Some voters will vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she is a women, or vote for Barack Obama only because he is black. The scenario could be reversed and a vote not cast for Clinton only because she is a woman, or a vote against Obama because he is black. Same with religion. Some will vote against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.

The capriciousness of voters, an affliction for not prescribing to the above stated political vetting process, causes the wild swings in the polling numbers due to last minute susceptibility to slick marketing adds by the candidates, therefore causing the ever fickle plaudits of voters–which they could have been inoculated against with information.

John McCain, after his decisive win in the Florida primary, has moved into Republican front runner status. Thus making it belatedly appropriate to increase the microscopic magnification a notch or two on this political specimen.

Political trending is an effective method of political forecasting. Mitt Romney has been assailed for his past political record being socially liberal in instances. But he has trended towards a much more conservative stance on the same issues. If Romney stays the course, he will evolve into a more traditional conservative. McCain, in antithetical fashion, in the past few years, has trended hard and fast to the left. If McCain stays the course, in a very short while, he will have evolved into the standard neo-liberal that has infected the current Democrat party.

A candidate with a long documented political record cannot evade the manifestation of their stance on issues. There is no better way for their issues to elucidate themselves than to research the legislation they have sponsored and legislation they have voted on. To clarify John McCain’s stance on issues, his most recent legislation and voting record in Congress:

• The McCain-Kennedy Act was the immigration bill that caused the unprecedented grassroots revolution from the American populace to jam every phone line to every member of Congress insisting they vote against it. The bill offered wholesale amnesty to every illegal alien in the United States. Not only did he write and sponsor the bill, he has recently stated he would sign it into law if he were President.
• The McCain- Feingold Act was nothing less than the constitutional censorship of the 1st Amendment. A government agency can now screen and suppress political information before it reaches voters.
• McCain was a cosponsor of the Dream Act, S. 774. This bill would have given in-state tuition to illegal aliens while still forcing citizens to pay out of state tuition.
• McCain voted for an amendment to S. 2611 that would have mandated that the Mexican government be consulted before construction of any part of the border fence.
• McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act would have added an additional 50 cent tax to a gallon of gasoline and increase the cost of gas utility bills by 20%. This act is the U.S. version of the imbecilic Kyoto Protocol.
• McCain Anti-Torture Amendment would have allowed due-process rights to terrorists thus allowing them to access to U.S. courts. McCain wants Guantanamo Bay closed and the detainees brought to the U.S. prison system and court system.
• McCain voted to give retroactive Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.
• McCain is a proponent of universal health care coverage.
• McCain voted twice against Bush’s tax cuts.

A John McCain probable Supreme Court nomination presents a dichotomy. John Fund quoted McCain as saying he would be more inclined to nominate someone like John Roberts than Samuel Alito, who “wears his conservatism on his sleeve.” When asked “Wouldn’t it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito? McCain said, “Well, certainly Roberts.” McCain also voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court.

The McCain-Feingold Act is, up to this point, considered by John McCain and the act’s proponents as one of his finest legislative achievements. The McCain-Feingold Act leads McCain into the murky waters of appointing a Supreme Court Justice. The McCain-Feingold act, in all actuality, is unconstitutional, and has had a few close brushes with the Supreme Court. If McCain does nominate someone in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas, there is a higher probability that the McCain-Feingold Act could be ruled unconstitutional. McCain knows this. To believe that McCain would not try and walk a fine line with a Supreme Court appointment and the protection of his act, would be intellectually disingenuous.

You can judge a person by the company they keep, or in the case of a politician, by who endorses them. McCain’s endorsers are a virtual who’s who of apostatically defective Republican politicians and liberal media. Among the RINOs (Republican in Name Only) who have endorsed McCain are California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Democrat Congressman Joe Lieberman. McCain has been endorsed by the rabidly anti-American publications, The New York Times and the LA Times. The liberal media is fawning all over McCain, at this point, because he has spent the past ten years denigrating the Republican party and conservative ideology.

It is still too early to venture a guess who McCain would add to his cabinet. It would not, though, be out of line to take a hard look at the people he has surrounded himself with and make a reasonable conjecture as to who might be in line for a cabinet position.

McCain has added to his campaign staff Juan Hernandez. Hernandez is a fanatical open borders zealot. Hernandez holds duel citizenship status with the U.S. and Mexico and worked in Vicente Fox’s administration.

McCain has also added Jerry Perenchio to his campaign staff. Perienchio was responsible for the millions of dollars spent in California to stop the schools from teaching English to foreign language speaking students and wanted foreign language speaking students to be taught in their native tongue. Perenchio owns Univision. He has the capability to control what enters 40 million Hispanics ears through Spanish speaking television.

Perhaps one or both of these open borders advocates can be assured of a cabinet position. Hernandez would fit into McCain’s idea of Director of DHS. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger could be become Secretary of Education. Rick Perry could become the Secretary of Transportation.

While McCain is a strong advocate for the war in Iraq and wears it like a badge demonstrating his national defense and anti-terrorism prowess , he is as weak on national defense as George Bush. No one, including presiding President George Bush, can legitimately claim to be strong on national security and terrorism, while placating a third world country, whose President advocates the chronic and illegal breeching of our borders, and demonstrate unadulterated indifference to the estimated 20 million illegal aliens that reside within our borders.

If it calls itself a Republican yet it looks like a liberal, walks like a liberal, talks like a liberal, and surrounds itself with liberals–it’s probably a liberal wrapped in a Republican package.

The McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker stated in the new ad that, “Democrat Senators, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards mentioned John McCain’s name 15 times during a 90 minute debate. Thus making McCain their worst nightmare.

What Hazelbaker failed to mention is the reason McCain’s name was mentioned so many times during the debate. It wasn’t as freely mentioned as she alluded, but was in the context of answers to questions posed to the Democrats during the debate.

Keep in mind that the questions were geared for the Democrats on the stage only and was assumed that they would implicate each other to further their agenda.

A sampling of the questions:

• Of all the candidates, who is most likely to raise taxes if elected to the Presidency? They all answered in unison, “John McCain.”
• Who is most likely to to halt the building of the border fence and open the borders? Again in harmony, “John McCain.”
• Who is most likely to give amnesty to illegal aliens? Again, “John McCain.”
• Who is most likely to get the approval of a criminal trials for terrorist as opposed to military tribunals? Again, “John McCain.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard “Screaming Demon” Dean, agreed there is an underlying fear within the Democrat community of McCain getting the Republican nomination. He stated also, “The problem is not so much as his ability to ignite the Republican base and get them to the polls in the general election–our polling numbers assure us he will get very few core Republican votes. The real fear is his being able to to steal the independent votes and the moderate Republicans–as we refer to as ‘closet Democrats’–but most alarming is his ability to steal the more liberal voters from the Democrat Party.”

Dean continued to mention how troubling and shocking McCain’s endorsements are becoming for the Democrat Party, ” It is unprecedented that a Republican has garnered the support and endorsements of the New York Times, Geraldo Rivera, Dailykos, Moveon, Codepink, Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and after the drubbing that Hillary took in South Carolina today, Bill Clinton.