I've been repeatedly asked to provide my thoughts on the GOP VP stakes, and have thus far refrained from doing so, perhaps because I am so unenthused by the choices in the Republican Party.

Finally, I decided to write something about it. In my column today I insist that the choice be conservative, and even give my take on some names, though without the analysis.

You may have heard that the New York Times has refused to print an Iraq op-ed by John McCain, the same man it endorsed in the Republican primary, even when Barack Obama had just written an Iraq op-ed himself. Apparently McCain's op-ed wasn't written on Obama's terms.

Well, for convenience, my syndicate has put up the op-ed on its website if you haven't read it yet.

Yet another reason the Times is going down the toilet.

The Club for Growth has a nice chart detailing how often this season each U.S. Senator has voted with Majority Leader Harry Reid (the same guy who last year declared the war "lost" just when our troops were turning things around).

Not surprisingly, the two Senators who voted most often with him were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with nearly 91% each. The three Senators who voted the least often with Reid were small government heroes Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, and... John McCain!

In a rare move, a Chinese newspaper has spoken out about Obama. It's kind of funny that they seem to prefer McCain over him. Apparently even they seem to think Obama's position on Iraq is ridiculous.

The last sentence of the article says that the Chinese have tended to prefer Republican candidates over Democrats because they focus less on "rights issues." I take issue with its application here. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Democrats have been more outspoken about freedom and human rights than President Bush and Senator McCain, particularly in the last eight years. It is the Democrats that have mocked efforts to spread freedom. In fact I would like Obama to explain how exactly a U.S. withdrawal would benefit the people of Iraq at this point.

I would say if the Chinese do indeed prefer McCain, it is for a couple of issues: free trade and Iraq (indeed, an anarchic Iraq is far more feared by the Chinese than an Iraq with strong U.S. ties). 

Do you roll your eyes every time someone pretends that the Democrats' heated primary season has been "healthy" to the Democratic Party? I do. Regardless of whom you're rooting for, there is no denying that the Dems' soap opera has hurt their chances in November. My column yesterday is on the subject, check it out here.

Since I haven't been able to blog for a little while, I am posting my most recent columns now. My column from two weeks ago notes that whichever party won the 2004 election was most likely to win the 2008 election as well. You can find it here.

One thing I have particularly liked about John McCain for many months now is his tough stance on subsidies. I remember when in the Iowa debate, he spoke out in no uncertain terms about the problems with agricultural subsidies, when the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney were pandering to Iowans despite the obvious harms of such subsidies. That has always stuck in my mind, because if we rewind to December, we can see how badly each of the candidates needed to perform well in Iowa.

Now, he's back with more. Here is what McCain said in Iowa yesterday, which, as a swing state, is also an important general election state:

Some things never change: Republican John McCain dislikes farm subsidies. "I have to give you a little straight talk about the farm bill that is wending its way through Congress," McCain said Thursday at the Polk County Convention Center.

"I do not support it. I would veto it," he said. "I would do that because I believe that the subsidies are unnecessary."

McCain was in the heart of farm country, a place where subsidies for corn and ethanol fuel are wildly popular.

His long-held position against subsidies has cost him in Iowa, the state that traditionally begins the presidential nominating process and is a potential swing state in the fall. Yet the Arizona senator didn't hesitate to bring up the issue.

That really impresses me. Conservatives might not be happy with McCain on issues across the board, but on the issues where they are in agreement, he's gonna go all the way to make it happen. And if he does succeed in eliminating subsidies, our country and the world will be much, much better off for it.

It is no secret that the New York Times encouraged John McCain's nomination during the Republican primary, and on the very day it was clear he would become the Republican nominee, switched gears 180 degrees and proceeded to unleash hell on him - or attempt to, at least. Except none of this "hell" has been substantive, and as the NYT's stories on McCain fail to stick, the paper is clearly getting more desperate.

Roger Kimball has an excellent post up analyzing the NYT's latest non-story on McCain.

When you're done reading it, you might not be surprised to find out that the NYT's circulation is down again this year, and has suffered more than a 9% drop in its Sunday circulation.

So I got an email from the McCain campaign announcing the new campaign gear in their store. I went to check it out, here's what I found:

McCain for President Lanyard: $10

McCain Hat: $25 (Compare with Obama's $15) 

McCain St. Patrick's Day T-Shirt: $35 (Compare with Obama's $20)

Faith of My Fathers DVD: $50 (BestBuy.com has it for $9.99)

McCain Embroidered Fleece Jacket: An unbelievable $200 (Compare with Obama's $50)

I remember buying a ridiculous amount of Bush 2004 gear for something like a total of 50 bucks. Whoever was responsible for the contracting and pricing for the McCain gear here is way, way off. People will be supporting McCain, as I will, but no one will be wearing his gear. 

John McCain has given up on attempting to catch the Democrats in fundraising. He will settle for the public funding option, meaning he will use the $84.1 million in public funds between his nomination in September and the general election. It's good in the sense that he won't have to worry about raising money anymore, but bad in that he is risking being grossly outspent by his Democratic opponent, since McCain wouldn't be allowed to raise additional money.

Unless, of course, Barack Obama sticks to his promise that he would use public financing if his opponent did. But for some reason I doubt he would.

Some interesting endorsements out today.

First, former Senator Rick Santorum, the social conservative who has written quite angrily about John McCain in the last few months, has announced his support for the Republican nominee. This is the most interesting part for me:

On judges, McCain has repeatedly made clear that he will, as his Web site states, "only nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat." Sounds good to me.

It is a little strange for Santorum, who closely worked with McCain for many years, to cite McCain's campaign website in assuring people that McCain will select good, conservative judges. It's as if he's really saying, "I'm not necessarily vouching for him on this, but I will point you to his website, which, if we choose to believe it, sounds good."

The second endorsement (and I should point out that in no way do I mean to insult Senator Santorum by giving the false impression that the two endorsers are in any way morally equivalent human beings), comes from Michael Moore. Yes, Barack Obama, who recently secured Hamas's endorsement, has now received Moore's as well. He's on a roll!

From a Rasmussen poll released today:

Just 68% of Democrats say they would vote for Obama against McCain. Twenty-three percent (23%) would vote for the Republican, 5% for a third-party option, and 4% are undecided. Clinton attracts 71% of Democrats. In that match-up, 21% would vote for McCain, 4% say they would vote for some other candidate, and another 4% are undecided. McCain attracts 85% of Republicans against Clinton, 82% against Obama, and leads both Democrats by double digits among unaffiliated voters.

Charles Krauthammer examines the Democrats' badgering of McCain on what they claim is his intention to fight a hundred-year war in Iraq. But here is what McCain actually said:

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

 Of course, maintaining a presence in Iraq is quite different from fighting a war there. We've maintained a presence in Japan, Korea, Germany, Kuwait, etc. and no one, including these same Democrats, has ever really minded. But this is the best fact for them to twist against McCain, and the Democrats are going to milk it. I am sure we will be revisiting this issue recurrently.

Rasmussen has John McCain leading Clinton and Obama by double digits, 51% to 41%, to be exact. This might cease being the case once the Democrats choose their nominee, but until then, it's good news.

Another Rasmussen survey shows that 47% of Americans believe we are winning the war on terror, while a long-time low of 20% think the terrorists are winning. But perphaps most disturbing is this passage:

Republicans, by a 73% to 8% margin, believe the U.S. and its allies are winning. Among Democrats, just 30% believe the U.S. and its allies are winning while 32% believe the terrorist have the edge.