DCRepublican.com

Very rarely are there instances where I’ll feel compelled to write about the mistakes being made by conservative organizations. Primarily, I tend to only go after political figureheads when they deviate from the original principles of the Republican Party.

However, today there was an email sent out that absolutely appalled and infuriated me. This time it wasn’t something about a partisan hack, but instead was about an employee of the American Conservative Union, Lisa De Pasquale and her efforts to try and shut down a harmless facebook group, CPAC 2009.

Here is the text of the email:

Hey guys,

You won’t believe this facebook message I got from a “Lisa De Pasquele”! You can read it and my response below.

Thanks for being a part of the group.

-Beau

———–
Hi Beau,

The chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation has decided to pursue legal action with Facebook to get your CPAC 2009 group removed. Just wanted to let you know because I don’t know if they automatically disable groups during when legal complaints are brought.

Lisa
———-

Subj: Threat to sue over our Facebook group name

An Open Letter to “Lisa De Pasquale”

Dear Lisa,

I just received your message on Facebook. Needless to say, I am a tad shocked you or (so you say) the chairman of the ACU, David Keene, are threatening legal action over the fact that I started an unofficial Facebook named, “CPAC 2009.”

The group was created by a dedicated small government conservative (myself) and frequent attendee of past CPACs. My only intention was in providing an unofficial source for information and news for the ‘09 gathering.

It is with a genuine sense of concern that I ask whether you threatened the same against unofficial CPAC 2008, 2007, and 2006 groups? Perhaps the reason you are threatening me is because this group has had more members than yours for several months now.

I don’t know.

But what I do know is that I find it doubtful that ACU members and donors would be pleased that you and Mr. Keene are so quick to spend their well-meaning contributions on what would be an expensive DC lawyer for such a sue-happy endeavor.

Speaking of frivolity, your demands do illustrate a much larger point.

What are you doing when you are not threatening legal actions against fellow conservatives?

Certainly not spending that time in trying to get a real conservative as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Perhaps if you had done more of that then there would be less of a chance we would be stuck with a nominee who led the Amnesty for Illegal Aliens effort on the floor of the United States Senate.

Lastly, you told me months ago (yes, you didn’t have anything more important to do back then either) that the ACU (American Conservative Union) does not even own the name “CPAC 2009.” Nor had they in previous years. So, I don’t think you are legally entitled to be the only user of the name either.

But alas, I do not have the time to continue to endure the yapping about the name of the group from an incessant whiner such as yourself. So, I will close it down.

You are Welcome,
Beau Correll

CC: 619 members

To sum it up, Lisa De Pasquale, an official representative of the American Conservative Union emailed Beau Correll, informing him that the American Conservative Union Foundation was going to pursue legal action over a Facebook group.

Beau, a Virginia Prosecutor, makes some great points in his response, especially in stating that the ACU should be using their donors money for more important battles.

Of course, the last thing you want to do is rile up dedicated conservatives who know how to use the internet. Very quickly this story made its way around the country and within an hour or two, Lisa De Pasquale had posted the following statement on the ACU’s CPAC 2009 Facebook group:

The complaint to Facebook (not LEGAL ACTION) was to remove the group because of confusion it might cause. As you might not know, CPAC is run by a 501c3 (non-profit) organization. The videos posted are political in nature and would constitute IRS violations of our non-profit status.

It looks like the creator of this group has finally added a disclaimer about the group, which is what we asked for in the first place. We have no problem with CPAC groups. As you can see, there are dozens of different CPAC groups.

Well she’s definitely changed her story. Here is her message to Beau again:

Hi Beau,

The chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation has decided to pursue legal action with Facebook to get your CPAC 2009 group removed. Just wanted to let you know because I don’t know if they automatically disable groups during when legal complaints are brought.

Lisa

However, trying to cover-up a lie that was sent to the masses wasn’t her only mistake.

In her latest statement she mentioned that CPAC is run by the American Conservative Union Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3), nonprofit educational organization, and the fact that Beau’s group had “political” videos on it, could jeopardize their tax status, implying that they can’t be affiliated with any political organizations, pursuant to IRS code.

What’s interesting is that in Beau’s group, he has classified it as “Just for Fun - Fan Clubs,” which is exactly what it is. However, the now “official” CPAC 2009 Facebook group, which is managed by Lisa, an employee of the American Conservative Union Foundation, is classified as “Organizations - Political Organizations,” I think that creates more problems than anything that Beau is doing.

Maybe they too should add a disclaimer to clarify (note: as of 6:30pm on 6/5/08, there is no disclaimer).

The fact of the matter is that Lisa got caught up in a scare tactic that has blown up in her face. Even if there would have been serious legal action brought against Beau’s group, the Facebook terms of service only prohibit such situations when applied to Facebook Pages. From the Terms of Service:

Facebook Pages are special profiles used solely for commercial, political, or charitable purposes. You may not set up a Facebook Page on behalf of another individual or entity unless you are authorized to do so.

Had they created a Facebook page first and then Beau tried to copy that, they might have had a case for it to be shut down. However, Beau wasn’t trying to scam them, his group isn’t spamming people and if anything, he is only helping the conservative movement.

As of 6:45pm on 6/5/2008, there isn’t a Facebook Page for CPAC 2009, or the American Conservative Union.

To many, this might not seem like a big deal. However, if you’re a conservative who believes that we need more like-minded people brought into the online world, or “joining the conversation” as a well known consultant says, you can see how this throws up huge roadblocks.

The American Conservative Union is suppose to serve as the umbrella organization for the conservative movement, not the Gestapo. Furthermore, they’re suppose to be for less government in our lives, not finding frivolous claims to bring it in more. It’s hard enough to convince conservative activists to take action online now, but when you throw in threats of legal action over such minor things, you basically set us back months in terms of catching up with the left.

I truly believe that this series of events isn’t representative of the American Conservative Union, however I think it shows how careful employees need to be when trying to use scare tactics on the internet.

Update: Beau’s group is no more. I guess there is no room for little guys.

For most up-to-date post: click here

As the summer draws near and the Democratic Primaries slowly wind down, campaign season is going to quickly roll into overdrive.

Soon enough, your mailbox is going to be flooded with fundraising pieces, your phone will be ringing off the hook with robo-calls and you’ll probably have a new series of commercials taunting you as you watch your favorite TV shows, all from candidates you can’t stand.

Yes, the season nerds like me love more than any other quickly approaching.

However, as this “full swing” campaign time draws near, I’ve been noticing that there are many people questioning whether or not the GOP will have enough muscle to successfully challenge the Democrats this fall.

Today’s questioning comes from the Cafferty File Blog, where Jack Cafferty points to new research showing that amongst people under 30, Democrats are going to have a much larger advantage over Republicans than they did in 2004. Citing Pew Research Data, Cafferty asks why the GOP can’t attract more young voters:

The Pew research Center did a survey of young people between October of last year and March of this year. What they found was that the current generation of young voters who came of age during the George W. Bush years is giving the Democrats a wide advantage in party identification.

58% of voters under the age of 30 surveyed during that time identified or leaned toward the democratic party-compared with just 33% who identified or leaned toward the Republican party. In fact, the Democratic party’s current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign — from 11 points then to 25 points now.

Should this be a cause of concern for Republicans? Sure, especially with the article being released today showing President Bush’s approval ratings as the lowest of any President ever. But it shouldn’t appear to be the end of the world.

The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of time for the GOP to brand itself in such a way that it has some appeal to younger voters.

I would argue that the GOP is currently doing many things that would be appealing to young people, however there has been very little marketing in terms of reaching beyond those who are identified and registered Republicans.

Without this marketing and outreach, the GOP carries the stereotype of being a party of old, rich, white men.

When you look at the issues that are really going to effect those who are under the age of 30, the biggest issue seems to be the most silent.

It’s not Iraq, its not Darfur, it’s Social Security.

I know that this was an issue that President Bush campaigned hard on in 2004, but courtesy of the Congress, he couldn’t get much done with it in 2005.

I also know that this was an issue that some would argue wasted a lot of ‘political capital’ for the administration, but I truly believe that if the GOP can bring this issue back, market it well and show young people why they need to demand change on this, we will win more young voters. We just need to be more creative.

As it stands now, neither of the Democrats will support any form of comprehensive Social Security reform, so it isn’t going to be hard to make a distinction, showing who is really looking to protect their future.

Another way that the GOP can attract more young voters is by returning to the roots of the early Republican Party, where decision and platforms were made on ideas, not polling trends and electability studies.

If the GOP can show themselves as the true party for limited government and personal responsibility, I don’t see any reason that they wouldn’t be able to attract some of the undecided voters, but more importantly tap into some of the Ron Paul base, which still seems to be strong.

Even something as simple as looking at issues from a different angle (like stopping bills that would make renters pay for the mistakes of some homeowners) will help people realize that the GOP isn’t what the stereotype suggests, and that we can actually create positive change both domestically and abroad.

There are a lot of things that the GOP can and will do to attract young voters to support the Republican candidates in November.

It’s going to take a lot of work, money and creativity, but these steps aren’t taken, the outcome of the November elections can be predicted now: we’ll lose.

Today President Bush gave an address from the Rose Garden at the White House where he held nothing back in expressing his frustration with the current Congress and their inability to work issues out, instead just resulting in using political tactics to block key programs.

Particularly, President Bush used this criticism to address the financial crisis facing the United States (courtesy of CNN.com):

“I repeatedly submitted proposal to help address the problems. Time after time, Congress chose to block them,” he said.

Bush called on Congress to send him sensible and effective bills to keep the country moving forward before taking questions from reporters.

I really hope this isn’t President Bush’s way of saying that he would hope for more bailouts of corporations and individuals who are facing financial troubles.

It was after all, President Bush who pushed hard for Congress to agree on a stimulus package, which in the opinion of many conservatives was an extremely wasteful idea that will probably have little impact on the economy.

However, in the same press conference, President Bush also went after Congress for even considering passing the Farm Bill, which has become even heavier in farm subsidies, increasing the burden on the American taxpayer.

Finally, President Bush made the effort to try and set the tone for Congress as his Presidency winds down:

Bush asked Congress to focus on four areas: energy, food prices, mortgage payments and student loans. The president urged Congress to pass legislation that would lead to more affordable and reliable energy at home.

While I give President Bush credit for calling out Congress, these directives sound almost exactly like the pitch the Democrats were giving the American people when they cleaned up shop in the 2006 elections.

Calling out Congress is extremely important when the country is in financial turmoil, but I think it’s also extremely important that when the President speaks, that he has more substance and addresses the real problems that are at hand.

Instead of telling Congress to address these issues, President Bush should have told Congress what specific things he would like to see, what he would be open to signing, and what things he isn’t going to cave in on.

This is his last term and he has absolutely nothing to lose.

I would argue that this is probably one of the few opportunities where the Republicans didn’t have to cave into the pressures of the Democrats, in fear of losing political points.

Before President Bush leaves office, I’d love for him to tell Congress that he will only support packages that are based on substance and real need for ALL Americans, not just small populations, or special interests. While it wont be the most popular action in his presidency, it will set a tone that Republicans can and will stand up to frivolous spending, and actually try and use fiscal restraint to try and get this countries economy back on track.

Bailouts, subsidies and pork-projects aren’t going to fix the economy, however prudence and cutbacks will put us on the right course.

Since today is Earth Day, I figured that I would take this opportunity to make a post that is political in nature, but also addresses a bigger challenge that the United States is facing.

Obviously there is enormous support behind the movement that is striving to eradicate global warming and I give them a lot of credit. They have done a great job mobilizing and I have no doubt that their reach is now into the millions.

I’m not going to try and argue against global warming. I’m not a scientist nor will I try to pretend that I am.

But what I will continually argue against is the use of government mandates to try and address global warming and the other ecological problems we’re facing.

Even those mandates that have been praised by many on the Left (like those relating to Ethanol), have only later been proven to be more harmful to the environment than the products they were aiming to replace.

Furthermore, CNN.com is even reporting that this energy-by-corn-ogasm has also created problems for world food prices:

Those battling global warming by promoting biofuels may unintentionally be adding to skyrocketing world food prices, creating what one expert calls “a silent tsunami” in developing nations.

The rising prices are “threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger,” Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations’ World Food Program, said on the agency’s Web site Tuesday.

The article continues:

Producing fuel from plant crops is supposed to be greener than drilling for oil, and biofuels generally burn cleaner, too. But the global biofuels industry now stands accused of a list of side effects that are said to be damaging lives, especially of the world’s poorest people.

The drive for more biofuels means more investment is going into those crops, meaning less land and less investment going in for food crops, causing a massive conflict and resulting in rising prices, which is having a huge negative impact, especially on developing countries,” said Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

Is this really a trend that we want to see continue?

As it stands now, the United States has used corn as the save-all-product, when in reality it is something that is just over-subsidized and keeps better, healthier and cheaper products from coming into the United States in higher quantities. Furthermore, it drives up the prices of things like sugar – courtesy of some unfair government regulations.

I think the track record for government mandates on all of these energy and eco-projects have shown to be complete failures that have wasted tons of money and left the environment worse than it was originally.

The answer to me seems simple: government mandates simply don’t work.

I’m sure I’ve just upset a lot of environmentalists out there, but I truly believe that choice could be the best solution for making the environment better – not the government.

Just look at the environmental movement that is sweeping across the country today.

These people aren’t motivated by government mandates, but instead are motivated by knowing that they can do something that will help make the world a better place, and for some there is also the added benefit of knowing that they can save some money.

If there were no mandates in the next 10 years, would the environmentalist progression slow down? I don’t think so.

This movement is growing on its own, so why should the government get in the way of that?

With fuel prices soaring, I’ve even seen many far-right conservatives purchase hybrid vehicles, simply because they are more economical.

Furthermore, I don’t see any reason why any homes built in the future won’t be made to be as energy efficient as possible.

Even those who think that global warming is a complete myth and nothing should be done, will still buy into the efficiency argument, simply because it is more economical.

I think that all of this will lead to a mentality shift amongst the next generation, who will also see the advantages of being Earth conscious, and be able to make these decisions on their own.

CNN.com has a few pages showing how people can “go green,” without having the government telling them how to do it. I urge everyone to check these out and consider some of the options.

Even I, DC Republican, have started to adapt some of these “green ideas” into my world.

I don’t do it because I’m a raging environmentalist, but because I see no harm in making the world a cleaner, greener place, while saving myself some money at the same time.
Link 1

Link 2

According to Glenn Beck, America definitely needs a 12 step program,  much like the one commonly used by recovering alcoholics.

While it might seem odd, or even offensive to look at the United States as we would alcoholics in recovery, I truly believe that Glenn Beck is onto something here.

From the article:

Step One: Admit we are not powerless.

Take a look at our Constitution. Not just a transcript; find an actual picture of it. The first three words, “We the People,” are at least four times larger than the others. Do you think that was an accident? Of course not. Our framers chose those words, and made them that size, because they knew they were the answer to any problem we would ever face.

Amen!

I think that far too often American’s forget that this country was built on the principle that every American, no matter what class, color or creed has the ability to stand up for what they believe in and fight for change.

I also think that this is something that many in Washington forget about. Unfortunately, the reality is that many in Congress, despite what they may say on the campaign trail, could care less what the common person thinks, they are just trying to climb the congressional ladder.

It doesn’t have to be this way though, we simply need to demand more of those we elect, but more importantly hold them to their word when they arrive in Washington.

Step Three: Decide to take our power back.

A recent polls says 81 percent of Americans now say that our country is on the wrong track. If you’re one of those people, who do you blame? The Bush administration? Congress? The media?

Here’s a crazy idea: How about blaming ourselves?

If you don’t like the fact that your city has led the country in poverty and homelessness for the last 10 years, then ELECT SOMEONE NEW. Stop voting for the same people from the same party every year.

Our power hasn’t gone away (see Step One), it’s just been masked by politicians who are tearing us apart for their own gain. We need to reclaim that power, and then we need to use it.

I think that this correlates with step one, but it’s an unfortunate reality that people think that America is a country where a minority of the population control the majority of the power.

While I’d agree that is how it seems, any citizen of the United States, as long as they have a strong message, can do just as much (if not more) good than those currently in power.

Step Five: Admit our wrongs, and our rights.

We’re constantly reminded about America’s faults and flaws, but what about our achievements?

If you want to teach our kids about Vietnam, that’s fine, but you better also teach them about World War II. And if you want to talk about our wars, you better also talk about our welfare. America is one of the most charitable countries in the history of the world, yet our mistakes are always glorified far more than our generosity. That needs to be reversed.

I agree. However, I don’t think that things have always been this way.

Forty years ago, when history was taught in our classrooms, war heroes and military victories were glorified more than any mistakes made my the United States. Furthermore, the Pledge of Allegiance was daily ritual, that reminded young people how great this country truly was.

Sadly, due to the assault on education from the left, the “true America” that is taught to our youth today is not representative of all of the great things we’ve done and could do with a stronger sense of pride from our citizens.

While Glenn Beck stops short at six steps, I think that the list of things we can do to get this country back on the right track is probably much longer.

Nonetheless, I urge everyone to read his article and if you have some other ideas, I urge you to share them.

I’ve been waiting for a video like this to come out for awhile now. There have been a variety of rappers on the left who have been able to throw down some good beats for their candidates, but there hasn’t been much of anything on the right.

While the conservative rapper decided to go with a very annoying ending, it’s something different to throw in the mix.

Unfortunately, there still isn’t a rap video out there that is pro-McCain, or at least not that I have a found yet. I’m sure there are at least 5 people in the United States who can rap well and support John McCain, we’ll just have to find them.

If not, maybe we’ll get one of the McCain Girls to try their skills on the mic, it cant be much worse than what they are doing now.

Conservative Rapper (H/T to TheConservativeRevolution and David All @ TechRepublican)

And one of the many Pro-Obama rappers:

Despite the fact that I’m not a homeowner, I’ve become more and more troubled by the proposals I’ve heard buzzing around the Hill, all aimed at trying save those homeowners who are having a hard time making payments on their sub-prime mortgage loans.

While I think it’s unfortunate when people don’t have the money they need to pay down their debts, it’s almost impossible for me to feel sorry for those who are in trouble because they cant afford their mortgage payments.

These loans were initiated by the homeowner, with terms that were clearly spelled out and agreed to. Just like when you open a credit card, you know exactly what interest rate you’re going to get. The same holds true with any home loan, before you sign on the dotted line, the terms are clearly laid out. If you don’t understand, or something seems fishy, it’s your responsibility to get clarification.

Yes, even for those who borrowed sub-prime loans.

People who took out these loans knew that their teaser rate would only be temporary or else it wouldn’t have been called a “teaser” or “introductory” rates. Even with these temporary (teaser) rates, these people knew that there would come a time down the road when their payments would increase and they would be held responsible for ensuring those payments were made. Just like any contract, if you don’t meet the terms, there are consequences and penalties.

I was always told that part of being an adult was living up to your responsibilities and making sure you never take on more debt than you can handle. However, if you do, you have to pay the consequences and live with your mistake and learn a lesson for the future.

I guess it’s that logic that is making the latest housing stimulus proposal so difficult for me to comprehend and accept.

Here are some of the details of what it could contain if passed (via cnn.com) :

* $4 billion in community block grants for states and local governments to buy and refurbish foreclosed properties
* New bond authority for states that can be used to refinance subprime mortgages
* Tax credits for people who buy and occupy homes in or near foreclosure. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, has proposed a $15,000 credit, but no dollar amount has been agreed on so far
* Tax benefits for homebuilders to reclaim past taxes paid
* New disclosure and transparency requirements for loans
* New money for foreclosure counseling
* New Federal Housing Administration rules that would reduce down payments on FHA loans and an increase in the size of a mortgage the FHA can insure

What happened to holding people responsible for their action? Are people no longer required to live with the consequences of bad decisions? Is the government going to bail out everyone when they have a problem?

While these are all questions that need to be addressed, the more important question that needs to be asked is why are responsible people, those who decided to rent, or take on fixed-rate mortgages, being penalized because of the actions of those who didn’t do their homework? Why should I have to pay for people who made a bad decision?

Do people not realize that government bailouts only provide a temporary fix, but more importantly as I just mentioned, cause responsible people to have to take on the burden of those who weren’t prudent. This seems worse than welfare!

If it wasn’t an election year, I can guarantee that no conservative Republican would be supporting measures that had these terms. However, since it is an election year, it seems that ideology and party platform are commonly thrown aside to win points back in their states.

But what about those in the district who are being responsible, those who did their research and planned ahead? Are each of these members willing to go back home and say, “I’m glad you’re responsible, but because your neighbor isn’t, we’ll pass their bill on to you?”

Unfortunately, the congressional spin machine will deliver this bill as if it was a cure-all to cancer and nobody will have to break down the cost or long-term consequences.

The media will tout this as a great accomplishment, and the House and Senate leadership will receive many accolades. Getting credit for promoting responsibility, I guess it’s that logic that gives Congress its high approval ratings.

Once the final bill is passed, I hope to go through it and get a breakdown of how much this will cost per taxpayer so people can get a better understanding of just how much money the government is throwing away on these rediculous bailout efforts.

Beyond the dollar amount, the reality is that none of these bailouts are going to last long. People will still be irresponsible. Companies will still find themselves in debt. However, thats will always be a concern and things have gotten better over time.

Instead of the government fixing everything, maybe we should just sit back and let the market make its necessary corrections and see what happens from there. For those who made the poor decision of taking out these loans, I guarantee that they will be the first to Google “financial responsibility” and make sure everyone they know does the same. If not, let them learn the hard way.

I’ve noticed that every time there is a panic, at least $1billion (thats $1,000,000,000) is guaranteed to come out of Washington to try and solve the problem. However, these problems always seem to keep coming back in some form.

Maybe its Washington, not the economy thats really the problem. Thoughts?

Not only is today April Fool’s day, but it is also Election Day in Wisconsin for a variety of state-seats, but there is one race in particular that has drawn national attention and become quite ugly.

The race drawing so much attention is for an open seat on the State Supreme Court, which in Wisconsin is a term that lasts 10 years, and if you do your job right, you’ll go down in history.

For the most part, state-based races in Wisconsin don’t usually get national attention, however due to how early these elections are, the Supreme Court races almost always generate national buzz, simply because there are so many interest groups trying to ensure that the “right” candidate gets elected.

Here is a bit more on this race from CNN.com:

Justice Louis Butler — already on the high court after being appointed to fill a vacancy — and Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman have traded partisan attacks, helped by hundreds of broadcast ads aired across the state, most funded by a host of independent advocacy groups.

“What’s remarkable about this race is how dominant the outside groups have been,” said J.R. Ross, editor at WisPolitics.com. “They’ve outspent the candidates themselves 10-to-1 on TV ads. They’re essentially drowning out the messages of Butler and Gableman.”

Ross said latest estimates show more than $3 million spent just on TV ads in the state’s top three media markets: Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay.

It’s sad that I don’t see $3,000,000 as a lot of money anymore in terms of spending on campaigns. It’s also very unfortunate that it costs that much money to sling mud these days.

The stakes in Wisconsin and nationwide are high, and are fueling renewed calls for reform on how judges are selected. The 19 states that held state Supreme Court elections last year shattered previous campaign cycle spending records — $34.4 million in all — which have increased steadily in the past decade.

The idea of judges running for elected office may seem like a strange concept, but it is the law in 21 states that have some sort of contested system for top judges. Thirty states — along with the federal system — appoint their judges, often under a merit selection system in which the governor gets the final say.

It’s very interesting, having elected judges, especially to the State Supreme Court. I’m conflicted as to whether or not I think this is a good idea or not, but it seems to work in Wisconsin.

I would bet a large amount of money that if you polled those voting today and asked them what the role of the State Supreme Court was, I’m sure many of them would get it wrong. I’m guessing even with all the spending, turnout will be relatively low. I’ll be curious to see the breakdown of dollars spent per voter once the dust settles.

However, with all this spending, both Gableman and Butler are guaranteed to have temporary rock-start status in the weeks following the election.

Here are a list of Wisconsin bloggers who have done a great job covering this race and have many more details on what is at stake and why Wisconsin needs Gableman on the high Court:

Election Watch Wisconsin

Dan Suhr @ GOP3

From Bloomberg.com:

March 25 (Bloomberg) — Former first lady Nancy Reagan endorsed John McCain’s presidential campaign in a move that might encourage conservative Republicans to rally around the Arizona senator’s bid for the White House.

Reagan called McCain a “good friend for over 30 years” who is well prepared to become commander in chief.

“My husband and I first came to know him as a returning Vietnam War POW and were impressed by the courage he had shown through his terrible ordeal,” Reagan said in a statement today. “I believe John’s record and experience have prepared him well to be our next president.”

The endorsement may help McCain win over Republicans who revere Reagan’s late husband, former President Ronald Reagan, while chafing at McCain’s willingness over the years to buck the party’s line on issues ranging from taxes to campaign finance reform.

Reagan is to meet with McCain today at her Los Angeles-area home, said Melissa Giller, a spokeswoman for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation.

While this isn’t a huge shock, this could be a very important, much needed fundraising component to McCain’s campaign. While I’m sure she wont do a fundraising tour, I wouldn’t be shocked to see her name in an upcoming direct mail piece.