Here are some of the locations of visitors within the past several hours: Carrizozo, NM; Kenya, Africa, Savannah, GA, Seattle, WA, Midvale, UT, Houston, TX, Lubbock, TX, Bellingham, WA, Seattle, WA, Downingtown, PA, Glenside, PA, as well as many other places. Thanks to all of you for visiting.
If you'd like to see my daily columns, the best place to go is: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Copy that link, paste it into your broswer, and then when you get to the primary site, please bookmark it.
Later today (Friday, February 8, 2008), I'll be writing about the tactics advocated by an Oklahoma activist, Sharon Caliendo, who lives in Norman. Sharon discusses how you can turn your favorite candidate from "someone who came close" to "someone who celebrates a victory on Election Eve."
Sharon, along with Greg Alterton, began the Yahoo Group of Rudy Giuliani supporters. When Rudy dropped out, the Group became "Rudy Supporters for McCain." It was and is one of the largest groups on Yahoo, with approximately 1500 members. It was a factor in John McCain's winning the Oklahoma Primary.
Her emphasis is on grassroots politics -- basically on political activists (like you) recruiting other activists. Of course, we each have ONE vote, but if we act wisely we can leverage our vote into many votes. It's something like a snowball rolling down a hill. By the time it reaches the bottom it has turned into a huge mass.
To win on November 4, 2008, John McCain will need approximately 70-75 million votes. Sharon's analysis explains how McCain can accumulate enough support to win. I hope you return to see what she says.
________________________________
RICH GALEN ON WHY YOU SHOULD BE SUPPORTING JOHN MCCAIN:
Rush, Sean, and Laura
By Rich Galen
Friday, February 8, 2008
With the exit of Gov. Mitt Romney there is no doubt that Sen. John McCain will be the Republican nominee.
The Popular Press is running around in tiny circles, eyes wide, arms waving, mouths agape selling themselves on the theory that McCain's impending nomination will signal the end of the Republican Party.
The Main Stream Media has a vision of the GOP which is that Republicans are a bunch of narrow-minded, widely-condemning, high-handed, low-opinioned, under-educated, over-critical brutes who subscribe to a political orthodoxy which brooks no deviation from a belief set laid down by disciples of Aimee Semple McPherson
Not all. But many.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the others are doing the work of the New York Times and the rest of the popular press by railing against McCain all day, every day.
It appears on the surface that their goal is to make Conservatives stay home next November 4 and hand the White House to Hillary or Barack.
But the reality is they are doing it because it means good ratings. When their listeners get tired of hearing them beat up on McCain, they'll switch to something else.
If they were to ask for my advice (which they most assuredly will not) I would suggest they take on the issue of the Democrats in the Senate holding up - according to the Wall Street Journal - 208 nominees: 180 nominees to executive branch positions and 28 nominees to the Federal bench.
If Rush, Sean, Laura and the rest wanted to really do a favor for America, they would get their tens of millions of listeners amped up about the nominees who are being held up - some for as long as two years - by Senate Democrats who will not allow the President to govern and will not allow the Judicial Branch to function.
But, I digress.
It is not a surprise that Mitt Romney got out of the race yesterday. After spending some $40-50 million of his own money and perhaps $100 million overall, he needed be able to have said more than "I did somewhat better than Mike Huckabee" after Super Tuesday.
Huckabee would never have gotten out of the race as long as Romney stayed in, so Romney found himself in an untenable political corner in which he was boxed in by McCain on his left and Huckabee on his right.
Huckabee will likely stay in at least until next Tuesday (the "Potomac Primary" - Virginia, DC, and Maryland) to see how he fares without having to share the right side of the ballot with either Romney or, as in South Carolina, Fred Thompson. After that Huckabee will get out leaving the field clear for McCain.
I don't have any idea that this has actually happened, but I would be surprised if surrogates for Charlie Black (McCain) and Ed Rollins (Huckabee) haven't been on the phone laying down the ground rules for a discussion about what role Huckabee will have in the campaign and what role his delegates will have at the Republican National Convention.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday, John McCain showed confidence and courage by standing before the very group which Rush, Sean, Laura and the rest have been attempting to agitate like a washing machine on steroids against him.
Watching the speech on television - first on Fox then on CNN - it appeared those in attendance appreciated McCain showing up, his willingness to openly speak about their differences, and his recitation of his Conservative creds.
It did not hurt that former Sen. George Allen stood with McCain as he was introduced, thus demonstrating that a favorite of core Conservatives - Allen - was pronouncing McCain satisfactory, acceptable, and … OK by him.
John McCain has nearly nine months to consolidate Republican support behind him. He will, with the aid of other Conservatives, do that.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to be duking it out until at least April and maybe all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August - leaving the nominee only a couple of months to accomplish that feat on the Dem side.
The Talk Show Set should get on board and stop doing the work of the New York & Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek and Time.
Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. He currently is a senior adviser to Fred Thompson's presidential campaign and writes at Mullings.com
Be the first to read Rich Galen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichGalen/2008/02/08/rush,_sean,_and_laura
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Friday, February 8, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sanity102: Why McCain's "The Man"
If you want to sign up as a blogger/onliner for Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, a future U.S. President, you can do so by going to Adam's blog. Sarah, I'd recommend that you talk soon to Senator John McCain. It's increasingly likely he will choose you as his running "mate."
I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com
Excuse me? Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?
Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?
Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture.
And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?
Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?
Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"EXCUSE ME??
I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com
Excuse me? Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?
Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?
Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture.
And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?
Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?
Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"EXCUSE ME??
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
CONSERVATIVES DEFAULTING ON CITIZENSHIP OBLIGATIONS?
If you'd like to read an excellent column on Barack Obama, go to John Hawkins' The Forgotten Street.
The following is part of a discussion I've been having with Cindy at The Pink Flamingo about SOME people who call themselves "conservatives." Being racist, sexist, or homophobic does NOT qualify one as a conservative. As a Christian, my obligation is not to bash people who are different from me, but rather to love them.
Cindy, at some point I'll start writing again about what's going on with "conservatives." I do not support "conservatives" who are anti-Mexican, anti-Black, anti-professional women, or anti-gay.
On the critical issue of dealing with crime: I have been making the point lately that Rudy-Bratton-Kerik (and also Bloomberg) have been central in reducing NYC's murder rate from 2500 pre-Giuliani (2494, actually) to fewer than 500. This is a major "pro-life" achievement. It is a major libertarian accomplishment, because liberty has no meaning if people are afraid to open their front doors.
There are too many murders, especially gun murders, in America. If the American people ask what we're going to do about it, we need to provide a coherent answer. We already have 5-10 times as many people in jail as other developed countries, so building more and more jails is NOT the answer. Murder and crime generally are problems, and our political obligation is to SOLVE problems, not to pretend they don't exist. Many people who call themselves conservatives have defaulted on their obligations as citizens.
There are major, major problems with campaign finance, and it does need to be reformed. Right now, campaign finance as it is will lead to a permanent Democratic majority. Thus, the condemnations of McCain are absurd. Go to opensecrets.org and see how your least-favorite candidates (Pelosi, Murtha, and Obey) are doing in getting "donations." They're getting so much money that there is no earthly way a Republican candidate could defeat them. The Democrats' national congressional committee has raised TWICE as much money as its Republican counterpart. So, good luck to us on regaining control of Congress.
As for the "Gang of 14," it consisted of some of the best people in the Senate, patriotic Americans who were trying to turn the Senate into something other than an ideological hate machine. They should be commended, not condemned. An imperfect solution to a real problem trumps no solution at all.
Additional Part of Dialogue with Cindy is below:
Cindy, the situation with self-styled "conservatives" (some of them racists and various haters) is bad -- very bad. However, there's a healthy re-sorting going on in American politics, and that's probably necessary.
I cite one episode where Hillary Clinton was asked if English should be the "official language" in America. She replied, "It should be the national language but not the official language." Right now, she's better on that issue than Republicans. She handled it without ticking off a single Hispanic. All the Republicans, except McCain, reply that English should be the "official" language. Does that win them any votes?
The point of running for office is to take positions acceptable to a majority of voters. Writing off the Hispanic vote will be a disaster, and right now conservatives seem unable to avoid disasters. Appealing only to the "base," about 20% of American voters, is a great way to lose 45-plus states.
This is a government "of, by, and for the people," which includes people who disagree with us. If a majority disagrees with us, it's our problem, not theirs.
More on gays and lesbians:
Little-Known Political Fact: Without votes from gays and lesbians in the 2000 election, George W. Bush would have lost Florida -- and thus the election. The "inconvenient truth" is that Al Gore would have won that election and probably would still be President. Bush got tens of thousands of gay and lesbian votes in FL, an essential element in his tiny margin of victory (fewer than 600 votes). Exit polls showed that Bush got about one-quarter of the ballots cast by FL homosexuals.
In most surveys, about one-third of gays and lesbians describe their political philosophy as conservative. About the same number define their religious belief as Christian. Those who hate G/L are generally defined as non-Christians, because they violate completely The Second Great Commandment.
In the case of sin, it's critical that we concentrate on our own. We do not know others well enough -- their beliefs, intentions, and actions -- to stand in any sort of judgment of them. If we do otherwise, we are in complete violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
An individual's sins are between him or her and God.
More of my endless exchange with Cindy is below:
One of the major issues out there is how to bring conservatives down from their perch in the trees, scratching their pits, back into humanity. I just got a note from one far-right type telling me how awful Barack Obama's church was (same type of article that appeared six months ago in the NY Times). I sent a long reply.
That particular church does not seem particulary "Christian," but it does a great deal of good work in the community, trying to bring people up into the middle class (while berating the elements of middle-class life that most of us worry about, including the bigotry).
My problem with Obama is not his church. It's his politics, which is the same old "redistribute the wealth!" "Get re-elected." "Pay off AFSCME and the NEA!" When people go around condemning his silly minister, they avoid confronting the real issues.
Too many far-right people have one major gripe with Obama: the color of his skin.
Obama's wife Michelle not only has "rhythm," but also is a tremendously effective political operative. His two girls are beautiful and appealing. His message strikes the right chord with many people.
Meanwhile, my right-wing correspondent is telling me who his minister is friendly with and that he doesn't particularly cotton to white folks. Historically, of course white folks haven't exactly been the best friends of black folks, what with slavery, segregation, and the like. My wife likes Obama a lot, and she is not in any sense a stupid person.
Anyway, when people become serious candidates for President, Democrat or Republican, I start treating them with basic courtesy. We only get one President, and he or she turns out to be OUR President.
If we go through another national hate-fest, such as the one we've had with the libs and Bush, the nation will be diminished. We need to talk about what conservatism is, and what it's not. It's not most of the stuff now parading around the Internet.
The following is part of a discussion I've been having with Cindy at The Pink Flamingo about SOME people who call themselves "conservatives." Being racist, sexist, or homophobic does NOT qualify one as a conservative. As a Christian, my obligation is not to bash people who are different from me, but rather to love them.
Cindy, at some point I'll start writing again about what's going on with "conservatives." I do not support "conservatives" who are anti-Mexican, anti-Black, anti-professional women, or anti-gay.
On the critical issue of dealing with crime: I have been making the point lately that Rudy-Bratton-Kerik (and also Bloomberg) have been central in reducing NYC's murder rate from 2500 pre-Giuliani (2494, actually) to fewer than 500. This is a major "pro-life" achievement. It is a major libertarian accomplishment, because liberty has no meaning if people are afraid to open their front doors.
There are too many murders, especially gun murders, in America. If the American people ask what we're going to do about it, we need to provide a coherent answer. We already have 5-10 times as many people in jail as other developed countries, so building more and more jails is NOT the answer. Murder and crime generally are problems, and our political obligation is to SOLVE problems, not to pretend they don't exist. Many people who call themselves conservatives have defaulted on their obligations as citizens.
There are major, major problems with campaign finance, and it does need to be reformed. Right now, campaign finance as it is will lead to a permanent Democratic majority. Thus, the condemnations of McCain are absurd. Go to opensecrets.org and see how your least-favorite candidates (Pelosi, Murtha, and Obey) are doing in getting "donations." They're getting so much money that there is no earthly way a Republican candidate could defeat them. The Democrats' national congressional committee has raised TWICE as much money as its Republican counterpart. So, good luck to us on regaining control of Congress.
As for the "Gang of 14," it consisted of some of the best people in the Senate, patriotic Americans who were trying to turn the Senate into something other than an ideological hate machine. They should be commended, not condemned. An imperfect solution to a real problem trumps no solution at all.
Additional Part of Dialogue with Cindy is below:
Cindy, the situation with self-styled "conservatives" (some of them racists and various haters) is bad -- very bad. However, there's a healthy re-sorting going on in American politics, and that's probably necessary.
I cite one episode where Hillary Clinton was asked if English should be the "official language" in America. She replied, "It should be the national language but not the official language." Right now, she's better on that issue than Republicans. She handled it without ticking off a single Hispanic. All the Republicans, except McCain, reply that English should be the "official" language. Does that win them any votes?
The point of running for office is to take positions acceptable to a majority of voters. Writing off the Hispanic vote will be a disaster, and right now conservatives seem unable to avoid disasters. Appealing only to the "base," about 20% of American voters, is a great way to lose 45-plus states.
This is a government "of, by, and for the people," which includes people who disagree with us. If a majority disagrees with us, it's our problem, not theirs.
More on gays and lesbians:
Little-Known Political Fact: Without votes from gays and lesbians in the 2000 election, George W. Bush would have lost Florida -- and thus the election. The "inconvenient truth" is that Al Gore would have won that election and probably would still be President. Bush got tens of thousands of gay and lesbian votes in FL, an essential element in his tiny margin of victory (fewer than 600 votes). Exit polls showed that Bush got about one-quarter of the ballots cast by FL homosexuals.
In most surveys, about one-third of gays and lesbians describe their political philosophy as conservative. About the same number define their religious belief as Christian. Those who hate G/L are generally defined as non-Christians, because they violate completely The Second Great Commandment.
In the case of sin, it's critical that we concentrate on our own. We do not know others well enough -- their beliefs, intentions, and actions -- to stand in any sort of judgment of them. If we do otherwise, we are in complete violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
An individual's sins are between him or her and God.
More of my endless exchange with Cindy is below:
One of the major issues out there is how to bring conservatives down from their perch in the trees, scratching their pits, back into humanity. I just got a note from one far-right type telling me how awful Barack Obama's church was (same type of article that appeared six months ago in the NY Times). I sent a long reply.
That particular church does not seem particulary "Christian," but it does a great deal of good work in the community, trying to bring people up into the middle class (while berating the elements of middle-class life that most of us worry about, including the bigotry).
My problem with Obama is not his church. It's his politics, which is the same old "redistribute the wealth!" "Get re-elected." "Pay off AFSCME and the NEA!" When people go around condemning his silly minister, they avoid confronting the real issues.
Too many far-right people have one major gripe with Obama: the color of his skin.
Obama's wife Michelle not only has "rhythm," but also is a tremendously effective political operative. His two girls are beautiful and appealing. His message strikes the right chord with many people.
Meanwhile, my right-wing correspondent is telling me who his minister is friendly with and that he doesn't particularly cotton to white folks. Historically, of course white folks haven't exactly been the best friends of black folks, what with slavery, segregation, and the like. My wife likes Obama a lot, and she is not in any sense a stupid person.
Anyway, when people become serious candidates for President, Democrat or Republican, I start treating them with basic courtesy. We only get one President, and he or she turns out to be OUR President.
If we go through another national hate-fest, such as the one we've had with the libs and Bush, the nation will be diminished. We need to talk about what conservatism is, and what it's not. It's not most of the stuff now parading around the Internet.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
FRED THOMPSON: GOP'S "GREAT PUMPKIN"
By popular demand (well, my wife and stepdaughter), I'm reprinting my notorious column about former Senator (and apparent (?) presidential candidate) Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics. I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing is that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base." Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him.
Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage."
Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin. I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices.
Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll.
Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality. McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney."
Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics. I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing is that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base." Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him.
Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage."
Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin. I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices.
Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll.
Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality. McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney."
Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
FRED THOMPSON; HISTORY'S WORST CAMPAIGN
I wrote the following in response to a Yahoo "conservative" group where one member was asking where Fred Thompson's headquarters were in states like MI, MN, SD, and ND. You'll note that I'm not a big fan of Fred Thompson.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won. I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives.
What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards.
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won. I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives.
What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards.
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
Friday, January 11, 2008
THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES WILL BE . . .
This weekend I'll have a column on Saturday and one on Sunday. I'd love to hear from readers on their "guesses" -- and that's all they can be at this point -- on which candidates they (i.e., you) think the eventual nominees will be.
There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.
Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.
On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney. I started out many months ago by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain. In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions.
What are your own thoughts?
If I had to bet the farm today, my guesses would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.
The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:
I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.
It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.
There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.
Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.
On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney. I started out many months ago by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain. In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions.
What are your own thoughts?
If I had to bet the farm today, my guesses would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.
The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:
I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.
It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
McCain-Palin Ticket the Best
BULLETIN: McCAIN PUNCTUATES REMARKABLE COMEBACK WITH MASSIVE VICTORY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. CLINTON-OBAMA LOCKED IN VERY CLOSE RACE.
Long ago, this blog endorsed the presidential candidacy of a wonderful man, Rudy Giuliani. At this point, I'd like to offer my best wishes and my support to another American hero, Senator John McCain. God bless, John, and good luck in what will be a long, hard race. (Note: It is starting to look as if the political demise of Mrs. Clinton has been much exaggerated.)
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
My friend Cindy at www.ThePinkFlamingo.blogharbor.com/blog sent me the following note:
If McCain gets the nomination, he is going to need to counter Hillary with a woman - and someone young.There is only one logical choice for VP.Let's start playing with a McCain-Palin ticket. I think it could happen.
Steve says: I am totally in favor of a McCain-Palin ticket. There is no stronger, better, more electable candidate than Sarah Heath Palin. A wife, a mother, a devout Christian, the mother of an infantry soldier, a life member of the NRA, an expert on energy and the environment, Sarah stands for everything that is great about America.
Long ago, this blog endorsed the presidential candidacy of a wonderful man, Rudy Giuliani. At this point, I'd like to offer my best wishes and my support to another American hero, Senator John McCain. God bless, John, and good luck in what will be a long, hard race. (Note: It is starting to look as if the political demise of Mrs. Clinton has been much exaggerated.)
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
My friend Cindy at www.ThePinkFlamingo.blogharbor.com/blog sent me the following note:
If McCain gets the nomination, he is going to need to counter Hillary with a woman - and someone young.There is only one logical choice for VP.Let's start playing with a McCain-Palin ticket. I think it could happen.
Steve says: I am totally in favor of a McCain-Palin ticket. There is no stronger, better, more electable candidate than Sarah Heath Palin. A wife, a mother, a devout Christian, the mother of an infantry soldier, a life member of the NRA, an expert on energy and the environment, Sarah stands for everything that is great about America.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
For President: McCain or Giuliani
Somebody asked me today (it was James of opinionatedcatholic, one of the better blogs in the universe) which candidate I was supporting for President. I told him I'm supporting both McCain and Giuliani, the two individuals I believe are best able to protect the country, fight Islamic fascists, and support our military. After the Surge worked so dramatically, McCain came back into the picture for me. He had been advocating it for years.
However, I will support the Republican nominee (whom I assume will NOT be either Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo).
However, I will support the Republican nominee (whom I assume will NOT be either Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo).
Friday, December 21, 2007
John McCain's Christmas Story
A view of downtown Pittsburgh, with the Monogahela River on the right and the Allegheny River on the left. As the two come together near Point State Park (bottom left), they form the Ohio River.My Christmas Story
As a POW, my captors would tie my arms behind my back and then loop the rope around my neck and ankles so that my head was pulled down between my knees. I was often left like that throughout the night.
One night a guard came into my cell. He put his finger to his lips signaling for me to be quiet, and then loosened my ropes to relieve my pain. The next morning, when his shift ended, the guard returned and retightened the ropes, never saying a word to me.
A month or so later, on Christmas Day, I was standing in the dirt courtyard when I saw that same guard approach me. He walked up and stood silently next to me, not looking or smiling at me.
After a few moments had passed, he rather nonchalantly used his sandaled foot to draw a cross in the dirt. We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas, even in the darkness of a Vietnamese prison camp. After a minute or two, he rubbed it out and walked away.
That guard was my Good Samaritan. I will never forget that man and I will never forget that moment. And I will never forget that, no matter where you are, no matter how difficult the circumstances, there will always be someone who will pick you up and carry you.
May you and your family have a blessed Christmas and Happy Holidays,
John McCain
As many of you know, I'm giving John McCain another look. I continue to believe that he and Rudy Giuliani would be outstanding presidential choices. I'm also hopeful that both of them would lean toward Gov. Sarah Palin when they're considering vice-presidential choices. Finally, on the basis of their past performance, both McCain and Giuliani would be willing to campaign for Melissa Hart and William Russell in their efforts to win congressional seats.
Mike Huckabee and Jamie Spears
I heard on CNN that candidate Mike Huckabee described the pregnancy of 16-year-old Jamie Spears (Britney's younger sister) as a "tragedy." Frankly, that's a misuse of the word "tragedy," which is not a synonym for every unfortunate event that occurs in the world.
The sad thing is that there's no solid evidence that young Miss Spears is ready to have and care for this child. Huckabee did salute her -- and wisely so -- for apparently never considering an abortion.
I wonder if her responsible behavior in choosing to have the child doesn't over-ride the irresponsible part: getting pregnant at age 16. At this point, all we can do is wish her and child well -- and provide whatever support we can for this young-mother-to-be.
The untold story in this event is what steps, if any, Miss Spears and her family are willing to take to ensure the child is loved and well-cared-for. Is she, like her older sister, intends to continue "partying" and devoting her life to a series of pointless activities, then the child truly will need our prayers.
I hope Jamie decides from this point on to be a role-model for the 800,000 American teenagers who become pregnant annually. In avoiding the easy way out of having an abortion, she may in fact be off to a good start.A
s for Mike Huckabee, he needs to read up on the concept of tragedy. I suggest he start with Aristotle's "Poetics." Also, as a Christian minister, he needs to emulate Jesus Christ in staying away from judgmentalism. "Nor do I condemn you . . . Go and sin no more."
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Case for John McCain
. . . and The Case Against Mike Huckabee
In the December 8 - 14 issue of The Economist (http://economist.com), the publication makes the case for John McCain as Republican nominee for President. It's a compelling case.
The publication notes: "Mr. McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner of war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered . . . that they had 'other priorities.' He has repeatedly risked his politicla career by backing unpopular causes."
In addition, "Mr. McCain's qualifications extend beyong character. Take experience. His ranges of interests as a Senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign and military issues as anybody in public life."
As The Economist also points out, McCain may be the only Republican who can prevail in a general election over either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.
On the other hand, what does The Economist have to say about Mike Huckabee, who's become the flavor of the month? It says, "Mr. Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate -- a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly."
The publication continues: "A presidential debate between Mr. Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout."
Right now, there are two outstanding candidates on the Republican side, and Mike Huckabee is not one of them. If Republican voters are wise, they will see that the race should come down to two individuals: Rudy Giuiliani and John McCain. And may the best man win.
In the December 8 - 14 issue of The Economist (http://economist.com), the publication makes the case for John McCain as Republican nominee for President. It's a compelling case.
The publication notes: "Mr. McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner of war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered . . . that they had 'other priorities.' He has repeatedly risked his politicla career by backing unpopular causes."
In addition, "Mr. McCain's qualifications extend beyong character. Take experience. His ranges of interests as a Senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign and military issues as anybody in public life."
As The Economist also points out, McCain may be the only Republican who can prevail in a general election over either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama.
On the other hand, what does The Economist have to say about Mike Huckabee, who's become the flavor of the month? It says, "Mr. Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate -- a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly."
The publication continues: "A presidential debate between Mr. Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout."
Right now, there are two outstanding candidates on the Republican side, and Mike Huckabee is not one of them. If Republican voters are wise, they will see that the race should come down to two individuals: Rudy Giuiliani and John McCain. And may the best man win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
