December 27, 2007
Dec 27 12:21 Why Fred's the Best Dec 27 12:12 Bhutto Assassination Dec 27 14:42 Speaker Pelosi's Grand Delusion Dec 27 17:54 The Truth About Romney Dec 27 18:38 Fred's Response To Bhutto Assassination Dec 27 23:59 Good News For Fred?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
Why Fred's the Best
One of the biggest reasons why I'm an unabashed Fred supporter is because Fred's the only person capable of explaining why we need to take terrorism, and Iran, seriousl. Fred's also the only candidate who (a) understands the entitlement crisis and (b) has a plan to reform entitlements. Fred's also the man with the credibility and resolve to stop illegal immigration in its tracks.
Fred's plan for topping Iran's mullahs is to establish the equivalent of Reagan's Radio Free Europe. Though RFE existed long before Reagan took office, it wasn't the effective tool it should've been. Reagan hired people who were familiar with the culture, not just people who could speak the language. Reagan also did away with the 'don't offend somebody' diplomats that didn't preach the message of freedom.
Fred's idea for toppling the mullahs is to preach a message of hope, optimism and freedom to the oppressed Iranian citizenry. The idea is to tell them that we'll stand with them as they topple their mullahs.
Needless to say, Fred's the only candidate who's devised a detailed plan for Iran.
Another major item on Fred's agenda is reforming Social Security and Medicare. During the Des Moines Register/Schoolmarm debate, Fred said that "We need to tell the Warren Buffetts that" we can't afford to give them medicare benefits. Fred's plan to fix Social Security is to tie COLAs to inflation, not wage increases.
Again, Fred's the only candidate who's thought things through enough to put a proposal together.
When Fred talks immigration, his message is simple: We need high fences and wide gates. High walls to control the border, wide gates to be legal immigrant friendly. His other points of emphasis on immigration are that we need to penalize businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and we need to enforce the laws already in existence.
The difference between Fred on immigration and McCain and Romney is that Fred's done nothing to tarnish his credibility on the matter.
Fred enthusiastically supported the Bush tax cuts from the beginning, again unlike McCain and Romney. Romney now champions the Bush tax cuts but he was for raising the federal gas tax in 2003 .
Fred's a lifelong believer in strict constructionist judges. The mad advising him on judicial matters is David McIntosh, who founded the Federalist Society. It's easy to picture Mitt Romney picking another David Souter. It's easy to picture John McCain picking another Sandra Day O'Connor. YUCK!!! NO THANKS!!! When it comes to picking judges, Fred's the real deal. There won't be any Souters or O'Connors nominated by a Thompson administration. There'll be lots of nominees in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Michael Luttig.
Finally, Fred's fond of saying that "I was a conservative yesterday, I'm a conservative today and I'll be a conservative tomorrow." You certainly can't say that about either Romney, McCain or Huckabee.
Isn't it time we picked the best? That means Fred Thompson, not a pretender conservative.
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:24 PM
No comments.
Bhutto Assassination
Today's assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is a horrifying reminder that Islamic extremists want to impose their warped political views on Western civilization.
Bhutto's assassination is proof that the extremists' ideology knows no geographic boundaries. They seek to impose their will throughout the world, whether it's New York City, London, Tel Aviv, Bali, Madrid or Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when she was shot in the neck by a gunman who then set off a bomb. At least 16 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.This is proof that there's only one way to deal with these extremists. For months, Pervez Musharraf necessarily walked a tightrope with the extremists. This assassination should be the end of that tightrope walk. It's time for Musharraf to eliminate the extremists.
President Pervez Musharraf condemned the killing and urged people to remain calm so that the "nefarious designs of terrorists can be defeated."
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:18 PM
No comments.
Speaker Pelosi's Grand Delusion
That Nancy Pelosi plans on not getting anything done isn't surprising. The fact that she apparently believes that she can get away with it is. This morning, David Broder wrote a stinging rebuke of Pelosi's Speakership . Here's an example of Broder's rebuke:
An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.Simply put, much of the House's time was wasted on votes to end the Iraq War. When they weren't wasting time doing that, they were wasting time on witch hunts of the Bush administration, knowing that their investigations wouldn't lead to anything meaningful.
But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground, a potential weak point in the coming election.
They wasted a day applauding Al Gore for his 'visionary' (I'd prefer calling it delusional or hyperbolic) work on manmade global warming. They postponed the first hearing because an ice storm crippled Washington.
Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.The main reason why Republicans have a lower rating in this poll is because they oversampled Democrats. Had they done an accurate sampling, the results would look significantly different. Democrats' approval rating would be significantly lower. Republican approval ratings would be significantly higher.
I agree with Duane Patterson's opinion of what 2008 might hold:
If the President continues to show that he finally remembers what fiscal responsibility means, if Mitch McConnell continues to thump Harry Reid at virtually every turn, and if the party of the elephant uses their long memory when faced with a potential Hillary Clinton presidency, our chances continue to improve for next November.When I read that, I sent Duane an email, saying that Democrats were courting disaster by playing the far left's puppet. He replied by saying he was glad to have someone else who saw the telltale signs of a good year for Republicans. If Democrats think that this tiny list of accomplishments will pass for a record of success, then I'd highly encourage them to continue down this failed path. In fact, I'll try and get them a bigger megaphone to tout their 'record' of nonachievement.
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:43 PM
No comments.
The Truth About Romney
The longer he stays in the game, the more Mitt Romney's reputation suffers. This time, we get a full picture of Mitt Romney's flip-flops, thanks to Jim Rubens' op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader . Here's the most important Romney flip-flop in Rubens' op-ed:
Illegal Immigration . In a November 30, 2005, interview with The Boston Globe, Romney called the elements of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill "reasonable proposals." By March 2007, finger to the wind, Romney was roundly denouncing the same bill.Mitt Romney is now touting himself as tough on immigration, with plenty of help from Hugh Hewitt. This op-ed tells us that Mitt Romney's tough-on-immigration image is just that: image. You can't spin Rubens' quote. It speaks for itself. This is yet another example of Mitt's 'flexibility'. (Some might say it's an example of his untrustworthiness but who am I to speculate?)
I still haven't had anyone point out an example of Romney sticking with a position for a full year. Expecting Romney to shift positions on the biggest issues of our generation is as natural as expecting Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain to stick to their principles.
I expected Hugh to ignore this just like Hugh ignored the earlier Union Leader substantive attack on Romney . As expected, Hugh didn't disappoint in ignoring this damaging critique of Mitt.
Here's another substantial flip-flop:
Health care mandate . In 2005, Gov. Romney proposed and in 2006 signed into law an under-funded universal health care plan, including a mandate that all individuals lacking it buy health insurance, substantially similar to Hillary Clinton's proposed plan. On the stump in 2007, Romney reversed and now opposes his own plan and its central feature, the insurance mandate.Yesterday, I talked with Captain Ed during his show about MittCare. Ed said that we should keep in mind that Romney was dealing with a liberal legislature and that he probably got the best deal he could get. I'll respectfully disagree with Ed on that. If that's the best deal that Romney could negotiate, then he's a worthless negotiator. MittCare is one step away from single payer, which is the ultimate liberal/socialist disaster.
Here's a seemingly minor flip-flop:
Global warming . On Nov. 7, 2005, Gov. Romney touted the 30 months and half a million dollars his administration had spent shaping the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which will reduce global warming gas pollution by 10 percent by 2019. "I'm convinced it is good business," said Romney. On Dec. 14, 2005, one hour before clearing the way for his presidential ambitions by announcing that he would not run again for governor, Mitt Romney abruptly pulled Massachusetts out of the agreement, saying it would be bad for business.This doesn't help Romney get rid of his image of being a calculating politician. It certainly doesn't create the image of being a straight shooter. It'd be accurate to say that what you see is what you get with Fred and Rudy. It isn't accurate to say that what you see is what you get with Mitt. In fact, that's a pretty lengthy stretch of the imagination.
Originally posted Thursday, December 27, 2007, revised 28-Dec 12:13 AM
No comments.
Fred's Response To Bhutto Assassination
Here's the transcript of his interview with FNC's Harris Faulkner:
HARRIS FAULKNER: Senator, your reaction, first, to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.Fred's right that we won't see a simple way forward with regards to Pakistan. I also think it's going to take a steady hand walking this particular tightrope between desiring democracy without sacrificing stability.
THOMPSON: It is a tragedy, of course. It reminds us that things can happen in faraway places of the world that can affect the United States. I think this should be of great concern to us. It is almost a perfect storm in a very bad sense because two forces are operating against each other that are both desirable. One is democracy: they were making progress in that regard in that country. Former prime minister Bhutto was an important part of that process. But the other is stability. Pakistan is a nuclear country, and we cannot afford to let nukes fall into the hands of dangerous Muslim radicals. We are hoping those two things can be balanced out. We can see the continued progress toward a democratic society but also maintain stability in the country, which seems to be very much in doubt right now.
FAULKNER: I know you are running for the White House, so I don't want to put you in a position to second guess the president. But I'm interested in your opinion. President Bush is due to talk with Pervez Musharraf shortly. What do you anticipate that conversation should be like?
THOMPSON: Those two things that I mention probably would be high on the agenda. What could be done to not impose martial law, to not crack down, but be mindful of the fact that there are radical elements in that country, and perhaps even within the government, that would like to see instability and chaos and see those weapons fall into the wrong hands. This is part of a bigger problem. We need to understand that this is not a criminal investigation any more - so we find the bad guys and bring them to justice - it's a war.
This proves again the mindset of the radical elements that we are dealing with. We are seeing this all across Northern Africa and various places. We're seeing it across the Middle East and in parts of Asia including Indonesia and other places. We have to come to terms with that and do the things necessary to prevail. One of the things we need to be talking about is what Musharraf can do, additionally, to crack down on the Taliban. I think they have been insufficient in that respect.
FAULKNER: Taliban also supporters of al Qaeda in that country. Pakistan has been an important ally in the war on terror, so have do you walk that line?
THOMPSON: You just walk it. No one said it has been easy and simple. Pakistan has never been easy or simple. I had a chance a few years ago to talk to Musharraf before things got quite as complex as they are now. But it has always been an important part of the world. They're next door to India. They've had a crisis after crisis with regard to them. They're next door to Afghanistan, and they're important to us. They've been helpful to us. But we' re going to have to walk that line between democracy on the one hand and stability on the other. But I think it's possible.
In terms of the presidential election, this isn't the time to elect someone that'll need on the job training. It isn't a time to elect a Democrat, either, because it's likely that Bill Richardson would either be the Democratic nominee's running mate or their Secretary of State. Here's why we can't afford Richardson as VP or SecState :
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called on President Bush to pressure PakistaniPresident Pervez Musharraf to step aside in favor of a coalition government.That's an irresponsible, ill-conceived approach to the situation. Why would we want to force things at this point? What happens if the radicals win this election? That's a distinct possibility.
"Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government," he said in a statement. "Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible," added Richardson, who served as ambassador to the United Nations for a portion of the Clinton administration.
As Sen. Thompson said, this is a delicate situation that must be handled with deftness. The last thing we need is to act with the subtlety of a sawed-off shotgun.
Posted Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:40 PM
No comments.
Good News For Fred?
Based on this Time article , it appears as though Fred Thompson's hardline immigration position, combined with Tom Tancredo's dropping out of the race, is giving Sen. Thompson a significant boost:
Nearly a dozen of his potential supporters remained, however. They circled around Thompson's state chairman, Rep. Steve King, the man who just might lift the struggling campaign to a halfway decent finish in the nation's first caucus state. A popular state conservative, King was holding court, as he often does, on the issue of illegal immigration, which he speaks of as a crisis on par with the war in Iraq.It's obvious that people are trusting Fred Thompson to do what he says he'll do, something that Mitt Romney can't say with any honesty. Here's the thing that really caught my interest:
"The casualties in America are greater on average by far than they are in Iraq," he announced, citing dubious back-of-the-envelope estimates about the number of American homicides committed by people without citizenship. About an hour earlier, King had told the audience that Thompson was the only candidate who knew how to deal with those who had crossed the border illegally. "Fred Thompson says, 'You've got to send them back'," King told the crowd of about 60, earning a hearty round of applause.
But his new position, no "amnesty," crack down on employers who break the law, has had little trouble earning credibility among the state's more hard-line immigration activists. Last week, the anti-immigration movement's standard-bearer, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, dropped out of the race and threw his support to Romney. But on the ground in Iowa, most of Tancredo's support appears to have shifted to Thompson, including former U.S. Senate candidate Bill Salier , who was Tancredo's state campaign director, and Angie Weaver Anderson, who ran the western end of the state for Tancredo. "I don't know anybody who was with Tancredo who went with Romney," said King, after the last of the crowd had begun to filter out into the snow. "I have yet to find the first person."Much was made of Tancredo's surprising endorsement of Mitt Romney. Admittedly, I was surprised by Tancredo's endorsement . It now appears that Mitt Romney didn't benefit from Tancredo's endorsement. It appears that Fred Thompson benefited most from Tancredo's departure. I can't say that that's surprising.
This might also be an indicator that people aren't buying Romney's schtick that he's the hardline illegal immigration opponent that he claims to be. They shouldn't buy into that given this information :
Illegal Immigration. In a November 30, 2005, interview with The Boston Globe, Romney called the elements of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill "reasonable proposals." By March 2007, finger to the wind, Romney was roundly denouncing the same bill.That doesn't sound like a hardliner to me. That sounds more like a shifty politician who'll say anything to get another vote. That's what Clintons do. That's something that Republicans should reject.
Originally posted Thursday, December 27, 2007, revised 28-Dec 12:01 AM
No comments.
