January 1-2, 2008
Jan 01 17:19 Fred's Underlying Philosophy Jan 01 23:26 McCain Challenges Romney on 'Foreign Turf' Jan 02 10:35 Fred Thompson: "Too Normal" For Pundits? Jan 02 12:05 Gottwalt Town Hall Meeting Schedule Jan 02 13:46 Marc Ambinder In Iowa Jan 02 15:02 Fred Picks Up Another Endorsement Jan 02 17:11 I Agree With Joe Biden Jan 02 20:31 McCain Attacks Romney on 'Foreign Turf', Part II
Fred's Underlying Philosophy
King Banaian and I often talk about politicians' or candidates' underlying philosophy. All too often, we realize they don't have one. That isn't the case with Fred Thompson. In a nutshell, here's Fred Thompson's governing principles :
- First, the role of the federal government is limited to the powers given to it in the Constitution.
- Second, a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person who earns it, unless the government has a compelling reason why it can use it better.
- Third, we don't spend money we don't have, or borrow money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back.
- And the best way to avoid war is to be stronger than our enemies. But if we're caught in a fight, we need to win it because not doing so makes us much more likely to be attacked in the future.
- Also the federal judiciary is supposed to decide cases, not set social policy, and bad social policy at that.
- And the bigger the government gets, the less competent it is to run our lives.
Here's some questions I'd hope everybody would ask themselves before their primary or caucus:
- What is your favorite candidate's governing philosophy?
- How does that show in the policies they espouse?
- Does that underlying philosophy mean that he's less likely to change positions when the going gets rough?
Conversely, it's my firm belief that people who've thought things through don't get rattled by many things. They're much more likely to have underlying principles that can be applied to a multitude of life situations, whether it's the Bhutto assassination or 9/11 or a slowing economy. Thinkers who don't overanalyze are the best leaders in the world. Fred Thompson is the embodiment of those characteristics.
They used to say that Pat Moynihan was "the best thinker amongst politicians and the best politician amongst thinkers." That description fits Fred as well as it fit Sen. Moynihan.
When faced with a choice, you can't do better than pick the guy with the best set of underlying philosophies.
Posted Tuesday, January 1, 2008 5:22 PM
No comments.
McCain Challenges Romney on 'Foreign Turf'
According to this report , John McCain is taking Mitt Romney to the proverbial woodshed on a glaring Romney weakness, foreign policy. Not only is this a smart political move, it's exactly the right argument to make against Romney. Here's what McCain told reporters:
"This election, to a large degree, is, we live in a dangerous world," McCain said. Later, in a Tilton house party, he told a crowd of about 60 people "I have the knowledge and the background and the experience and the judgment to lead this nation in very uncertain times."As I wrote here , Mitt Romney's attitude towards foreign policy didn't seem to be serious. Here's what he told Rich Lowry when he sat in for Sean Hannity:
Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there. They, of course, have been doing foreign policy all their careers.He then tried minimizing his inexperience by painting Reagan as not having foreign policy experience:
One of our great foreign policy presidents was Ronald Reagan, who even though he had not spent years in the Senate, understood a vision of what we had to do to overcome the greatest threat of the last half of the last century, and was able to bring together the various experts and the various viewpoints and sort them through and take action that led America to be successful in that great,that great challenge that we faced then.As I said then, Ronald Reagan had spent years studying the world, especially the USSR. He'd given lots of speeches on them, too. Simply put, Ronald Reagan was well versed in foreign policy issues, especially so on the Cold War.
Gov. Romney would have us believe that Reagan was a novice. I suspect he's saying that to make his shortcomings look normal. Here's how McCain clobbered Romney on foreign policy:
Romney, McCain aides said, invited the criticism by telling Fox News last week that "a president is not a foreign policy expert" and CNN that "if foreign policy experience were the measure for selecting a president, we'd just go to the State Department and pick up one of the thousands and thousands of people who've spent their whole life in foreign policy, and frankly, becoming a United States senator does not make one a foreign policy expert, either."Romney obviously felt wounded because they put this defensive internet piece together this afternoon:
Asked by reporters today if Romney's gubernatorial experience made him no more a stranger to foreign policy than Ronald Reagan was when he won the presidency, McCain said that Mitt's no Gipper.
"Ronald Reagan had fought communism for years" and traveled the world on assignment from President Richard Nixon, McCain said. "Ronald Reagan had extensive national security and foreign policy experience."
ANNOUNCER 1: "The National Review had it right."That's an awfully defensive-sounding internet ad if you ask me. It also doesn't answer Sen. McCain's charge that Gov. Romney is inexperienced in national security matters. In fact, it sounds rather snippy and petty. I'd also point out that Mitt Romney is a 'now conservative', not a real conservative. The definition of a 'now conservative' is someone who sounds like a conservative now but who might sound like a liberal a month from now. (In other words, a flip-flopper.)
ANNOUNCER 2: "Senator McCain is 'a hero' and a strong supporter of the war in Iraq."
ANNOUNCER 1: "But McCain 'is not as conservative as Romney.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "He opposed the Bush tax cuts ; twice."
ANNOUNCER 1: "His campaign finance law limits free speech."
ANNOUNCER 2: "He pushed a plan to keep illegal immigrants here permanently.
ANNOUNCER 1: "Mitt Romney, 'a full-spectrum conservative.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "A supporter of 'limited government.'"
ANNOUNCER 1: "'The preservation of marriage.'"
ANNOUNCER 2: "And a 'foreign policy based on the national interest.'"
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
The more you scrutinize Mitt Romney, the less appealing he appears. The two most important traits I'm most looking for in a president is someone who's trustworthy and steady. Being a foreign policy expert is a must, too. Lightweights like Romney needn't apply.
Posted Tuesday, January 1, 2008 11:28 PM
No comments.
Fred Thompson: "Too Normal" For Pundits?
Glenn Reynolds thinks that Fred Thompson is too normal for the pundits' taste. It's apparent that he doesn't think that's a good thing. He cites this post on Samizdata in his post:
Fred Thompson is in the middle of a 40 town Iowa tour so he is hardly lazy. And he does go on television shows - thus dealing with critics, such as myself, who attacked him for not going on enough shows. But what sort of person would enjoy all this?Here's Glenn's lament:
A lunatic. Someone who was interested in office for its own sake, not as a means to reduce the size and scope of government.
What the media, including Fox News (the only non-leftist news station and, therefore, of vital importance in the Republican nomination process), are saying is that Fred Thompson is too sane to be President. It is not enough to produce detailed policies for dealing with the entitlement program Welfare State (a cancer that is destroying the United States and the rest of the Western World), or producing a new optional flat tax (individuals could continue to use the existing system if they wished to) to deal with the nightmare of complexity that the income tax has become.
It is not even enough to have a long record of service, going back to Watergate and taking down a corrupt Governor of Tennessee in the 1970's. And having one of the most Conservative voting records in the United States Senate, before leaving it in disgust at how the system did not allow real reform.
No someone has to enjoy the prospect for office for its own sake, not to reduce the size and scope of government and restore a Federal Republic. One must enjoy the whole process of politics - i.e. be crazy. Or one must pretend to enjoy it - i.e. be a liar.
And then people complain that politicians are either crazy or corrupt. When they shoo away anyone who comes along who is neither crazy or corrupt.
I think he's right. Thompson is running the kind of campaign, substantive, policy-laden, not based on gimmicks or sound-bites, that pundits and journalists say they want, but he's getting no credit for it from the people who claim that's what they want. It's like in Tootsie when Dustin Hoffman tries doing the things he's heard women say they want from men, only to discover that they don't really want those things at all...Fred's intelligent campaign seems to be a foreign concept to pundits. I have a theory on that. Pundits talk about having substantive debates but I'm betting that they aren't wonkish enough to talk authoritatively about the serious issues of the day.
That's why they'd rather talk about the horserace side of the campaign. That fits their quote-counterquote writing style. That's why the American public is tuning out much of the pundit class. That's why people are tuning into the internet and new media in general.
Let's learn from this. Fred Thompson is laying out specific, coherent strategies to deal with the biggest issues of the day. The media's focus hasn't changed. They're still all about style and horserace.
Bloggers aren't immune to this either. Hugh Hewitt is a classic case in point. I don't remember when he last talked about Mitt's positions issues for anything more than a line or two. He certainly hasn't talked about them in depth.
In fact, most of his posts and articles have been about how Mitt is the most electable conservative in the race or how much money Mitt has in his warchest. If you compared Hugh's statements from 2003-2004, I suspect that those statements would support Fred Thompson, not Mitt Romney.
Isn't it time that we held the pundits' feet to the fire and told them that we demand more substantive coverage of the campaigns? Isn't it time that the nation took a serious look at Fred Thompson?
Shouldn't we want our next president to be trustworthy in national security, who's a federalist, who'll appoint strict constructitonist judges and who's a fiscal conservative who'll keep taxes low?
Posted Wednesday, January 2, 2008 10:36 AM
No comments.
Gottwalt Town Hall Meeting Schedule
I just got an email from my 'adopted state legislator' Steve Gottwalt. The first important thing listed was a series of town hall meetings. Here's that list:
- Saturday, January 5th, 10:00-11:00 a.m., at the Granite Edge Cafe, 244 Broadway, in Rockville.
- Saturday, January 12th,10:00-11:00 a.m., at the St. Augusta Fire Hall on 43rd Ave. (I'll bring the coffee and donuts).
- Saturday, January 19th, 10:00-11:00 a.m., at Roster's Sports Bar & Grill on Cnty. Rd. 75.
Having attended several town hall meetings as well as having heard him Monday on Hot Talk with King Banaian and Tony Garcia, it's safe to say that Steve's understanding of the health care issues (access and affordability being the two biggest issues) is extensive. Steve does a great job of expaining it so you'll want to attend these meetings.
Here's another point of emphasis for Steve for the upcoming session:
The latest economic reports confirm we're in for atough year, and with a projected state budget deficit facing us, this isno time for increases in taxing and spending.Steve's preaching to the choir with me on that. I suspect that most Minnesotans who aren't members of EdMinn or other members of the DFL coalition agree with Steve, too. Still, you can bet that the DFL will try raising taxes. I'm confident that Steve Murphy will try resurrecting the entire Transportation Bill from last session.
Here's some noteworthy information from Steve's email on the bonding bill:
The 2008 bonding bill is expected be about $960 million, with perhaps half of that going toward roads and bridges. Another $200-300 million will likely go toward improvements at the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Universities System. That will leave roughly $200 million for all other bonding requests statewide.I know from talking recently with Steve that the renovation of the math & science facilities at SCSU is a high priority with him. That isn't surprising considering how high a priority Steve puts on (a) spending our education dollars wisely and (b) improving the educational product.
Bonding requests so far total about $4 billion, so we will have to carefully prioritize to live within our means. Local bonding requests include money to renovate science and math facilities at St. Cloud State University, dollars to help St. Cloud Technical College finish off its newly acquired medical training facility, funding for a proposed St. Cloud Civic Center expansion, and money to expand and improve the U.S. Hockey Center on the SCSU campus. In District 15A, there are two requests, one for money to extend the ROCORI Trail, and the other to purchase 39 acres of land for anexpansion of Quarry Park.
I strongly encourage people to attend at least one of these meetings.
Posted Wednesday, January 2, 2008 12:05 PM
No comments.
Marc Ambinder In Iowa
If you aren't reading Marc Ambinder's posts, you'd better start. Here's a couple interesting things from Marc's post today :
John McCain returns to the state today, and there's a good chance he finishes in third or fourth place. I do think that polls may overstate his caucus support in that his organization here just isn't that robust and the multiplier effect that organizations tend to have will be limited. Still there's a good possibility he finishes third. That would be an amazing accomplishment, and he might be one of the three or so stories the press has the attention span to cover out of Iowa.I've been a little skeptical about McCain's strength in Iowa. He's concentrated little time and attention there, which is why I'm finding it difficult to believe he'll finish in the top 3.
Conversely, Fred Thompson's support may be understated in the polls...his organization seems to be larger than McCain's.That makes sense to me. Steve King has a substantial organization. Ditto with Bill Salier and Gary Worthan. That's why I'm expecting Fred to finish stronger than the media is predicting.
UPDATE: Hugh's cheapshotting all the candidates not named Mitt:
The GOP voter who wants the best shot looks at McCain and Thompson and thinks "Bob Dole." They look at Huck and think "We'd lose 45 states, maybe more."Bob Dole??? Hugh went off the deep edge quite awhile ago but comparing moderate Bob Dole to Fred Thompson should be playing on the theater of the absurd. It doesn't have anything to do with reality.
They wonder where Rudy went and if he'll be back.
In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Al Davis Republicans will be voting for Romney.
Notice Hugh's total avoidance of anything substantive. Hugh doesn't say anything about how Romney will appeal to Christian conservatives after his multiple flip-flops on the life issue. Hugh doesn't say anything about how Mitt thought the McCain-Kennedy immigration sounded reasonable :
Romney bases his criticism on the bill's inclusion of a so-called "Z" visa that, once obtained, would have allowed illegals to remain indefinitely if they did not pursue citizenship. Among the bill's backers was his party leader, President Bush. Yet in March 2006, Romney sounded sympathetic to the idea of integrating illegals into U.S. society.Mitt didn't initially support the Bush tax cuts :
"I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country," Romney told The Sun of Lowell, Mass. "(T)hose that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."
In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush's tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike.It's a shame that Hugh's resorted to the types of tactics that he once decried about the Agenda Media. He's a pathetic shadow of his former self.
Posted Wednesday, January 2, 2008 1:47 PM
No comments.
Fred Picks Up Another Endorsement
After reading this post on FredFile , I'm rethinking my beliefs on Fred's finish. The post is a reprint of Craig Williams's endorsement of Fred Thompson. Williams is the chairman of the Carroll County GOP. Here's Williams' endorsement letter:
Fellow Iowa GOP chairpersons,We'll see how this plays out tomorrow night. I'm thinking that it'll have a significant impact. In a caucus setting, having an eloquent spokesman can potentially shift votes, something that doesn't happen in primaries.
If you are like me, you are excited about the upcoming caucuses while at the same time, can't wait to get them over with. I have had 16 messages from candidates, supporters of candidates, supporters of specific party platforms, etc. just in the last 2 days. I won't miss those when they are gone.
I am sending this message on my own without the request or assistance of anyone. It contains my opinions, so if there is something factually incorrect, you can blame me. Since your email address is posted on the Iowa GOP web site, I am presuming that you will not consider this spam and will receive it in the spirit in which it is sent.
As a County Central Committee Chairperson, I have withheld from endorsing any particular candidate throughout the process and have worked hard to bring as many candidates to Carroll County as I could. As head of my county's party, however, I do believe fellow Republicans in this area are now looking to me for guidance in the upcoming caucuses and it is time to break my silence.
I consider myself a true conservative and, as such, am looking for a true conservative leader. While the press tells the world that the end of the Republican Party is near because we are not liberal enough, I say the end may be near because our politicians are not conservative enough. The porosity of our border, the total disregard for our sovereignty and upholding the law on top of spending like drunken sailors are liberal agendas which our politicians have adopted so as not to upset anyone.
Well, it upsets me and come Thursday evening, I'm taking steps towards doing something about it. I have had the fortune of being able to talk face to face with many of our Republican presidential candidates and have had the opportunity to listen, in person, to all of them.
To cut to the chase, I am supporting Fred Thompson at the Caucuses and hope you will too. If you have not heard or spoken to the man in person, you have missed out. When asked questions, he gives direct answers and then explains his position. The Dems can not say that this man lacks gravitas. Read his positions regarding your favorite topics on fred08.com and I think you will agree that Fred is the conservative voice we are looking for. His message is consistent and strongly conservative; 100% pro-life voting record, opposes gay marriage, opposes judges legislating from the bench, supports border enforcement, is the only one talking about Social Security reform, wants to reform and simplify our tax structure, cut wasteful spending and enhance our military strength. Fred believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility, free markets, limited government, federalism, protecting our country, traditional American values and the Rule of Law. If you are a conservative, what is there not to agree with?
Fred recently earned the endorsement of Iowa's 5th District Congressman, Steve King. If you know Steve King as I do, you know that he is a true Conservative. He has a 97% rating from the American Conservative Union . Fred has also received the endorsement of Bill Salier, much of Team Tancredo, the Ottumwa Courier, the National Right to Life, and a list that is growing strong and fast. For whatever it's worth, add me to that list.
The media puts Fred in 3rd or 4th place in the Iowa Caucuses. Fortunately, the media doesn't get to vote at Caucuses. If you have already endorsed a candidate, I ask that you take one more opportunity to review Fred's web site , watch his message to Iowa voters and read through his positions on relevant topics . We need a true conservative to bring this country back and keep it out of the hands of Clinton, Obama, Edwards or whichever tax and spend liberal they end up with. We need Fred Thompson.
I hope you will join me in speaking up at Caucus night for Fred Thompson. If you agree that we need a true conservative in the White House, please feel free to forward this note to fellow Caucus goers and let's get Fred the win he needs in Iowa to boost him to the next level.
Thank you for your consideration.
Craig Williams, Chairman, Carroll County GOP
This only adds to Fred's organization. I'm not saying that 'organization only' candidates win. I actually think that issues matter in Iowa.
Posted Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:05 PM
No comments.
I Agree With Joe Biden
I never thought I'd utter those words but this statement is so right on the money that I can't argue with him. Here's what I'm refering to:
The Delaware senator was responding to news that Clinton suggested in two recent interviews that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is up for reelection this month.Hillary's 'experience' doesn't seem to have helped her get even the basics right. If she doesn't even know what's happening in Pakistan right after an assassination has destabilized the country, then we've got to question whether she's clueless or if she's just that disinterested in foreign policy. Personally, I think she's just that disinterested in policy. Her main focus is on the accumlation of pwoer. I haven't detected any interest on Hillary's behalf in terms of being the wonk that Bill is. The most important things that Hillary's interested in is the initial accumulation of political power, the maintaining of that power and the expansion of that political power.
Musharraf was actually reelected in October, and the upcoming Pakistani elections are parliamentary, not presidential.
"We have a number of candidates who are well-intentioned but don't understand Pakistan," Biden said at a campaign event Tuesday. "One of the leading candidates, God love her."
"There are good people running," continued the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has made his foreign policy credentials a centerpiece of his long shot presidential bid. "But to say Musharraf is up for election! Musharraf was elected, fairly or unfairly, president six months ago. It's about a parliamentary election!"
Clinton's comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, "[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."
The New York senator also made similar comments during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week, saying then, ""If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."
That's why she'd be a disastrous president. That's why I'm thankful that Joe Biden pointed out Hillary's ridiculous statements about Pakistan. Hopefully, people are taking notes. hopefully, they're noticing that the so-called smartest woman in the world isn't the brightest bulb in the string of Christmas lights.
Posted Wednesday, January 2, 2008 5:12 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 02-Jan-08 10:02 PM
Glad to see you are finally coming around to reality. It is Joe Biden in '08! With a little more work, I'll have you voting Biden. :)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Jan-08 12:18 AM
Glad to see you are finally coming around to reality. It is Joe Biden in '08! With a little more work, I'll have you voting Biden. :)
Eric, All it'd take for me to vote Biden is a little work & a ton of money.
Seriously, Biden at least knows that Musharraf isn't running for Prime Minister. Hillary seems totally oblivious to foreign policy.
McCain Attacks Romney on 'Foreign Turf', Part II
A day after attacking Mitt Romney's lack of foreign policy credentials , John McCain's back on the attack :
McCain again hits Romney with another tough Web video. This one does not show images of terrorism, but expounds on yesterday's video, making the argument that Romney lacks on foreign policy experience.Here's what Romney initially said that touched off this firestorm:
"The following is a Mitt Romney issue alert," an announcer says. "Mitt Romney says the next President doesn't need foreign policy experience. Here he is in his own words.
The ad then shows a TV clip of Romney saying, "Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy we can simply go to the State Department."
"Is he serious?" the announcer continues. "We live in a dangerous world. And these are serious times. America needs a President who is serious about foreign policy. John McCain is he one man prepared to lead America in a time of crisis."
LOWRY: Governor, how important is foreign policy experience? Because that was an issue out on the trail today, John McCain talking about how much experience he has working with these,these issues. Why shouldn't voters turn to a candidate who's been marinating in these kind of issues over the last few decades?I said then that the president's first response should be to gather his national security team. I said that the last thing you should be thinking about is calling on low level State Department bureaucrats.
ROMNEY: Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there. They, of course, have been doing foreign policy all their careers.
But that's not how we choose a president. A president is not a foreign policy expert. A president is a leader who understands how to make difficult decisions and does so in a way that brings together the best voices, that considers the upsides and downsides and predicts the credibility and the strength that America has always projected in circumstances like this.
I'd further question Mitt Romney's statement that presidents aren't foreign policy experts. Richard Nixon certainly was an expert. George H.W. Bush was a veritable one man State Department when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Ronald Reagan had been dispatched by Richard Nixon on numerous foreign trips.
Romney's line that a "president is a leader who understands how to make difficult decisions" is a dodge. Anyone who's been a supervisor knows that you have to have a strong grasp of the things happening around you. If you're always relying on others to do the heavy lifting, then you're in trouble. Then your company's in trouble, too. The thought of having a president who doesn't have a strong grasp on the Middle East and the subcontinent is scary. That's what I just criticized Hillary about . I can't criticize her, then give a Republican a pass without sacrificing my credibility.
Mitt Romney says that he's the only candidate that can put the three legs of conservatism together. Those legs supposedly are: free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.
How on God's green earth can Romney put together a foreign policy based on the national interest when he's a wet-behind-the-ears foreign policy apprentice?
Posted Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:32 PM
No comments.
