January 15, 2008
Jan 15 02:52 'Jesusland' Update Jan 15 04:03 We The People Will Do The Deciding Jan 15 13:04 Rush Unloads Jan 15 13:49 Today's Must Listening Jan 15 18:03 Brownback Flacks for McCain Jan 15 21:25 Michigan Totals
'Jesusland' Update
Monday afternoon, I posted that author David Jeffers endorsed Fred Thompson . I called Mr. Jeffers Monday afternoon. Late Monday afternoon, Mr. Jeffers returned my call. After a few minutes of introductions, it was as if I'd known David for 10 years. What I found out was that David is a great researcher (a man after my own heart) who did alot of digging into everyone's records before endorsing anyeone.
Because David shares my evangelical Christian background, my first question to him was about Gov. Huckabee. What I learned stunned me. David pointed out that Mike Huckabee's church was part of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). David said that the SBC had a knock down, drag out fight between the liberal churches and the conservative churches. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) During that fight, Huckabee stood on the sideline. I agreed with David that that isn't an attractive trait for the next commander-in-chief.
Because of that history, there isn't a senior pastor of a major SBC church that's privately endorsing Mike Huckabee . I find that astonishing. It also causes me to ask this question: What do they know that I don't? It's understatement to say that it's a bit troubling to know that the people who know Huckabee best won't support him in the primaries.
It also raises this additional question: Why aren't conservative Christians contributing to his campaign? Historically, they've energetically supported Christian conservatives. They enthusiastically supported GWB's re-election campaign. It's impossible to say that Huckabee's campaign is flush with cash.
Another thing that David confirmed was that Huckabee opposes federalism. When David combined Gov. Huckabee's governing principles with his unwillingness to involve himself in messy disputes, David couldn't endorse Gov. Huckabee.
David said that he's afraid that evangelicals are flocking to Huckabee simply because he's pro life. David won't endorse him because he's got a more comprehensive set of criteria for endorsing someone. Here's that set of criteria:
"There are three important agendas in the Reagan Conservative and while the social agenda is certainly important, Huckabee is weak on the foreign policy and fiscal agendas," Jeffers said.David said that he was impressed with Fred because he's a fiscal conservative with a pro life voting record, who believes in states rights, and who is more than competent in fighting the jihadists. That's where the conversation took on a different tone. That's when David told me that his son Eddie died in Iraq Sept. 19th, 2007. David said it was important that the next president would be someone who he could trust to continue the fight against the jihadists.
David explained that he was in frequent contact with his son and that his "son believed with every fiber of his being" that it was a fight we will win and a fight we must win. Here's something that Eddie wrote about Iraq :
We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where their children will be abducted, raped and murdered if they do not comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor...we cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not. And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your cars. It's supporting our President, our troops and our cause.It's impossible for me to argue with what Eddie Jeffers wrote. We're forever indebted to all the Eddie Jeffers of this great nation. It's vitally important that we do as instructed before his death. It's time to stand behind President Bush. It's long past time to tell our troops that we believe in them accomplishing their mission of giving the Iraqis a life of peace and prosperity.
Likewise, it's important that we pay close attention to David Jeffers' opinions because he's studied the jihadists' war against civilization. This isn't just a political issue with him. Understandably, it's something extremely personal.
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:53 AM
No comments.
We The People Will Do The Deciding
I enjoy most anything that Human Events puts out. That said, this article is off the charts great. Here's the lead-in to the article:
Wendell Goler: Gentlemen, if we can, let's move on.Fredheads like me have always loved how Fred zings media people, especially after they ask horserace-oriented questions. This wasn't any different. As bitingly sarcastic as Fred's reply was, these paragraphs were even more biting:
In his second inaugural, President Bush made clear that this country would no longer trade civility for democracy, yet relations with Pakistan seem to test that.
Senator Thompson, would your administration continue to back Pakistani President Musharraf despite polls that show two-thirds of the Pakistani people want him to resign immediately?
Sen. Fred Thompson: Oh, my goodness, go against the poll?
--Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, January 11, 2008
Thompson was fighting the polls even before he got in the race for president. First, he was the unannounced winner that we breathlessly waited to get into the race. He is a real conservative on every front and a commanding presence. After much too much waiting, Fred Thompson got into the race. He immediately began falling short of media-created expectations, and the sharks began to circle.Ouch. That's gotta sting. It certainly is something that the mystified media deserve. In fact, I'd consider that a tiny down-payment for what they deserve. The mystified media deserve far mmore hostile treatment than that for ignoring Fred.
Since the talking heads have been right about everything else in the election , Thompson ought to just close up shop and go home to Tennessee, right? Since Iowa, if you only listened to the reporting on the Thompson campaign, you would think this guy is a few cards short of a deck for even going on another day. But what if the pundits and pollsters are wrong?
They're utterly determined to write Fred off. We The People are in the process of telling them to take a long walk off a short plank. Here's a great observation:
More than once, pundits or pollsters have said, "Fred just doesn't have the fire in his belly," or "have you noticed in debates Fred runs out of things to say before his time has run out?" Perish the thought; a candidate should actually answer a question without qualifiers and get to the point. I am tired of hearing candidates go on for three minutes when they've been asked a simple question requiring a "yes or no" answer.The mystified media are clueless about Fred Thompson. He's got a great personality and a dry sense of humor. More importantly, he actually answer people's questions directly. While other candidates' handlers brag about their candidate staying on message, Fred revels in answering people directly. Most voters find that trait refreshing.
Here's how clueless the mystified media is:
The mainstream media and some cable outlets don't like Fred. Dick Morris said before Thompson announced that he wouldn't pass muster because when people realize that he's not that guy on "Law and Order," they won't like him.Dick Morris appeared on Hannity & Colmes Monday tonight. His faulty analysis was that the GOP "establishment seems to be coalescing around McCain" as their consensus candidate. That's too bad because We The People will determine who wins the nomination.
Just like we frowned when John McCain, Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy announced the Grand Bargain, likewise we're frowning now. We The People are getting attracted to the thought of a Thompson administration.
I've said repeatedly that a new paradigm was discovered when we melted down the Senate's switchboard during the immigration debate. We told the wobblies in both parties that We The People wouldn't tolerate their inside Washington games. We The People told the out-of-touch strategists that we wouldn't tolerate their timidity.
We The People are craving a revolution but the strategists want us to settle for business as usual. Not this time. In fact, NEVER AGAIN.
While Fox News, MSNBC and CNN ignore Fred, we keep volunteering to push Fred over the top in South Carolina. We're doing our part to force the mystified media to pay attention to We The People determining who will be our next leader.
One thing that the pundits aren't paying attention to is how message, credibility and GOTV volunteers are turning the Thompson campaign into a considerable electoral force. When the results start rolling in Saturday, I suspect many will feel pretty sheepish.
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:05 AM
Comment 1 by Kathleen Leech at 15-Jan-08 01:55 PM
GREAT analysis!!
Rush Unloads
Rush Limbaugh took Newt Gingrich to task for what Gingrich said during his appearance on ABC's This Week. Listening to Rush's uber-spirited 'defense' of conservatism was inspiring. First, here's what Newt said:
GINGRICH: I think the brokered convention would pick one of the people who had filed for president, but I think the process, after all, it was...You know, Abraham Lincoln was running third and won the convention. He didn't come in first on the first ballot, and so, I think there's nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining, as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine, the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.Here's part of Rush's reply:
I mean, is there a Gingrich coalition that has replaced the Reagan coalition? For that matter, what is the McCain coalition? If we're going to have a new era, what is the McCain era? What is the Huckabee era? What is their winning coalition? They don't have one. You know, all this sounds like Third Way kind of talk, the triangulation of the Clinton years in the nineties. But I don't know what the McCain era would be, and I don't know what the Huckabee coalition is. They don't have a coalition. They're out trying to get votes of independents and Democrats. They're pandering to moderates and independents. Folks, I just want you to think about this: What happens if either of these two guys happen to win, attracting the votes of independents, moderates, the Jell-Os, and Democrats? Does that not equal the demise of the Republican Party? Do you think McCain's out there actually trying to get Republican votes? Is Huckabee trying to get Republican votes? Romney is. Giuliani is. Fred Thompson certainly is. But if we have a nominee that is a nominee on the basis of moderate and independent and Democrat voters, then what happens to the Republican Party?As you'd expect, Rush wasn't finished:
Well, conservatism isn't dead because it cannot be dead. Conservatism is not manmade. Conservatism is a philosophy. It's not a scheme. It's not a plan to figure out what the American people need and want, and then give it to them. That's populism! Conservatism is a philosophy based on God-given natural rights. The Declaration of Independence, is that dead? Of course not! What's dead is leadership on the Republican side, and because there is a lack of leadership of someone who the substantive understanding of liberty and the political skills to advance it, we get all this cockamamie nonsense about the death of our principles. Our principles are not dead! Our principles cannot die. I'll tell you, in a lot of ways this reminds me of Jimmy Carter and his malaise speech. He blamed the American people for his miserable failures as president. Now we have conservatives and conservative wannabes, many of whom have held high office or hold high office or speak and write from formerly conservative outposts, who blame conservatives for their own miserable failures. What is lacking is not ideas and principles. What's lacking is the right people to speak those ideas and principles, folks.Frankly, We The People need to start cleaning house. I've railed before about the nitwits who call themselves GOP strategists. Some worry about whether 2008 will be as bad for Republicans as 2006. People get paid to think that way? People here in the heartland are pining for a revolution and these strategists are worried about another blowout.
MESSAGE TO POPULISTS AND STRATEGISTS: If you aren't going to get back to conservatism's first principles, then get out of our way. We The People won't tolerate that type of defeatism. We The People are inspired by the underpinnings of the conservative movement. We The People demand a return to a federalist mentality. We The People demand that limited government return as THE governing philosophy of the GOP.
We The People demand these things because they're the principles needed to sustain our freedom. Without these principles, our freedoms will slowly be eliminated. We The People are here to tell you that that ain't gonna happen.
Awhile back, I wrote something titled " Without a Vision, The People Perish " in which I talk about what's needed to start this revival. During that post, I made this salient point:
It's important to remember that it wasn't that people got fed up with low taxes, sensible spending priorities and a government that protected them from terrorists.Simply put, voluntarily walking away from Reaganite conservatism is what's at the center of the GOP's ailments. Awhile back Rush said that the fastest way for campaign contributions to start flowing into the various GOP coffers is to return to conservatism.
They got fed up with a spineless GOP that piled up earmarks at a rate that would've almost made Robert Byrd and John Murtha blush. They got fed up with a spineless GOP that teamed up with Ted Kennedy on a sham wrongfully titled 'immigration reform'. Voters knew that it wasn't a reform.
I offer Fred's campaign as proof. After he started throwing haymakers at the liberals and populists last Thursday, the campaign cash has flowed in at a faster rate. Right before the debate, Fred had received $525,000 in online contributions for South Carolina. Since then, Fred's supporters have contributed at a quicker pace. That $525K is now $1,050,000.
Rush notes the Fred effect here:
Look what happens, by the way, when one of them happens to pipe up. Look what happens. I have a headline: "A Combative Thompson Sways Voters -- 'But then last night, we hadn't even been thinking about him, all of a sudden it was clear he was the one,' said Mr. Berenberk, a retired teacher. 'The bluntness, the forcefulness. He was really impressive.'" He's talking about Thompson in the last South Carolina debate. So candidate aside...put Thompson aside for a moment...when conservative truths are heard, it's an affecting and effective message. People have revelations when they hear it. They just haven't been hearing it from people who want to lead the party and who want to lead the country. So what's lacking here is not ideas and not principles, but the right people to speak them and the right people to develop strategies to win elections based on those ideas and principles.Sorry Rush but I won't "put Thompson aside" not even for a moment. Rush's point is spot on, though. When conservatism is espoused properly, it's an inspirational experience. It's a transformative experience. McCain won't rally the GOP faithful. Huckabee's shown a desire to abandon conservatism because he doesn't advocate the GOP's principles.
As I said here , Gov. Huckabee isn't a federalist. He isn't interested in federalism. There's alot of that going around in the GOP.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney and John McCain tried to 'outcare' the other in Michigan. Particularly troublesome was Mitt's essentially saying that the federal government would get Michigan's economy rolling again. The federal government isn't the problem. The problem rests at the feet of Jennifer Granholm, who's piled billions of dollars of new taxes onto Michigan's citizens. That's why businesses and families are fleeing the state.
Yet, here's Mitt Romney essentially absolving Ms. Granholm of her executive responsibilities. She's singlehandledly run Michigan's economy into the ground. But our boy Mitt says that the federal government will fix everything. NO WE WON'T. That's one of the principles of federalism. Federalism means that we don't help governments that make poor decisions.
Yesterday, Peter Robinson asked Palmetto State residents to confirm whether there was Fredmentum. Here's what Peter's reporting today :
Dispatches from the Palmetto State Moncks Corner:This is the transformation that Rush was talking about. This is what happens when everyday people hear conservatism articulated properly. That's why I'm getting more confident that Fred will win in South Carolina this Saturday.
I attended a rally for Fred in Moncks Corner on Friday the 11th. I can attest that the atmosphere was incredibly exciting. This rally was the day after the debate (ignition for the liftoff you are describing) and Fred was great. There was multiple times he had to pause becasue of the clapping and cheering. I took with me a friend who was contemplating voting for Mike Huckabee. After the rally my friend simple said WOW! I confirmed he is now voting for Fred.
Aiken:
I returned an hour ago from Fred's Aiken, SC campaign stop. An awesome turnout, I'd say 300. There had to have been 100+ in the restaurant and another 200 listening in over the speaker outside.
Simpsonville:
Fredmentum is real. I was at a Fred event at the Courtyard Restaurant in Simpsonville, SC this evening (Upstate SC). I got there half an hour beforehand and the line was already snaking out the front door of the restaurant and eventually around the back of the building. I finally made it in, but people behind me in line stood outside for 45 minutes in the cold waiting for Fred to come out and shake hands. The crowd was excited and Fred didn't disappoint. His stump speech is positive and touches on the "first principles" that drive him: fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, rule of law (immigration). He especially impressed in the Q/A, refusing to pander on a NAFTA question and outlining his approach to healthcare. My favorite moment came as he was working the crowd on the way out. A guy in his 20's asked Fred, "What will you do about energy independence?" Fred: "Probably not much. Two terms isn't long enough." The surprised look on the guy's face was priceless. Nothing like a little home truth.
I am a lawyer in Greenville SC and just returned from Fred at Carriage House in Simpsonville. People were lined up around the restaurant trying to get in, and were very enthusiastic when he arrived. The crowd was standing room only and overflowing, very supportive, and surrounded him like, well, a movie star, trying to get his autograph on the way out. This is in the biggest GOP area of the state where supposedly the evangelicals are so strong. All I saw tonight was lots of enthusiasm, and a charged-up presentation by Fred, who looks tanned and strong. Also, I don't know that the local conservative radio talk-show hosts have endorsed anyone directly, but they are clearly pro-Fred and not pro-McCain,.Also, see
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage for report on Fred's night. 300 people many lined up in the cold to get in.
That's also why I'm bullish on Reaganesque conservatism. Because it's rooted in eternal truths, Reagan's conservatism will never die. That's why Rush is right in defending the movement. That's why Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee are on the wrong side of the conservative movement.
Maha Rushie delivered the defense of Reagan's conservatism, then Fred Thompson repeatedly delivered 'lessons' in why Reagan's conservatism is alive and well wherever it's articulated properly.
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:07 PM
No comments.
Today's Must Listening
Sean at Fred08 has posted the audio of Fred Thompson's interview on Glenn Beck's show. Make sure you don't miss it. It's another stellar, though lengthy, interview from the only stellar candidate in the field.
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:50 PM
No comments.
Brownback Flacks for McCain
Frankly, If I were Sam Brownback, I'd rethink my support for John McCain. At minimum, I'd demand combat pay for flacking for Sen. McCain. Here's what Brownback said in defense of Sen. McCain in the aftermath of Sen. Santorum's attack on Sen. McCain:
Brownback told LifeNews.com on Tuesday that Santorum's assessment isn't completely fair or accurate."[McCain's] record is not only one of Reagan conservatism but of consistency"? You've got to be kidding me. Yes, I freely admit that McCain is solidly pro-life and he's a conservative on national security issues. After that, it's difficult to portray him as a conservative. Would Ronald Reagan campaign on the issue of manmade global warming? Would Reagan campaign on amnesty for illegal immigrants in a post-9/11 world? Would Reagan have sided with McCain's Gang of 14 betrayal? Not if his life depended on it.
"The suggestion that John McCain was not a consistent conservative in the Senate is flat wrong," Brownback said. "I have seen John operate out of the public view and there is one thing I know for sure: John McCain is a Reagan conservative we can trust."
Brownback told LifeNews.com that McCain has a clear "respect for life" and a record over 25 years on supporting "conservative judges."
"The fact is, John McCain was voting consistently pro-life in the 1980's long before it became politically safe to do so," Brownback explained. "His record is not only one of Reagan conservatism, but also of consistency."
"Further, John brings a great moral authority in his positions to public service because his life experiences have always made his arguments more persuasive and effective in the various battles that we have fought together," Brownback concluded.
McCain is who he is: a patriot who's bought into the inside-the-Beltway liberal spin. My friend Andy has a reminder of how 'conservative' John McCain is:
As originally introduced in January 2003, McCain's bill would require the United States to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide from fossil-energy use, to 2000 levels by 2010 (Phase I) and 1990 levels by 2016 (Phase II). Though not as restrictive as the U.S. Kyoto target - 7 percent below 1990 levels during 2008-2012 - Phase II was close enough for government work. Too close, in fact, to have any chance of passing.Can anyone picture Ronaldus Magnus (a little Rush lingo there) signing such legislation? It'd get vetoed 5 seconds after it hit his desk. In fact, that bill is so awful that he might go over to Capitol Hill and veto it there.
In one sense, Sen. Brownback's a better man than I: There isn't a snowball's prayer I'd sign up for this type of duty. I value my integrity too much for that.
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:05 PM
No comments.
Michigan Totals
9:15- Not surprisingly, Mark Steyn has the night's best post :
Huck seems very two weeks ago now. It's obvious he has a base, but he can't build on it. McCain's loss is bad, too: He needed a win not just for poll momentum but for cash-raising. As for Fred, I'd love it if he won South Carolina and he's been great in the last couple of debates, and is brilliantly well-informed in the more leisurely interviews, but he could use a couple of big campaign themes, and even a slogan.Huckabee's win does seem like ancient history. Part of that is due to his inability to get beyond his once-clever one-liners.
As for Rudy, Florida seems a long way off. His best chance is that, for all the talk of Fredmentum and Momittmum and MomentMc and Momuckamee, this season is a momentum-free zone.
I'd love to see Fred win in South Carolina, too, which suddenly seems quite possible. Tonight's results take the wind out of McCain's sails. While Mitt must be feeling relieved, he won't benefit as much from this as he might've if he hadn't essentially pulled out of South Carolina. The time he seriously campaigns in a state again, he'll be 2 weeks removed from Michigan.
9:00- The NY Times Blog has an interesting, though a bit over the top, post analyzing what I just said about McCain not reading things properly. Here's what their post focused on:
A lot of liberals and independents who loved Mr. McCain back in 2000 have turned on him now, partly because of his passion for the war in Iraq and partly because he has embraced other positions to make himself palatable to conservatives. (The most obvious example may be the Bush tax cuts, which Mr. McCain voted against, but which he now supports; his justification for this is so tortured that even anti-tax conservatives don't really seem to buy it.) It's true that, compared to the "straight talk" version in 2000, today's McCain looks and sounds as doctrinaire as Tom DeLay. But compared to Mitt Romney and his other rivals in the field, Mr. McCain is still something of an anomaly, a longtime Republican senator who is willing-or even determined-to tell Republican voters what they may not want to hear.The trouble conservatives have with McCain is well-documented. They don't like his sticking his finger in the eyes of fellow Republicans. they don't like his revelling in the media attention that he gets for not being a team player.
That said, it's ludicrous to say that "today's McCain looks and sounds as doctrinaire as Tom DeLay."
8:30- NRO's Jim Manzi sums it up perfectly on why McCain lost tonight:
It doesn't seem so shocking that Mitt Romney has apparently won the Michigan Republican primary. Michigan has the one of highest unemployment rates in the U.S., and he put forward a plan to help the state's leading industry. Whatever you think of its merits, it has to more appealing to voters than McCain's approach of "kinda sucks to be you, but hopefully you'll feel better knowing that you're being sacrificed for the greater good of helping me to feel like I've made a statement about global warming."I'm not a big Mitt fan but Romney defeated McCain because he realized that something beats nothing every time. McCain's inside the Beltway mentality figured things hurt him. I'm betting that he thought he could waltz into Michigan, tell everyone that he's still the same great guy as he was eight years ago and collect a win. McCain didn't notice that the world had changed in the last eight years, that people aren't willing to accept manmade global warming just because Sen. American Hero says so.
That said, Mitt's pandering in Michigan will return to haunt him. His saying that he'd be the person that'll fix all of Michigan's ills smacks of federal overreach and displays his arrogance.
Michigan isn't in dire financial straits because of federal economic policy. It's in dire financial straits because their governor keeps raising taxes.
8:15: CNN projects Romney the winner. Mitt's currently getting 37% of the vote, with McCain getting 31% and Huckabee getting 17%.
Thus far, CNN is reporting that, with 4% of the precincts counted, Mitt Romney leads John McCain 35%-32%. NOTE: McCain has left Michigan to campaign in South Carolina.
The NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez is linking to this Huckabee quote :
Confronted by crying toddler on Tuesday, Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee quipped the child must be for his rival Mitt Romney.I've wondered when Huckabee's 'wit' would get him in trouble. I think I've got the answer to that question. My next question is this: When will people realize how shallow and callous Huckabee is?
"He's not the happiest boy today," Huckabee said, smiling for a picture with the boy and his brother and sister. "I think he must be a Romney voter. Look at him. He's so
sad."
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:17 PM
No comments.
