January 18-20, 2008
Jan 18 01:24 Fredmentum Picks Up Steam Jan 18 06:35 Ciresi's First TV Ad Jan 18 07:30 Mike Huckabee's Ties to Common Sense Issues Jan 18 09:59 Boehner's Earned My Respect Jan 18 11:12 Fred Gets Another Endorsement Jan 18 15:46 Tell the Little Twerp to Shut Up Jan 19 03:55 Staff Reporting??? Methinks Not Jan 20 13:29 Re-Defining Conservatism?
Fredmentum Picks Up Steam
The minute I read this headline , I knew that Fredmentum had just gotten a huge boost. Will it be enough to help him win South Carolina's primary? Possibly. Here's the headline:
David Limbaugh Endorses Fred Thompson
Take a minute and let that sink in a bit. Then exhale. This isn't the same as Rush endorsing Fred but it's significant. It's big. Now let's look at what David Limbaugh said in endorsing Fred:
He will not respond like a puppet when a debate moderator tells him to raise his hand to signify a childishly simplistic approval or disapproval of a certain policy. He will not be goaded by interviewers into saying things he doesn't feel comfortable saying. He won't divide us with class envy or pretend we can be friends with rogue regimes or terrorists. He does not promise a chicken in every pot or pander to liberals on global warming.It's obvious that Limbaugh is pointing at McCain when he says that Fred won't "pander to liberals on global warming." It's equally obvious that he's referring to Gov. Huckabee when he that Fred won't "promise a chicken in every pot." Exposing Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee as liberals who don't have a core philosophy. Reagan and Goldwater had a core philosophy. Fred does, too, because he developed his philosophies after reading Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative", which should be must reading for conservative activists.
Here's another section of Limbaugh's endorsement letter:
Fred does not run from his record; more to the point, he doesn't need to. He shoots straight without the constant self-serving reminders that he does, as in telling us he's driving the "Straight Talk Express."In those paragraphs, David Limbaugh said in detail what I said about Fred being the Gold Standard on the issues. Fred's thought things through. Fred's delivery isn't to everyone's liking. I've never taken a moment's notice of that stuff.
More importantly, Fred is right on the issues, and there's little doubt his positions are firm. Research his stances; read his position papers. You'll find he's very strong in all areas important to mainstream conservatives, including national defense, taxes, spending, life, immigration, federalism, appointing originalist judges, health care and education.
I didn't lose faith in Fred because I've believed steadfastly in the rightness of his thinking. Obviously, David Limbaugh sees in Fred what I've seen in Fred for a long time: Fred's a true conservative and he's the smartest man on the stage at the GOP debates. Think back a week when Fred took Gov. Huckabee to task on his record :
THOMPSON: He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy in the tradition of blame-America first. He believes that Guantanamo should be closed down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that banned smoking nationwide. So much for federalism, so much for state's rights, so much for individual rights. That's not the model of the Reagan coalition. That's the model of the Democratic Party.Huckabee's campaign hasn't been the same since. I agree with my friend King that that wasn't scripted. Fred just decided that enough was enough. It was time to go on the offensive. There isn't anything personal in Fred's response. I suspect that that response played a big part in David Limbaugh's endorsing Fred. People will notice after that.
The potential impact this might have on the race is immense. McCain and Huckabee haven't really competed for conservative voters. Rudy hasn't competed. PERIOD. This endorsement likely hurts Mitt the most. Mitt's paid attention to conservatives but he hasn't closed the deal with them. In fact, his win in Michigan was as much about a favorite son returning as anything else.
The bottom line is that David Limbaugh's endorsement gives instant credibility that Fred's a viable candidate for the nomination. Limbaugh's endorsement will likely help Sen. Thompson in Saturday's primary and with his fundraising. (I've long suspected that contributions wouldn't flow in until they saw who was likely to claim the nomination.)
One last thing that's got to be mentioned is that Fred's repeatedly saying that we're fighting for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has woken people up. Alot of conservatives sat out the 2006 election because they didn't see much of a difference between the D's and R's. Now they're seeing someone with a legitimate shot at grabbing Reagan's mantle.
Fasten your seatbelts, folks. There's alot left to this race.
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 1:27 AM
Comment 1 by Joe W. at 18-Jan-08 11:18 AM
I wanted to also call your attention to another columnist who came out for Fred Thompson today with an aggressive and passionate endorsement for Fred:
CONSERVATIVE PRO-TROOP LEADER ENDORSES
FRED THOMPSON ON EVE OF SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY
Melanie Morgan, chairman of the nation's largest pro-troop organization, MoveAmericaForward.org, radio talk show host on KSFO 560 AM - San Francisco, author of "American Mourning" and conservative columnist has endorsed Sen. Fred Thompson for President.
Writing in her new column, "The Complete Conservative" Morgan urged South Carolina Republicans to vote for Thompson:
"For the sake of this nation, I'm hoping that on Saturday the people of the Palmetto State punch the ballot for Thompson (no hanging chads, please)."
The column can be read online here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59744
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-08 11:29 AM
Thanks, Joe. I saw Ms. Morgan on Hannity & Colmes last night. She made a compelling case for Fred then, too.
Not to take anything away from Ms. Melanie, but defending Fred's getting easier by the day.
PS- Here's what Jed Babbin has to say on the subject:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24518
Among the serious contenders in South Carolina is Fred Thompson. Is he the unifying force around which conservatives can rally? His record is based more on personal choices than on alliances with liberals. Thompson's ability to unify Republicans stems from two things. First, his gut-level conservatism. Which leads to the second, trust.
When asked a question, Thompson reacts comfortably without pausing to ponder which focus group will react in which way. He seems comfortable in his own skin. His avuncular style is a bit too folksy at times, but his answers are consistent and ; in a way voters will see ; principled. Which means people will trust Thompson.
Ciresi's First TV Ad
Here's the YouTube of Mike Ciresi's new TV ad:
Here's the transcript:
Doesn't it seem like middle class families are in the middle of a bullseye? Gas prices up, home values down, health care & college out of reach. I'm Mike Ciresi & I'm running for Senate because George Bush & Norm Coleman have let special interests run Washington too long. I spent my life fighting powerful interests, taking on big tobacco & drug companies & winning. I approve this message because it's time to put special interests into the bullseye & give middle class families a chance again.Class warfare & Pessimism: Alive & well & flourishing in the DFL.
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 6:35 AM
No comments.
Mike Huckabee's Ties to Common Sense Issues
Yesterday, Common Sense Issues got caught on tape push-polling South Carolina. This morning, I decided to check into them so I started with their website . Here's what I found on their About page:
Common Sense Issues is a 501(c)(4) social welfare, grassroots lobbying organization, comprised of individuals dedicated to educating and informing citizens in an in-depth manner about public policy issues. We encourage citizens to seek ways to work together to encourage opinion leaders and public officials to approach America's problems using basic common sense principles. We seek solutions to public policy problems and issues that mirror the God-given common sense of the American people.That's a crock. Based on this report from South Carolina , their goal is to smear any candidate not named Huckabee:
Among the people receiving the push polling calls was a county co-chairman of former Sen. Fred Thompson's campaign.Let's hope South Carolinians take their anger at Common Sense Issues out on Gov. Huckabee. To say that Common Sense Issues is a sleazy operation is understatement.
Jason Goings, the Aiken County co-chairman for Thompson, said the call he received started by asking him if he was a Republican who planned to vote in Saturday's primary and then asked whom he supported. After he hit the button for Thompson, a voice highlighted Huckabee's position against abortion and said Thompson worked as a lawyer for a lobbying firm that protected abortion rights.
The call also attacked Thompson, a former Tennessee senator and actor, on same-sex marriage, illegal immigration and taxes.
Here's some more information on Common Sense Issues:
An organizer for Mike Huckabee supporters in southern Tennessee and northern Georgia made a large donation to the group that has been sending out hundreds of thousands of automated telephone calls to voters in South Carolina attacking Huckabee's opponents for the Republican nomination for president.It'll next to impossible for Huckabee to distance himself from the Wests now that that's public. this isn't just an unknown contributor to Huckabee. This is a Huckabee campaign insider. He's also paying for alot of the push-polling that's going on.
Common Sense Issues Inc. portrays itself as an independent political organization and Huckabee's campaign denied any involvement with the group and disavowed its tactics, which have included millions of phone calls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada.
Mark West of Ooltewah, Tenn., near Chattanooga, gave a total of $48,500 to Common Sense Issues Inc., according to Federal Election Commission records. West and his wife, Lori, also gave the maximum of $2,300 each to Huckabee's presidential primary campaign.
And West is the organizer of the Chattanooga Mike Huckabee supporters meet-up group and the northern Georgia meet-up group as well. Huckabee has no formal state organizations in either state , according to his campaign Web site, but supporters are encouraged to click on a link that takes them to the online meet-up groups in their community, including West's two groups .
Davis said Common Sense Issues is not affiliated with Huckabee and does not coordinate with his campaign. He said his group backs the former governor because of his views on issues including a strong defense and cutting taxes.Factual? Technically, that might be true. What isn't difficult is saying that the statements on the public record are deceptive at best. It's time that the Huckabee campaign apologized to Sen. Thompson and Sen. McCain. As I said here , Davis' statement that they're supporting Huckabee because of "his views on issues including a strong defense and cutting taxes" didn't pass the laugh test:
"The folks who have been critical of our phone calls generally are supporting Mike Huckabee's opponents. They criticize the fact that the calls are happening, but there has not been criticism of the fact that the information we provide is factual," he said.
That's laughable. Why would this organization tell South Carolinians that Fred Thompson supported "partial birth abortion" if they're now saying that they're "backing Huckabee because of his views on issues including a strong defense and cutting taxes"?
It's one thing to have Democrats pull this type of crap. That's expected. Having a Republican pull this is totally unacceptable. It's time voters shut down the Huckabee campaign. He's a disgrace to Christians and Republicans.
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 7:32 AM
No comments.
Boehner's Earned My Respect
When Tom DeLay stepped down as Majority Leader, I let it be known that I didn't think highly of John Boehner as his replacement. As I said here , my image of Rep. Boehner is starting to change. Today, after reading Andrew Roth's post , I can enthusiastically say that John Boehner has earned my respect:
Boehner Holds Off On Filling Appropriations Vacancy Pending Conference Discussion On Earmarks.Following yesterday's post about Boehner's taking on earmarks, I said that Rep. Boehner's speaking out was "music to my ears." Today, I can say that Rep. Boehner sounds like he's very serious about re-establishing the GOP as the party of fiscal sanity. Democrats will rightly point to porkmeisters like Ted Stevens as proof that the GOP hasn't changed its ways.
Yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner told his House Republican colleagues that they were destined to remain in the political wilderness if they couldn't kick their spending habits. Today, he took that debate one step further, announcing that the Steering Committee will not make an appointment to the vacant Appropriations Committee seat until after the House Republican retreat, where the GOP Leader has urged that a conference-wide discussion take place on earmarks.
Boehner is also expected to follow up later today at an RNC briefing, where he is expected to say, "We need to get serious about eliminating wasteful spending. Earmarks are a symptom of a much larger problem in Washington with runaway spending. We need to bring an end to wasteful earmarks, and we need to do it now." Boehner is expected to add, "The Democratic candidates all talk as if America has failed, that if only we'd raise taxes, put our faith in government bureaucracies, and withdraw from the world stage, we'd be better off. Well I don't buy it. And the more Americans hear that message, the more I think they'll reject it."
If the GOP in general, and the House GOP in particular, want to regain the American people's respect, they'll have to produce. Good intentions aren't enough. the road to liberal sainthood is paved with honorable intentions. If the GOP doesn't produce measurable results, they won't seperate themselves from the liberals.
I suspect that Boehner will get loud support from the GOP presidential candidates because it'll help solidify the GOP base and because it'll help in winning over northeastern moderates who claim that they're fiscal conservatives. If the GOP wins over northeastern fiscal conservatives, then they'll have a chance of being a truly national party again.
The best part is that they will have done it without them having pandered to those voters. Instead, they will have won them over without abandoning their principles.
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 10:00 AM
No comments.
Fred Gets Another Endorsement
The endorsements keep piling up for Fred Thompson. This time, South Carolina Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom has endorsed him :
"Senator Thompson's clear leadership on social, fiscal, and defense issues, as well as his strong and proven stance for border security and the rule of law make him a leader like Mark Sanford," General Eckstrom said. "I proudly and fully support his candidacy for President, and I ask all conservatives to do the same. Senator Thompson is the only conservative candidate who is now strongly surging in the polls. Momentum is crucial and Senator Thompson has it."Here's Fred's response to General Eckstrom's endorsement:
"It is always gratifying when an elected official chooses to support my campaign for President, but even more so when that official is known as a 'Watchdog for the Taxpayers' and a leading voice for conservative principles as is General Eckstrom," said Senator Thompson. "I am also humbled that General Eckstrom joins so many other veterans of our armed forces that are supporting our campaign."It'll be difficult to measure how much this endorsement helps Fred, especially in light of David Limbaugh's endorsement of Fred. Even if this doesn't move lots of votes in Fred's direction, it's still worthwhile because another fiscal conservative has signed onto Fred's campaign.
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 11:13 AM
No comments.
Tell the Little Twerp to Shut Up
Ed Rollins is at it again. He's back with the stalking horse story . Here he goes again:
"Why would he get aggressive all of a sudden here?" asked Ed Rollins, Huckabee's campaign chairman, noting the series of attacks that Thompson directed at Huckabee in a recent debate. Rollins added: "Thirty-five seconds after he drops out, he endorses McCain...Anything he takes from us I'm concerned about, because it's a close race."Ed Rollins is totally sleazy. Rollins is the Republican's Bob Shrum. He's a total loser. Now that Huckabee's ties to Common Sense Issues' push-polling have been exposed, it's likely that voters are fleeing Huckabee like he's the devil himself.
Despite what the media has said, Huckabee's always been a second tier candidate. He can't expand his base. He's an electoral disaster waiting to happen. He won't attract conservatives because he's a liberal. He won't attract country club conservatives, either, because he's disparaged them. On top of all that, he's a political lightweight, a package of cute one-liners and no substance.
Here's something that I found interesting:
Thompson, who touts what he calls a "100 percent pro-life" record on abortion, could peel religious conservatives from Huckabee. Romney aides fear that Thompson could take away anybody-but-McCain mainline conservatives.It's like that Fred will pull religious conservatives from Huckabee and mainstream conservatives from Romney. It's noteworthy that he's got the movement conservatives all to himself. When you combine those things together, isn't that what's needed to be the next GOP presidential nominee?
Let's remember that Ed Rollins is the villain who handed the 1992 election to Bill Clinton by managing Ross Perot's campaign. In other words, Mike Huckabee is a sleazy street fighter, not this virtuous God-fearing Christian.
Once this information gets out, Huckabee's Christian supporters will shrink in a hurry.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving 'couple'.
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 3:47 PM
No comments.
Staff Reporting??? Methinks Not
During my daily perusal of the WC Trib, I spotted an article titled Civility needed in immigration talks . Here's the text of the second paragraph of the 'staff' article:
The organization issued a news release Thursday in response to recent statements by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the community meetings organized by Sen. Joe Gimse, R-Willmar, and Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria. The Minneapolis group also calls for a moratorium on local and state immigration policy efforts and calls on Congress to take responsibility for solving the problem at the federal level.The organization they're talking about is the Main Street Project. Being the curious sort that I am, I decided to check MSP's website for myself. Here's the opening paragraph of their press release :
In response to recent statements by Governor Tim Pawlenty and the community meetings organized by Senator Joe Gimse, (R-Willmar) and Senator Bill Ingebrigtsen, (R-Alexandria) the Minneapolis-based Main Street Project today released a recommendation on a constructive approach to addressing the issue ofAnybody notice a similarity between the 'article' & the press release? Let's check out another portion of the 'article':
immigration.
A "respectful, civil debate" is needed while addressing the issue of immigration," according to the Minneapolis-based Main Street Project.Here's the corresponding portion of MSP's press release:
In addition to asking for a respectful, civil debate, the statement also calls for a moratorium on local and state immigration policy efforts and calls on Congress to take responsibility for solving the problem at the federal level.It's clear that they're almost identical with a couple slight deviations. They rearranged the wording a couple times but that's it.
The point I'm making is that the WC Trib is essentially taking an advocate's official statement at face value, then running it as a news article. I'm not betting that that's a shock to many people. It's just another bit of proof as to how little reporting is done.
Another interesting thing I noticed on MSP's website is that the president of Main Street Project is Niel Ritchie . The red flags went off when I noticed part of his resume:
From 1991-2004, he served as a policy analyst and national organizer at the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.Here's the information that a simple google search of IATP produced:
As many IATP supporters may be aware, Mark Ritchie (pictured right) will be stepping down as President at the end of 2006. IATP's board of directors hasAccording to the website, this information was posted in September, 2005.
been working with staff to plan for the best possible transition.
The questions that leap to mind are kinda scary, such as:
- Are these 'staff reporters' who changed the wording around like-minded activists who 'moonlight' as objective reporters?
- Did these 'staff reporters' bother checking into the effects the espoused policy will have on the community?
- Do the 'staff reporters' (I'm betting an editor at the paper) think it's ok to accept as news the press releases of DFL activists?
Here's what 21st Century Democrats' bio on Mark Ritchie reads:
Furthering his efforts to increase voter participation in rural communities throughout Minnesota and across the country, Mark help create the League of Rural Voters.It's obvious that Mark & Niel Ritchie are building a network of liberal activists in rural Minnesota through Main Street Project.
Scary, huh?
Posted Saturday, January 19, 2008 3:55 AM
No comments.
Re-Defining Conservatism?
Jonah Goldberg has a great article up talking about the various types of conservatism. Here's a little glimpse into his article:
Many of the younger conservative policy mavens and intellectuals have become steadily less enamored of free markets and limited government. Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, formerly Bush's chief speechwriter, has crafted a whole doctrine of "heroic conservatism" intended to beat back the right's supposed death-embrace with small government and laissez-faire economics. He calls for moral crusade to become the animating spirit of the right. He's hardly alone. "Crunchy conservatism," the brainchild of Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher, is also a cri de coeur against mainstream conservatism. Both of these derive from the kind of thinking that led Bush to insist in 2000 that he was a "different kind of Republican" because he was a "compassionate conservative", a political program that apparently measures compassion by how much money the government spends on education, marriage counseling and the like.What these gentlemen are talking about isn't conservatism. Gerson particularly isn't talking about conservatism. What he's talking about is a mix of populism and conservatism. It's the product of his belief that government is part of the solution. Personally, I'd call it watered-down liberalism.
Bill Kristol's editorial tries making the argument that conservatives should welcome this year's candidates, an argument that I reject:
For example: John McCain, with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3, is allegedly in no way a conservative. And, though the most favorably viewed of all the candidates right now, both among Republicans and the electorate as a whole, he would allegedly destroy the Republican party if nominated.Kristol's blinders prevents him from seeing that we need a Reaganesque conservative now. His argument for John McCain, in particular, is feeble. McCain's lifetime conservative rating isn't the issue. Most of that rating was built his first 2 terms. The statistic that Mr. Kristol should be talking about is McCain's conservative rating during the Bush administration. Why is Mr. Kristol ignoring McCain's global warming legislation? Why is Mr. Kristol ignoring McCain-Feingold, the most despicable assault on the First Amendment in US history? How can Mr. Kristol ignore the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, which abandons any pretense of abiding by the rule of law?
Or take Mike Huckabee. He was a well-regarded and successful governor of Arkansas, reelected twice, the second time with 40 percent of the black vote. He's come from an asterisk to second in the national GOP polls with no money and no establishment support. Yet he is supposedly a buffoon and political naif. He's been staunchly pro-life and pro-gun and is consistently supported by the most conservative primary voters, but he is, we're told, no conservative either.
Or Mitt Romney. He's a man of considerable accomplishments, respected by many who have worked with and for him in various endeavors. He took conservative positions on social issues as governor of Massachusetts, and parlayed a one-term governorship of a blue state into a first-tier position in the Republican race. But he, too, we're told, is deserving of no respect. And though he's embraced conservative policies and seems likely to be steadfast in pursuing them--he's no conservative either.
This morning, George Will takes a dramatically different perspective on John McCain:
In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs currently cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is "the power of the pharmaceutical companies." When Mitt Romney interjected, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," McCain replied, "Well, they are."That's a socialist's attitude of pharmaceutical companies. Shouldn't that scare every Republican in the nation?
That isn't the only complaint Mr. Will, along with hundreds of thousands of other conservatives, has with him. Here's another complaint:
McCain says he would nominate Supreme Court justices similar to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito. But how likely is he to nominate jurists who resemble those four: They consider his signature achievement constitutionally dubious.Sen. McCain isn't credible when he says that he'd nominate strict constructionist judges. That's nothing more than pandering. They'd imperil his 'greatest' legislative achievement.
When the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold 5-4, Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. That was before Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who was in the majority. Two years later, McCain filed his own brief supporting federal suppression of a right-to-life group's issue advertisement in Wisconsin because it mentioned a candidate for federal office during the McCain-Feingold blackout period prior to an election. The court ruled 5-4 against McCain's position, with Alito in the majority.
Simply put, John McCain opposes too much of the GOP's best thinking to be trusted as their leader. I can't support him. PERIOD. He's shown a willingness to totally abandon the principles of Reagan and Goldwater. There's no hint whatsoever that he's got an instinct for libertarianism. Quite the opposite. He's shown a propensity for worshiping at the altar of megaregulation. Here's proof of that propensity:
When McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced legislation empowering Congress to comprehensively regulate U.S. industries' emissions of greenhouse gases in order to "prevent catastrophic global warming," they co-authored an op-ed column that radiated McCainian intolerance of disagreement. It said that a U.N. panel's report "puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming." Concerning the question of whether human activity is causing catastrophic warming, they said, "the debate has ended."Sen. McCain's attempt at stopping debate on a hotly contested issue is typical. He's shown a pattern of total certitude on issues where major questions exist, especially if the idea has been proven in the court of popular opinion. If we think about it, it's fair to conclude that that fits his personality. He didn't want to debate McCain-Feingold on the basis of its assault on the First Amendment. He spoke only about ridding the system of corruption. He didn't want McCain-Kennedy to be debated. PERIOD. They didn't want committee hearings. They wanted to limit debate and restrict the amendment process. They knew that it couldn't pass if it was debated on its merits.
I reject Romney's convenient conservatism because it isn't conservatism. It's populism disguised as conservatism. Last week in Michigan, we saw how little regard Mitt has for the Tenth Amendment. While pandering for votes, he told Michiganders that the federal government would bail the state out after Jennifer Granholm ran that state's economy into the toilet. That isn't proof of holding fast to federalist principles. I won't trust Mitt on federalist issues. While I'm certain that he'd cut some spending, I'm equally certain that he'd grow government in other places that it shouldn't grow in.
I won't trust Huckabee. PERIOD. After watching Common Sense Issues fill the phone lines in South Carolina with lies about Fred Thompson's record, then watching him halfheartedly tell them to stop, I'm certain that Huckabee is one of the sleaziest politicians I've seen on the national stage.
Even though I'm pro life, I don't have trust issues with Rudy. I disagree with him but that isn't the same as not trusting someone. I'm confident that Rudy's a federalist who'd nominate strict constructionist judges. The fact that he's got Ted Olson, someone with impeccable strict constructionist credentials, higlights Rudy's fidelity to the strict constructionist perspective. I'm also certain that he'd keep taxes low and that he'd try and keep government under control.
More importantly, I'm confident Rudy wouldn't govern by moistening a finger before making a decision. I've watched him long enough to know that he'll listen to all perspectives, even if he doesn't agree with that perspective. He accumulates information first, then makes a decision. McCain starts with a conclusion, then works back from there.
Of course, Fred's still the gold standard. Unfortunately, voters thus far haven't asked the right questions. The discussion's centered on process (he didn't get in soon enough) and measurables (cash on hand) instead of qualifications and fidelity to conservatism's proven ideals.
Hugh Hewitt avoided talking about Fred's libertarianism, Fred's adherence to federalist principles and his record of fiscal conservatism. Hewitt rejected his conservative principles to pad his wallet, which is troubling.
It's time for movement conservatives to withhold support from the populist wolves in sheeps' clothing. It's time that We The People told Hugh Hewitt that we don't give a damn about his boy Mitt. It's time that We The People told Ed Rollins to slink off the national stage along with his liberal client Gov. Huckabee. It's time that we told Sen. Sell Republicans Down the River (aka Sen. McCain) that we won't tolerate his consistent liberalism.
It's time that harking back to Reagan became Republicans' motivation, not just talk.
Posted Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:31 PM
Comment 1 by Maquis at 21-Jan-08 04:13 PM
I wouldn't vote for McCain even if Hillary was his opponent. They'd both damage the country, but McCain would destroy the Republican party to boot, so there would be no recovering from his errors. I wouldn't cast a ballot for Hillary, but I'd sit things out, drop my afilliation with the GOP, and start looking for a real conservative movement.
McCain wouldn't be the lesser of two evils, he'd be a great evil to compare with a Clinton but with an even longer recovery time.
