Just what the title says... random ruminations on life, the universe, and everything by a Christian Conservative Geek (that's me). Could be religion, politics, or the state of the Star Trek franchise.
Between now and November, John McCain can make all the speeches and do all the reaching out he deems necessary to assuage the concerns of the conservative base of the Republican Party. He can even turn his considerable skills at political combat against the Democrats. It might help get him elected, or it might not. If it does, come next January he still will have to begin governing in the face of wider Democratic majorities in Congress, and he still will have to choose between success and failure.
In that instance, he will choose success. And it will be an easy choice for him to make because on a whole range of issues, both substantively and stylistically, he and the Democrats will measure success in the same way.
That, neighbors, is why we need to get as many conservatives in Congress as we can. No matter who wins, we'll have someone in the Oval Office who is just fine "working with" lefties, and that is bad news for the country.
Read the whole article... link, as usual, in the title.
I have just finished reading the text of McCain's speech, and some commentary from those I trust, and I've come to a conclusion.
He hasn't sold me on voting for him. But I am now open to being sold. A lot of it will depend on who McCain picks to surround himself with. I am still concerned with the former Mexican official that is in his campaign.
However, in his speech today, he did acknowledge that he needs conservatives to win, and made some concessions, especially on immigration, that would be hard to weasel out of without everyone realizing that's what he is doing... and, thus, destroying his chances for re-election. So at least in a prospective first term for President McCain, we shouldn't have any amnesty bills signed.
As has been pointed out by two excellent posts on NRO's Corner today, even for those like me who cringe at the thought of marking our ballot next to "John McCain," it is critically important that you still vote. Perhaps even more so for those of us who don't want to vote for the McRINO.
Simply put, if we can install a conservative enough Congress, even President Hillary would have a hard time getting her socialist programs through... and even if we don't take a majority, every conservative voice added will help that.
So, my advice... write in Fred Thompson (or your favored candidate), and then vote for the most conservative people in each of the other races. I have a feeling we'll need them.
Okay, so he's now the official frontrunner. Senator John McCain still cannot possibly win the Oval Office.
First of all, he has devoted far too much time and energy into attacking--yes, attacking--the values of those whose votes he now needs. From deriding opponents of his immigration bill as racists to his embrace of socialist rhetoric (i.e. using "managed for profit" as an insult), McCain has done his level best to push the base of the GOP away from him.
Second, he currently enjoys favorable media coverage, because out of the GOP candidates, he is the one closest to the media's own views... something which should open any true conservative's eyes. However, once it comes down to him vs. Obama or Hillary, the media will turn against him. If McCain thinks Romney's "attack" ads are bad, wait till he sees what the media will dig up on him once the conventions are over.
Third, a large portion of his support comes from Democrats and "independents" voting in open primaries. The idea that these people would vote for him over Obama or Hillary fails the laugh test... one-on-one against a real Democrat, McCain's support among Democrats will disappear faster than an ice cream cone in a Phoenix summer.
Simply put, nominating McCain is a recipe for defeat, just like nominating Bob Dole was. It seems that every few elections, we need to remind the GOP what happens to those who stray too far from the conservative base, and it looks like it's gonna be this election.
It's kind of surprising, when you look at it, how much the McCain candidacy of 2008 matches up with the Bob Dole candidacy of 1996.
War hero, running largely on war record? Check.
Has run for President before? Check. (Dole tried in 1980 and 1988.)
Has been in the Senate long enough to grow moss? Check.
So-called "compromise" candidate coming out of a crowded field? Check. Dole's '96 run was against such notable Republicans as Lamar Alexander, Phil Gramm, Alan Keyes, Dick Lugar, and Dan Quayle.
Was considered to be the "electable" candidate? Check. See my earlier article on this.
Did not excite economic or social conservatives? You betcha! Check!
It didn't work for Dole, why the heck does McRINO think it will work for him?
I think we are heading for a November where many conservatives sit at home, and another Clinton gets elected.
Fellow conservatives, do you want your next President to have been officially endorsed by the New York Times?
No?
Then don't vote for John McRINO McCain.
It would be hard to imagine a worse thing for Sen. John McCain as he tries to convince the Republican grass roots he's not a liberal. The Times, which for decades has attacked virtually all the policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, on Friday endorsed McCain as "the best choice for the party's presidential nomination," calling its decision "an easy one."
-snip-
The paper also cited McCain's liberal stances on government regulation to combat climate change and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as his willingness to co-write major legislation with far-left colleagues such as Sen. Ted Kennedy.
-snip-
Other positions also make McCain Times-friendly. He supported the heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory regime now making it a nightmare to operate a publicly traded company. He voted to increase CAFE fuel regulations. He opposed a repeal of the "death tax." And he expressed support for raising Social Security payroll taxes on the middle class.
Moreover, while McCain may claim he opposed Bush's across-the-board tax cuts because they weren't paired with spending reductions, his arguments then were classic class-warfare rhetoric about "the most fortunate among us" not getting taxed enough. As Senate Commerce Committee chairman a decade ago, McCain even sponsored and voted for a near-tripling of cigarette taxes.
And the best part of this IBD article:
Heading toward Tuesday's Florida primary, the GOP nomination increasingly looks like a two-man race between Sen. McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney. Now Romney has a weapon that will resonate deeply with Republican voters who resent the establishment media's longtime crusade against Reagan Republicanism:
"Vote for me, not the candidate of the New York Times."
Voice Over: “Rudy Giuliani is not endorsed by The Tampa Tribune. Not endorsed by the Orlando Sentinel. Not endorsed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. In fact, he’s not endorsed by any of the liberal newspapers. When you’re responsible for cutting people’s taxes by an incredible seventeen percent …”
And, near the end...
Voice Over: “… you’re the last person on earth to be endorsed by the liberal New York Times. Rudy Giuliani. Tested. Ready. Now.”
I want to begin by stating, for the record, that Senator John McCain's service to this nation and sacrifice for it is both laudable and honorable. He is certainly a Genuine American War Hero.
But, I wish to take issue with those who apparently think that somehow qualifies him for the Presidency. And I can do it in two words, with explanation to follow: Max Cleland.
Like McCain, Cleland was in Vietnam. Cleland was also grievously wounded in Vietnam. To be sure, the circumstances differ (Cleland was injured by an accidental grenade activation), but Cleland's sacrifice of two legs and part of an arm in service to America would also seem to qualify him as a Genuine American War Hero.
So, here's the question... would all you self-proclaimed "conservatives" who are supporting McCain based on his war record also support Cleland?
Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.
I kind of doubt we've seen the end of Fred. If some GOP candidate doesn't offer him a cabinet position--or maybe Veep--they're all idiots.
For the time being, the Blogs for Fred Thompson links will remain on the sidebar, for two reasons:
They provide links to some really good blogs.
I haven't completely decided who I am going to support yet. I am leaning Romney, but not 100% sure yet.
This time, Jed Babbin of Human Events takes a good long look at some numbers:
According to a Fox News exit poll, 32% of the Michigan Republican primary voters identified themselves as independents or Democrats. Another Fox exit poll showed 20% of the South Carolina Republican primary voters said they were either Democrats or independents. In Michigan, Gov. Romney won with 39%, Sen. McCain was second at 30% and Gov. Huckabee third at 16%. In South Carolina, John McCain won with 33% of the vote, Mike Huckabee had 30% and Fred Thompson had 16%. Given those margins, it’s pretty clear that the Dems and independents controlled the result in both states.
Now, why would so many Donkeys vote for McRINO? Maybe because he follows their philosophy?
Professor Bainbridge makes a case for staying home this November:
God made the people of Israel wander in the desert 40 years so as to remake the Israelis into a people fit for the tasks ahead. The GOP seriously needs a time out so that it can rethink its role in American democracy. There are a lot of legitimate questions facing the GOP. Do you adhere to the limited government principles of Reagan and Thatcher or do you follow the lead of UK Tory leader David Cameron? As the Economist recently opined, “it seems likely that the Republican Party, as a number of its members are already urging, will have to embrace environmentalism and cuddly economics as the Tories were forced to.”
[snip]
If the choice is between choosing the lesser of 4 evils and teeing up a process by which the GOP reinvents itself for the 21st Century, I’m inclined to opt for the latter. Coupled with losing Congress in 2006, losing the presidency in 2008 will provide a pair of defeats that surely will prompt “attentiveness” on the part of the GOP leadership and the intellectual base of think tanks and academics who helped lay the foundation for the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions. Just as the Israelis had to be punished for listening to the 10 fearful spies, the GOP needs to be punished for having been seduced by Bush and DeLay. Just as the Israelis came back stronger and fitter for the tasks ahead, so might a chastened GOP.
He has a point, and more than just the Biblical one. Losing the White House to Slick Willie set the stage for the GOP comeback of 1994.
I'm not prepared to say that I won't vote for anyone except Fred, but if the nominee is The Huckster or McRINO, there's a very good chance I will write in Charlie Brown for President.
I've been looking over the results of the primaries and caucuses (caucii?) so far, and I've discovered something about media darling McCain. First, the data:
Of the six contests held so far, Romney has come in 1st in three, 2nd in two, and 4th in only one (South Carolina). McCain, on the other hand, has been 1st only twice, 2nd once, 3rd once, and 4th twice... and one of those was a tie (at zero) with Rudy, The Huckster, and Paul in Wyoming--so that might as well be counted a last place finish.
Now, the analysis of the data. What this tells me is that Mitt has appeal to people across the country, from New Hampshire to Nevada. McCain does not.
So why is the media so enthusiastic to anoint McCain? Simple: he hates tax cuts, wants to impose Algore-like environmental restrictions on business, quashes free speech, and wants to let illegal immigrants into the country and give them official status within 24 hours! McCain is loved by the media because he agrees with them on so many issues.
McCain is really McRINO. He should have switched to the Party of the Donkey when he had the chance after the 2000 election.
So, McCain is now the media-anointed front-runner for the nomination. His supporters are saying that he is conservative enough to lead the GOP.
I beg to differ.
We thought Mr. Bush the elder was conservative enough. Then he went and broke his "no new taxes" pledge, and nominated the liberal David Souter to the Supreme Court. In his defense, he also nominated Clarence Thomas, and stood with him throughout the Anita Hill kerfuffle, and Gulf War I was run relatively well, except that he didn't take care of Saddam once and for all.
We also thought Bush the younger was conservative enough. That was, however, until No Child Left Behind, which Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) sponsored in the Senate. Any bill that Teddy sponsors is hardly a conservative bill. Then there were the--fortunately stymied--proposals to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and grant literally millions of lawbreakers amnesty--I refer, of course, to illegal immigrants. And don't get me started on the huge expansion of the federal government. Again, in his defense, I must admit he did push through tax cuts, and has so far prosecuted the Iraq War with relatively few mistakes.
However, we need to get past this idea that "conservative enough" is enough. Each of the post-Reagan Republican Presidents has been considered "conservative enough," yet has pushed through some very liberal programs... and not, as President Reagan did, only when they had no choice. No one was pressuring Bush 43 to ram No Child Left Behind through; there was no huge public outcry for amnesty for illegal immigrants--in fact, quite the opposite!
For those who think that rock-solid conservatism cannot win, I point you back to The Gipper. He won, and won easily, in his re-election bid carrying 49 states. Democrat-Lite he was most assuredly not, yet he won with no problem.
Be warned, McCain supporters... history shows that conservative enough isn't.
Erick Erickson is with Fred in South Carolina, and provides an interesting and enlightening report:
Traveling through snowy South Carolina with Fred Thompson, I’m struck by the sense that finally, the man has arrived. The candidate so many conservatives were excited by early in 2007 is finally walking the land.
The Fred Thompson in South Carolina this week is the one America saw knock into Mike Huckabee as a pro-life liberal with “blame America first” beliefs whose economic policies would destroy the economy. And the crowds love it.
Though barely mentioned in the national media, Senator Fred Thompson has been on a barn storming tour crisscrossing South Carolina for more than a week. In a unique approach, he is not just going to major media markets, but to rural areas of South Carolina. On my first day on the trail with Senator Thompson, he drew a crowd of 180 people to a small Mennonite restaurant in Abbeville, South Carolina — population 26,000 with a median income of $15,370. He capped off the day at the Orangeburg-Calhoun County Technical College in Orangeburg, South Carolina with over 200 people braving a rare snow shower to hear him. The day before I joined him on the campaign trail, Senator Thompson’s campaign saw large capacity auditoriums overflowing with people standing outside the buildings waiting to get in.
It's really no wonder that Fred doesn't get much coverage from the leftymedia... they always ignore the conservative candidate as much as they can. We tend to forget that because in the last few election cycles the GOP candidate has also already been a high government official--President or Vice President--and thus a lot harder for the leftymedia to ignore. This time, however, with neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Cheney in the race, they feel safe in ignoring the true conservatives and focusing on the RINOs, namely McCain and The Huckster.
Don't, I say again, DO NOT let the lack of coverage make you think Fred is dead. He's out there, the leftymedia are just showing their true colors by not reporting on him.
Fred can win... he has just as good a shot as any of the others right now, and with The Huckster imploding, it's entirely possible that Fred could pick up a large block of the Christian Evangelical vote--I really can't see them going to Romney, Giuliani, or McCain in large numbers. Fred is also heading into the area of the country where his style really shines--just read the article linked in the title. If he can pick up a lot of support there, he can increase his visibility and make a real run for it.
I've said it before and I will say it again... this one is far from over.
The lesser known Limbaugh, David (Rush's brother), has a great piece on Fred today:
There is simply too much herd mentality among us about electability. We tell ourselves a candidate is not inspiring, then pretty soon we're convinced he's unelectable, and, voila, he almost becomes so. Yet, at that very moment, he's proving to us that he is quite presidential, quite electable and quite motivated for the job -- if we can only shed our predispositions against his "electability." Since electability is often a matter of collective perception, it can turn on a dime, as with the reversal of the respective fortunes of screaming Howard Dean and somniferous John Kerry in 2004.
This primary season, relatively speaking, has just begun. But Fred is now up against the wall. How can we expect him to have done much better than he has to date with everyone prattling on about the overwhelming odds against him? The "experts" continue to be wrong at almost every turn, so why can't they be wrong about Fred, too? It's time to quit empowering them by following their dictatorial doom-prophecies. It's encouraging that John Zogby's latest South Carolina poll shows that while levels of support for McCain and Huckabee "have remained static," Fred is starting to move up.
Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves.
Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?
Indeed.
Fred is, as Limbaugh points out, not perfect, but he is the most Reaganite of the current crop of candidates. If you, like me, are a Reagan conservative, you really need to take a close look at Fred.
Because I frequently comment on Confederate Yankee's blog (yes, I am that C-C-G), I generally try to stay away from stuff he is covering... it just doesn't seem right to me for some reason.
This time, however, I am gonna make an exception.
The obvious suspect here is the campaign of the man who wants to rewrite the Constitution to match his personal idea of God's will... and has even said so!
Okay, enough channeling CY... I just had to share that one, tho.
UPDATE: More, from Reason Magazine:
Ah, the joys of the primary season. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster has been asked to prosecute pro-Mike Huckabee push polling now underway in the state. State law bans such automated calls.
McMaster is a major John McCain supporter in the state, but the prime target of the calls -- at the moment -- seems to be Fred Thompson. In a call partially recorded last night by one South Carolina resident and sent to McMaster, Thompson's record on abortion and taxes was attacked.
This mirrors similar recent efforts in Michigan against Mitt Romney, where the same firm placed calls to voters blasting Romney's record on guns and immigration. One report pegged the number of such calls into Michigan at five million while South Carolina is on tap to receive one million calls.
As I commented to a friend earlier today, The Huckster is imploding, and it's about time. This sort of Bravo-Sierra is not Christian at all.
UPDATE II (and bump): The Palmetto Scoop has uncovered more about the firm actually making the calls, and it's not pretty:
The firm that’s been doing the calls on Common Sense Issues’ behalf is ccAdvertising (also known as FreeEats.com). And their legal record isn’t encouraging. That company has already lost twice in federal court. In 2004, they challenged North Dakota’s do-not-call law and lost (they’d made approximately 235,000 calls polling a range of GOP hot-button issues). The company was fined $20,000. And in 2006, they challenged Indiana’s do-not-call law and lost (the group made 400,000 calls attacking Rep. Byron Hill (D-IN)). [PAUL KIEL - TPMmuckraker]
Also, The Huckster's campaign has issued a sort of a call for it to stop:
Huckabee's campaign quickly disavowed the push polling. "We know nothing about that and don't condone it. Anyone who is doing that in an effort to help us needs to stop. This does not reflect the positive spirit of the campaign," said spokeswoman Alice Stewart.
Oh, where to start with this one.
First, why is a spokeswoman saying this and not The Huckster himself?
Second, why not name the companies--and the leaders of those companies--that are doing this by name and demand that they stop? The "we know nothing" Sgt. Schultz defense ain't gonna fly, the name of Common Sense Issues has been out there since soon after this story broke.
Third, I nearly spewed my morning beverage all over my laptop when I read "positive spirit of the campaign." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! That "positive spirit" that had The Huckster claim that a crying baby was a Romney supporter, perhaps? How about the "positive spirit" that had The Huckster openly questioning Romney's religion, while at the same time not permitting any questions about how The Huckster's own actions square with his own religion? Maybe they're referring to the "positive spirit" that had The Huckster call an organization dedicated to prosperity for all Americans "The Club For Greed," just because they pointed out The Huckster's real economic track record? "Positive spirit," indeed.
Just more evidence of The Huckster imploding, folks.
Nevada Republican voters are receiving automated phone calls that appear to be a poll, but end up criticizing candidates with the exception of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Also known as "push polls," the phone calls are intended to present negative information about candidates and have caused hostile reaction in Nevada.
"I got it myself," said Heidi Smith, chairwoman of the Washoe County Republican Central Committee. "I can testify to it. I was so mad.
"They were pretending they were doing a poll. It was horrible. At the end, they said this was not paid for by any political party, but you'd have to be an absolute moron to know it's not Huckabee (this group is supporting)."
The calls, which also targeted voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, are sponsored by Common Sense Issues, a nonprofit organization that backs Huckabee.
The more this story gets around, the worse The Huckster looks... which is why I am doing my small part to spread the word.
WARREN, Mich.: Confronted by crying toddler on Tuesday, Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee quipped the child must be for his rival Mitt Romney.
"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."
Okay, here's the results of my ruminating so far. I reserve the right to change my mind at a later time... say, any time more than 30 seconds after posting this.
Fred has to bring his "A" game to South Carolina. Fortunately, South Carolina's culture is a lot more similar to Tennessee's than Iowa's or New Hampshire's, so if Fred is going to shine anywhere, it will be in SC. I am cautiously optimistic that Fred will do well there, especially if he and others start really pointing out Huckabee's dismal record on taxes and other issues.
Giuliani also has to bring his "A" game, but to Florida, not SC. That's the first state where Rudy has a halfway decent chance of winning, IMHO. Fred could do well there, but so could Romney or McCain... Huckabee probably wouldn't sell well in Florida.
Others have suggested this and been pooh-poohed, but if Fred takes SC and Rudy wins Florida, a brokered convention is a real possibility. Note that there's a lot of ifs in that statement, but the chances are better than in any election since I've been watching elections.
I think a brokered convention could be a good thing. With the popularity of "reality" TV, a brokered convention might just draw more eyes to the TV than a convention usually gets, and give the GOP a real opportunity to explain who they are and what they stand for. Of course, if the GOP screws it up, they could end up turning off a lot of prospective voters, so it would have to be handled with care... and rule number one should be to remember that the media (with the possible exception of Fox News) is not their friend.
Well, that's my take on it. Your mileage may vary, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, coffee is hot, and all the rest of the usual disclaimers apply.
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?
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.
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds appears to concur. And, for what it's worth, so do I.
I think P. J. O'Rourke said, "anyone who wants elected office should be permanently barred on the grounds of mental instability." That's part of why I like Fred. He will serve honorably, but he doesn't make the Oval Office the be-all and end-all of his existence.
