If you ever wondered what Sarah Palin's most ferocious advocate -- moi! -- sounded and looked like, well scroll down (and down and down to the KDKA link.
Below is the link to the KDKA web TV program I participated in tonight (last night). I loved the opportunity to point out what a liar Barack H. Obama is -- and to document it with specifics. I also talked about the reign of terror against my friend (and honorary adopted daughter) Cristi Adkins. I appreciated the chance to highlight the unmentionable, the racism associated with the Obama Campaign and the intimidation directed against Black McCain-Palin supporters. I also explained why I believe Michelle Obama is not fit to be First Lady (or Tenth Lady) of the U.S.
Finally, I discussed why the Palin Family may be unique in the history of American presidential politics (they AREN'T RICH!), and why the media might consider changing its idiotic "narrative" about the Palins.
A good time, in short, was had by me.
Here is the link to the webcast/chat from 9/2: http://kdka.com/video/?id=45751@kdka.dayport.com
On FOX News the other day Fred Thompson was talking to some "journalists" who were lamenting the supposed inexperience of Gov. Palin. Thompson said, "Experience, harumph. Let me tell you this: you don't get experience sitting in a seat over in the Senate. And you don't get experience by going on the Sunday talk shows."
I noted that if being a mother and of modest means were disqualifications for running for high office, that would knock out about 270 million Americans of the "anybody can grow up to the president" sweepstakes. Ah, sexism, and we wondered if it would end with Hillary Clinton. It didn't.
On the KDKA link, you will hear me cite Fred Thompson. You'll also hear me say something like the following about liberal complaints that Sarah is "shrill" and "inexprienced." I said "shrill" is a codeword for "a female voice." And I said "inxperience" is a codeword for "she's a woman." Having five daughters and several grand-daughters, that made me feel very good.
I added that I believe that the Democatic Party has no real place for or respect for a rwoman who isn't a robotic ideologue (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille). Granted, they will always have a place for women who are easily intimidated.
Full Text of Fred Thompson's Speech
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
McCain: Talk Show Critics
Last night, I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union (ACU) the Club For Growth indicated that McCain was a conservative.
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"Gamecock's" Despicable Comments on McCain
Recently, I strongly recommended John Hawkins' fine column on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, available at: http://www.theforgottenstreet.com/. I'd also like to recommend Christopher Wensley's excellent piece on Hillary Clinton ("Losing It") at: http://youngrepublican.townhall.com/.
The following is a line about John McCain in Michael Barone's superb The Almanac of American Politics, 2008: "It appears to be his view that members of Congress, like members of the military, should serve the national interest honorably and without reference to political considerations. Linked to that is his opposition to what he considers pork barrel spending, which provides him plenty of material for his self-deprecating jokes about how unpopular he is with many colleagues." (p. 95)
"Gamecock" on Red State, a Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney supporter, sent me the following yesterday: "704-779-9080 . . . give me your best shot to switch to McCain." (I had told him that it looked as if Thompson would finish fourth in the SC Primary.)
I called "Gamecock" this morning (Thursday), and it was one of the more unsatisfactory "conversations" I've ever had. He wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. He sang the praises of Fred Thompson (or, alternatively, Mr. Mega-Bucks, Mitt Romney). He denounced McCain at every turn.
He said that we should give no credit to McCain's being tortured for five-plus years in a Vietnamese prison. After all, as he put it, "Some of the men in those prisons might have come back and murdered somebody." I couldn't tell if he was serious, or even might be darkly implying that McCain had "offed" someone. It would be in keeping with his general comments about the Senator.
He condemned McCain for comments made in 2000 in the SC Primary. In that primary, McCain haters sent out many mailings saying, "McCain has a Black illegitimate daughter." McCain does have a dark-skinned daughter. She's not African-American, but is rather an adopted child from Bangla Desh. She appeared this year at a McCain rally, at least in part to dispel the lies told about him in Gamecock's beloved SC.
This year, McCain opponents are engaging in "push polling," which refers to people calling voters pretend to be pollsters. Among other things, they're saying that McCain is "pro-abortion." In fact, McCain has been staunchly pro-life for all his 24 years in public life. He has been the most consistent of all Republican candidates on this issue.
What Gamecock thinks about the lies and innuendos isn't clear. He appears to have the traditional Southern view -- and I lived in the Deep South for many years -- that all's fair in love, war, and politics. He gave me no reasons for his supporting Thompson and Romney.
I asked him what "Fred" and "Mitt" were doing while McCain, an authentic American hero to most of our fellow citizens, was rotting away in a Vietnamese torture chamber. He didn't seem to regard that question as relevant.
He admitted that McCain was "right" on the need for the Iraq Surge. However, he said that McCain had been wrong "five times" on Iraq issues. He didn't note what those five instances had been.
In my view, Gamecock is a classic supporter of Fred Thompson, known far-and-wide as the laziest man in politics. Why he wanted me to waste my time calling him is a question I'll never get answered.
My assumption is that Gamecock is deeply embedded in the racialist politics that has dogged South Carolina for generations. He sees McCain's failure to pander to the bigots at Bob Jones University and other fever swamps in the state as a failing. He should be ashamed of himself, but shame is not his strong suit.
He condemned McCain for "changing" his position on the Confederate Flag that used to fly above the SC Capital. In fact, McCain has said not opposing the Flag was his worst political decision. On CBS News, he said it was an "act of cowardice" on his part. Somehow, that kind of extreme candor doesn't impress the flag-loving Gamecock.
Anyways, I explained to "Gamecock" that McCain neither wants nor needs the support of people like him. I asked him whether he had any "character." In response, he chuckled.
My Thoughts on Obama-Clinton:
I said on a recent Eric Dondero radio show (day before NH Primary) that Mrs. Clinton's tearing up would help her rather than hurt. The others on the show were quite amazed at my statement, which turned out to be true. I agree that states with significant Black populations (SC & FL) are made to order for Obama. Winning a primary drains strength (not all strength, but some) from other candidates. I also believe he'll win SC & FL. I expect the Clintons, particularly Bill, to get nastier and nastier. I think Obama's long-ago drug use will rear its head again. I predict Mrs. Clinton will somehow cast herself not just as the female candidate, but as the Caucasian candidate. It's a blood sport for the Clintons, and if they lose they will want to take down Obama with them. They won't succeed, but they will sure try. I have a slight (key word) Lee Atwater streak in me, and I sometimes enjoy people tearing each other apart. Sarah Palin is so removed from that world (although she loves to win) that she seems like a different species. Yes, Barack Obama is starting to look a lot like the next President of the U.S.
The following is a line about John McCain in Michael Barone's superb The Almanac of American Politics, 2008: "It appears to be his view that members of Congress, like members of the military, should serve the national interest honorably and without reference to political considerations. Linked to that is his opposition to what he considers pork barrel spending, which provides him plenty of material for his self-deprecating jokes about how unpopular he is with many colleagues." (p. 95)
"Gamecock" on Red State, a Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney supporter, sent me the following yesterday: "704-779-9080 . . . give me your best shot to switch to McCain." (I had told him that it looked as if Thompson would finish fourth in the SC Primary.)
I called "Gamecock" this morning (Thursday), and it was one of the more unsatisfactory "conversations" I've ever had. He wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. He sang the praises of Fred Thompson (or, alternatively, Mr. Mega-Bucks, Mitt Romney). He denounced McCain at every turn.
He said that we should give no credit to McCain's being tortured for five-plus years in a Vietnamese prison. After all, as he put it, "Some of the men in those prisons might have come back and murdered somebody." I couldn't tell if he was serious, or even might be darkly implying that McCain had "offed" someone. It would be in keeping with his general comments about the Senator.
He condemned McCain for comments made in 2000 in the SC Primary. In that primary, McCain haters sent out many mailings saying, "McCain has a Black illegitimate daughter." McCain does have a dark-skinned daughter. She's not African-American, but is rather an adopted child from Bangla Desh. She appeared this year at a McCain rally, at least in part to dispel the lies told about him in Gamecock's beloved SC.
This year, McCain opponents are engaging in "push polling," which refers to people calling voters pretend to be pollsters. Among other things, they're saying that McCain is "pro-abortion." In fact, McCain has been staunchly pro-life for all his 24 years in public life. He has been the most consistent of all Republican candidates on this issue.
What Gamecock thinks about the lies and innuendos isn't clear. He appears to have the traditional Southern view -- and I lived in the Deep South for many years -- that all's fair in love, war, and politics. He gave me no reasons for his supporting Thompson and Romney.
I asked him what "Fred" and "Mitt" were doing while McCain, an authentic American hero to most of our fellow citizens, was rotting away in a Vietnamese torture chamber. He didn't seem to regard that question as relevant.
He admitted that McCain was "right" on the need for the Iraq Surge. However, he said that McCain had been wrong "five times" on Iraq issues. He didn't note what those five instances had been.
In my view, Gamecock is a classic supporter of Fred Thompson, known far-and-wide as the laziest man in politics. Why he wanted me to waste my time calling him is a question I'll never get answered.
My assumption is that Gamecock is deeply embedded in the racialist politics that has dogged South Carolina for generations. He sees McCain's failure to pander to the bigots at Bob Jones University and other fever swamps in the state as a failing. He should be ashamed of himself, but shame is not his strong suit.
He condemned McCain for "changing" his position on the Confederate Flag that used to fly above the SC Capital. In fact, McCain has said not opposing the Flag was his worst political decision. On CBS News, he said it was an "act of cowardice" on his part. Somehow, that kind of extreme candor doesn't impress the flag-loving Gamecock.
Anyways, I explained to "Gamecock" that McCain neither wants nor needs the support of people like him. I asked him whether he had any "character." In response, he chuckled.
My Thoughts on Obama-Clinton:
I said on a recent Eric Dondero radio show (day before NH Primary) that Mrs. Clinton's tearing up would help her rather than hurt. The others on the show were quite amazed at my statement, which turned out to be true. I agree that states with significant Black populations (SC & FL) are made to order for Obama. Winning a primary drains strength (not all strength, but some) from other candidates. I also believe he'll win SC & FL. I expect the Clintons, particularly Bill, to get nastier and nastier. I think Obama's long-ago drug use will rear its head again. I predict Mrs. Clinton will somehow cast herself not just as the female candidate, but as the Caucasian candidate. It's a blood sport for the Clintons, and if they lose they will want to take down Obama with them. They won't succeed, but they will sure try. I have a slight (key word) Lee Atwater streak in me, and I sometimes enjoy people tearing each other apart. Sarah Palin is so removed from that world (although she loves to win) that she seems like a different species. Yes, Barack Obama is starting to look a lot like the next President of the U.S.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
FRED THOMPSON: GOP'S "GREAT PUMPKIN"
By popular demand (well, my wife and stepdaughter), I'm reprinting my notorious column about former Senator (and apparent (?) presidential candidate) Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics.
I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base."
Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him. Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage." Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.
Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin.
I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices. Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.
However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll. Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire.
On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality.
McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney." Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
Fred Thompson: The Republicans' "Great Pumpkin"
Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM
Because of the terrible loss suffered by Republicans in 2006 and the current "massacre of the conservatives" (people like John Kyl, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, and many others), I've had to do a lot of rethinking about politics.
I find the present situation as distressing as anything I've ever encountered. It appears to me that the Party is hell-bent on becoming a permanent minority. The scary thing that people who differ greatly with me on certain issues (especially immigration) don't dissent from my assessment of the Party's bleak future.
I've been resisting the temptation to write a column critical of Fred Thompson and his "Townhall Essay Campaign." That's where he writes one pedestrian piece after another to delight the easily amused "base."
Some people for whom I have genuine affection support Fred -- or at least they support some mirage they assume must be him. Honestly, I'm not really in the business of intentionally offending people, so I've stayed away from Fred. However . . . I've asked people to read the Wikipedia article (go to http://wikipedia.com and then fill in the name "Fred Thompson"). I realize "Wik" is not the last word on anything. Also, some readers have challenged the objectivity of the piece (as "Wik" notes).
However, the basic facts of the piece are not in dispute. They suggest that Thompson has more political baggage than the U.S. Airways warehouse containing "lost luggage." Someone recently asked Thompson what he regarded as his major accomplishments during his eight years in the Senate. His response was what journalists call "a long, pregnant pause." He didn't mention the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which he strongly supported and which has been used in attempts to derail the campaign of John McCain.
When I look at the Thompson campaign, I don't see him as the Republicans' "White Knight." I certainly don't see him as the Second Coming of the Gipper.
Instead, I see someone more akin to the Great Pumpkin in "Charlie Brown." As you'll recall, each Halloween Charlie and his friends would wait with great anticipation the arrival of said Pumpkin. However, each year they waited in vain. Fred is the Republican version of the Great Pumpkin.
I see Fred Thompson as an old guy who looks and acts his age. He's John McCain without the history of heroism, the commitment to principle, and the feistiness.
Is Thompson truly ready to be the frontrunner in the campaign for the Republican nomination? Townhall.com, citing the dubious Rasmussen Poll, says Thompson is now [remember, this was last June] the leader in a national survey (27% to 23% over Giuliani). Of course, frequent visitors to Townhall recognize the site chooses its polls carefuly so as to reflect its own prejudices. Townhall used to be a full-time shill for the semi-pathetic Romney campaign, but some people there appear to be switching to Fred.
However, as I'm preparing this column, which may have something to offend nearly everyone, I'm listening to the latest Opinion Research Poll. Since you won't hear anything about it on Townhall, I'll fill you in.Opinion Research shows Giuliani with roughly 29% of the national support from Republicans. Thompson has about 19%, followed by McCain at 18%. Romney is in fourth place at about 14%.
Of course, Townhall will be singing a different story. It will be telling you (less frequently than in the past, perhaps) that "Team Romney" is vigorously enhancing its leadership in the meaningless "Ames Straw Poll." It will be telling you that Romney is doing well -- although not all that well -- in his neighboring state of New Hampshire.
On the other hand, it will not be telling you that the New Hampshire primary is looking less and less important to serious candidates [oops, I was wrong there]. It will not be letting you in on the fact that Mitt Romney has spent $21 million on his campaign -- and has almost nothing to show for it.
Also, Townhall will be telling you -- wrongly -- that the McCain campaign is cratering, that he's essentially through as a presidential candidate. What Townhall won't be telling you about its corporate views is that they reflect the triumph of hope over reality.
McCain continues, against all odds, to do well in national polls, which show him running neck-and-neck with Thompson -- and far ahead of Th's beloved "Romney." Apparently, tens of thousands of people visit Townhall on an average day. What I'm suggesting here -- modestly, of course -- that they'd be much better informed if they visited Campaign2008VictoryA.
TH will seek to propagandize you. I won't. It's just that simple.
FRED THOMPSON: HISTORY'S WORST CAMPAIGN
I wrote the following in response to a Yahoo "conservative" group where one member was asking where Fred Thompson's headquarters were in states like MI, MN, SD, and ND. You'll note that I'm not a big fan of Fred Thompson.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won.
I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives. What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards,
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
When the book is written on this campaign, there will be a fascinating chapter on Fred Thompson and his Incredible Disappearing Act. Asking where Fred's "headquarters" are in MI & MN is like asking where Ron Paul's HQ is in Harlem.
Apparently, Fred's "trophy wife," Jeri, is the head of his campaign. One step he should make immediately is to fire her. If his campaign isn't the worst in recorded history, I shudder to think which one was more inept (Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?).
When Fred was in on the Senate on 9/11, he said of his own situation, "Now is not the time [for me] to leave . . ." Shortly thereafter, he left to go to an important position in Hollywood on a TV show that was regularly anti-military and anti-conservative.
In Thompson's career, he often had to choose between serving the nation and making a lot of money. In every cash, the appeal of the big bucks won.
I can't imagine what the appeal is that Fred holds for some conservatives. What on earth has the man ever done in his career as an elected official? Exactly what did he accomplish as a Senator? In his lucrative role as a lobbyist, he had as clients one unsavory individual or group after another, including the dictator of Haiti.
Fred is now 67 -- and looks and acts his age. At the same time, he's been building on his reputation as the laziest man in Washington. He has an active campaign in only one state, South Carolina, and when he loses there I'm sure he will return to Hollywood and live happily ever afterwards,
As a candidate, Fred is not in the same league as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. Those conservative individuals have been running full-speed for a year. In contrast, Fred has been meandering along, giving one pedestrian speech after another.
Good riddance, Fred.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Giuliani, McCain Leading, Thompson, Romney Fading, Huckabee Advances
Rudy 33% McCain 19% Thompson 16% Romney 11% Huckabee 9% in Latest Washington Post - ABC News National GOP Poll (Note: See my question at the bottom).
Republican Presidential hopeful, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, center (above), leaves a news conference in Washington, Friday, Nov. 2, 2007,with Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., rear, and Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., left, after the announcement of Sen. Bond’s endorsement of Giuliani for President. Sen. Coleman endorsed Giuliani on Thursday.
Senator John McCain has returned to second place with Rudy Giuliani continuing to lead the GOP Field in the latest Washington Post - ABC News National GOP Poll.
The poll gives Rudy a double digit lead over John McCain who has limited his campaign to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Fred Thompson’s campaign continues to collapse while Mike Huckabee is now threatening Mitt Romney’s fourth place.
In the general election portion of the poll, Rudy Giuliani does the best of any GOP candidate, trailing Hillary Clinton by only 4 percentage points - well within competitive striking distance.
Steve Maloney says: I have endorsed a ticket of Rudy Giuliani - Sarah Palin. I also have tremendous regard for John McCain, and I've written several favorable pieces about Mike Huckabee. I am asking both Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain to step up to the plate and endorse the candidacy of William Russell against John Murtha.
COULD THIS MEAN THE REPUBLICAN RACE COULD COME DOWN TO A BATTLE BETWEEN TWO FRIENDS, JOHN MCCAIN AND RUDY GIULIANI? I'D REGARD THAT AS A TERRIFIC SCENARIO, BECAUSE EITHER MAN WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT PRESIDENT OF THE US.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
WILLIAM RUSSELL CAN DEFEAT MURTHA: REQUEST TO GOV. SARAH PALIN
I APPRECIATE THE MANY (MANY, MANY) VISITORS WHO HAVE COME IN THE PAST TWO DAYS. I THINK WHEN SOMEONE UTTERS THE MAGIC WORDS THAT "JOHN MURTHA MUST GO," IT GETS PEOPLE'S ATTENTION. TOMORROW I'LL TALK SOME ABOUT HOW MURTHA CAN BE DEFEATED BY WILLIAM TROWER RUSSELL.
Thanks to the LARGE NUMBER of visitors from http://thepinkflamingo,blogharbor.com/blog and from http://freerepublic.com/, as well as many other sites. You're always welcome here -- as are your comments. One important thing you can do for William Russell is send an email to Josh Schultz at the National Republican Congressional Committee and ask the national party to provide some "seed money" for William's campaign. Like most national committees, the NRCC has a tendency to funnel money to Representatives who have been in Congress long enough that they should be able to raise their own money. Please send your request to: jshultz@NRCC.org. Tell him (nicely) that you'll be a lot more likely to contribute to the NRCC if they give EARLY support to people like Lt. Col. William Russell. Since Russell is going to get a great deal of national publicity (it's already starting) because of the nature of his opponent (Moneybags Murtha), he will help Republican candidates across the nation. You can find William's campaign site by clicking on the link on your right (at the top).
In the last 12 hours -- from midnight to noon on Tuesday, Oct. 30 -- I've had more than 100 visitors to this blog, putting me on pace for a record day. William T. Russell, who is running against the odious John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district, is getting tremendous traffic on his web site.
Frankly, Murtha has been willing to sell American soldiers down the river for his personal political gain, and he has no business being in Congress. He raises millions of dollars from DC lobbyists, but as a Congressman, he isn't worth a plug nickel.
By soliciting support from the extreme left-wing of his Party, symbolized by his political ally Nancy Pelosi, Murtha has put personal gain ahead of his country's security.
Many people are making modest contributions to Lt. Col. Russell's campaign and volunteering to support him in other ways. Everyone who is supportive of Russell, a Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom veteran, has my heartfelt thanks -- and his.
Please take a glance at the several columns below (scroll down) that I've written regarding William and some other terrific candidates. Some individuals have promised to ask leading Republican presidential candidates to publicly back William's campaign. Senator McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Senator Thompson, Governor Romney, and Governor Huckabee should do precisely that.
If you want to support William in any way, please go to his web site at: http://williamrussellforcongress.com or e-mail his campaign manager, former Marine Larry Stiles at lstiless@yahoo.com. William, Larry, and all who are supporting him are frankly helping write a new chapter in American history.
If you know anyone in the 12th District of PA (including towns like Johnstown, Monongahela, Washington, and Canonsburg and Greene County) please ask them to support William's candidacy. If you can make a small cash contribution, please do so. This campaign is just beginning, but it's building momentum very quickly.
As you'll note in the column below, I'm asking Governor Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska, the country's most popular elected official, to look into her heart and offer public support for William. Governor Palin's 18-year-old son, Track, is training now in GA for the U.S. Army infantry. There's no better way to "support our troops" than to offer your backing for William T. (Trower) Russell.
If you want to know more about William -- who, with his wife, was in the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 -- please read my columns and visit his web site at: On our right, you'll see a link for William's site. Please go there and bookmark it.
Thanks to all of you. (More to come)
NOTE: I am an independent blogger and receive no financial aid or direction from any candidate supported on this blog. The candidates this blog is supporting include: Sarah Palin (for vice-president of the US), William Russell, Melissa Hart (4th Congressional District, PA), and Heather Wilson (U.S. Senate, NM). Bobby Jindal (D, LA) has already won his race for Governor. After doing some more research, I'm going to support as many as four other candidates.
Dear Friends, I bet you didn't hear this on the evening news last week: "In Al Anbar province, last week we had no casualties, killed or wounded in action."
That's what Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, Director of Operational Planning on Joint Chiefs of Staff said in the regular Defense Department briefing on October 24.
Al Anbar is the predominently Sunni part of Iraq where al Qaeda in Iraq was wreaking havoc about a year ago. I went there last December. It is a province of about 1.2 million people, most of whom live along the fertile river valleys. It is vital to America that Iraq not become a safe haven for al Qaeda Al Anbar is ground zero for that fight.
Late last year, the Marines in Anbar changed their strategy and they got more American forces to help implement it this spring.
The Marines partnered with the Sunni tribes who were willing to reject al Qaeda. The Chiefs told their young men to join the police -- and they did. With U.S. help, they started rooting out the foreign fighters in their midst and cutting the rat lines bringing suicide bombers in from Syria.
We should have no illusions about the opportunism and self-intrest of the al Anbar tribes. But their willingness to oppose al Qaeda and its brand of Islamic extremism is sufficient for our purposes.
We don't need to build a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. We need to prevent it from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda. The counter-insurgency strategy in al Anbar appears to be working.That's why you didn't hear about it last week.
Heather A. Wilson, Candidate for U.S. Senate from New Mexico. Heather is the first female veteran (Air Force) ever elected to Congress. She's a candidate who deserves and needs your support! I'm hoping she will come to PA and speak on behalf of her fellow veteran -- and candidate for the U.S. House -- William Trower Russell.
Thanks to the LARGE NUMBER of visitors from http://thepinkflamingo,blogharbor.com/blog and from http://freerepublic.com/, as well as many other sites. You're always welcome here -- as are your comments. One important thing you can do for William Russell is send an email to Josh Schultz at the National Republican Congressional Committee and ask the national party to provide some "seed money" for William's campaign. Like most national committees, the NRCC has a tendency to funnel money to Representatives who have been in Congress long enough that they should be able to raise their own money. Please send your request to: jshultz@NRCC.org. Tell him (nicely) that you'll be a lot more likely to contribute to the NRCC if they give EARLY support to people like Lt. Col. William Russell. Since Russell is going to get a great deal of national publicity (it's already starting) because of the nature of his opponent (Moneybags Murtha), he will help Republican candidates across the nation. You can find William's campaign site by clicking on the link on your right (at the top).
Note: See Chris Voccio's fine piece today on Murtha and his "earmarks." I have a long comment on Chris's site: www.pennrepublican.com. Anyone interested in the Russell-Murtha campaign will want to subscribe to Chris's new, Johnstown-based monthly publication.
In the last 12 hours -- from midnight to noon on Tuesday, Oct. 30 -- I've had more than 100 visitors to this blog, putting me on pace for a record day. William T. Russell, who is running against the odious John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district, is getting tremendous traffic on his web site.
Frankly, Murtha has been willing to sell American soldiers down the river for his personal political gain, and he has no business being in Congress. He raises millions of dollars from DC lobbyists, but as a Congressman, he isn't worth a plug nickel.
By soliciting support from the extreme left-wing of his Party, symbolized by his political ally Nancy Pelosi, Murtha has put personal gain ahead of his country's security.
Many people are making modest contributions to Lt. Col. Russell's campaign and volunteering to support him in other ways. Everyone who is supportive of Russell, a Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom veteran, has my heartfelt thanks -- and his.
Please take a glance at the several columns below (scroll down) that I've written regarding William and some other terrific candidates. Some individuals have promised to ask leading Republican presidential candidates to publicly back William's campaign. Senator McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Senator Thompson, Governor Romney, and Governor Huckabee should do precisely that.
If you want to support William in any way, please go to his web site at: http://williamrussellforcongress.com or e-mail his campaign manager, former Marine Larry Stiles at lstiless@yahoo.com. William, Larry, and all who are supporting him are frankly helping write a new chapter in American history.
If you know anyone in the 12th District of PA (including towns like Johnstown, Monongahela, Washington, and Canonsburg and Greene County) please ask them to support William's candidacy. If you can make a small cash contribution, please do so. This campaign is just beginning, but it's building momentum very quickly.
As you'll note in the column below, I'm asking Governor Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska, the country's most popular elected official, to look into her heart and offer public support for William. Governor Palin's 18-year-old son, Track, is training now in GA for the U.S. Army infantry. There's no better way to "support our troops" than to offer your backing for William T. (Trower) Russell.
If you want to know more about William -- who, with his wife, was in the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 -- please read my columns and visit his web site at: On our right, you'll see a link for William's site. Please go there and bookmark it.
Thanks to all of you. (More to come)
NOTE: I am an independent blogger and receive no financial aid or direction from any candidate supported on this blog. The candidates this blog is supporting include: Sarah Palin (for vice-president of the US), William Russell, Melissa Hart (4th Congressional District, PA), and Heather Wilson (U.S. Senate, NM). Bobby Jindal (D, LA) has already won his race for Governor. After doing some more research, I'm going to support as many as four other candidates.
__________________
Critically Important News from U.S. Rep. Heather A. Wilson, 1st District (Albuquerque)
Dear Friends, I bet you didn't hear this on the evening news last week: "In Al Anbar province, last week we had no casualties, killed or wounded in action."
That's what Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, Director of Operational Planning on Joint Chiefs of Staff said in the regular Defense Department briefing on October 24.
Al Anbar is the predominently Sunni part of Iraq where al Qaeda in Iraq was wreaking havoc about a year ago. I went there last December. It is a province of about 1.2 million people, most of whom live along the fertile river valleys. It is vital to America that Iraq not become a safe haven for al Qaeda Al Anbar is ground zero for that fight.
Late last year, the Marines in Anbar changed their strategy and they got more American forces to help implement it this spring.
The Marines partnered with the Sunni tribes who were willing to reject al Qaeda. The Chiefs told their young men to join the police -- and they did. With U.S. help, they started rooting out the foreign fighters in their midst and cutting the rat lines bringing suicide bombers in from Syria.
We should have no illusions about the opportunism and self-intrest of the al Anbar tribes. But their willingness to oppose al Qaeda and its brand of Islamic extremism is sufficient for our purposes.
We don't need to build a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. We need to prevent it from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda. The counter-insurgency strategy in al Anbar appears to be working.That's why you didn't hear about it last week.
Heather A. Wilson, Candidate for U.S. Senate from New Mexico. Heather is the first female veteran (Air Force) ever elected to Congress. She's a candidate who deserves and needs your support! I'm hoping she will come to PA and speak on behalf of her fellow veteran -- and candidate for the U.S. House -- William Trower Russell.
Friday, October 5, 2007
CA's MAYOR SAM SALUES SARAH PALIN . . . AGAIN
Mayor Sam's Sister City, one of the most-visited blogs in California, is a major supporter of Sarah Palin for the vice-presidency of the U.S. MayorSam, as is his style, refers to Sarah as a "hottie," which causes a few people to wince, but in this column he even explains what that term means. I guess when "you're hot, you're hot," and that's true both of Mayor Sam and of Sarah Palin. Here's his column, which you can find in the 10/5 (Friday) postings:
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2007/10/hotties-could-save-republican-party.html. Please be sure to visit Sam and tell him he's pretty hot himself! -- Stephen R. Maloney
Hotties Could Save Republican Party
Usually Republicans are wizzened old white guys with the charisma of a wet blanket. But perhaps not for much longer as young, talented, strong, intelligent Republican hotties are coming on the scene.We've talked before about Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
Enormously popular, the 43 year old Republican has fought back against dinosaur, tax and spend Republicans in her home state and there's no doubt she could do the same at the national level. Many speculate that Palin could easily challenge bridge to nowhere builder Republican Senator Ted Stevens but a grassroots movement is growing to encourage consideration of Palin as a potential GOP Vice Presidential candidate.
Palin who has what is probably the highest approval rating of any politician in America at 84% has shaken up the GOP old boys club in Alaska, putting a stop to pork barrel politics and ending old sweetheart deals. She even put an end to the bridge to nowhere; killing what some considered to be the poster child for Congressional pork.
Some pundits who like Palin think she needs more experience. However some of her supporters posit that were Palin a male and a Democrat, she'd be considered the next JFK. Indeed, she has more executive experience and is of the same generation as Barack Obama.
Another young, female GOP power player of late is Jeri Kehn Thomspon, 41. The former media consultant and Republican National Committee staffer is considered to be the svengali behind her Presidential candidate husband, Fred Dalton Thompson. As the Thompson campaign kicks into high gear, Mrs. Thompson has become more prominent.
The Republican Party could be revived by turning leadership over to youngsters such as Palin and Thompson. Sure, Thompson's husband is the candidate and yet another wizzened old white guy, but should he be elected there certainly is a model for a first lady to follow to a political career of her own. Given that both Palin and Thompson are of my generation I agree its high time to turn things over to their peers.
By the way before any of you go nuts, when I refer to Palin and Mrs. Thompson being hotties, its the whole package, not just their looks. It refers more to a state of mind, intelligence and ability. Indeed, if Palin or Thompson were just clerks at the Piggly Wiggly, they'd probably just be considered of average attractiveness.
Indeed, Henry Kissinger may have been correct when he said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
Labels: california republican party, fred thompson, jeri thompson, sarah palin
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 10/05/2007 12:56:00 AM
READ PATRICK RUFFINI'S SALUTE TO SARAH PALIN ("THE GOP'S NORTH STAR") AT TOWNHALL
http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/09/29/the_gops_north_star
FRED THOMPSON: WIFE HOT, HIM NOT
Here's the 10/05/07 Matt Lewis column about Fred Thompson
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/f53dcebd-0ee9-4a74-8d68-ed4c3fbdc440
Fred Thompson Falls Flat, by Matt Lewis
"... Fred Thompson's speech at the American's for Prosperity conference pretty much fell flat. While Thompson was greeted with the best applause, his speech seemed to under-perform -- which seems to be an analogy for his entire campaign.Thompson's style (which one reporter I talked to referred to as "Hollywood") seemed to rub many reporters -- and potential supporters -- the wrong way. His entourage hurried him in to the green room before any reporters or bloggers could ask him any questions. What is more, I'm also told that his team "swept" the green room -- essentially kicking everyone out that wasn't associated with his campaign. While other candidates such as Giulaini, Huckabee, Brownback, and Paul didn't mind sharing the green room with others, Thompson's team asked people to leave ...
SCROLL DOWN TO FIND THE LINK TO THE PETITION TO DRAFT SARAH. PLEASE SIGN IT!
(LATER TODAY) HOW YOU CAN HELP YOUR FAVORITE CANDIDATE TO WIN!
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2007/10/hotties-could-save-republican-party.html. Please be sure to visit Sam and tell him he's pretty hot himself! -- Stephen R. Maloney
Hotties Could Save Republican Party
Usually Republicans are wizzened old white guys with the charisma of a wet blanket. But perhaps not for much longer as young, talented, strong, intelligent Republican hotties are coming on the scene.We've talked before about Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
Enormously popular, the 43 year old Republican has fought back against dinosaur, tax and spend Republicans in her home state and there's no doubt she could do the same at the national level. Many speculate that Palin could easily challenge bridge to nowhere builder Republican Senator Ted Stevens but a grassroots movement is growing to encourage consideration of Palin as a potential GOP Vice Presidential candidate.
Palin who has what is probably the highest approval rating of any politician in America at 84% has shaken up the GOP old boys club in Alaska, putting a stop to pork barrel politics and ending old sweetheart deals. She even put an end to the bridge to nowhere; killing what some considered to be the poster child for Congressional pork.
Some pundits who like Palin think she needs more experience. However some of her supporters posit that were Palin a male and a Democrat, she'd be considered the next JFK. Indeed, she has more executive experience and is of the same generation as Barack Obama.
Another young, female GOP power player of late is Jeri Kehn Thomspon, 41. The former media consultant and Republican National Committee staffer is considered to be the svengali behind her Presidential candidate husband, Fred Dalton Thompson. As the Thompson campaign kicks into high gear, Mrs. Thompson has become more prominent.
The Republican Party could be revived by turning leadership over to youngsters such as Palin and Thompson. Sure, Thompson's husband is the candidate and yet another wizzened old white guy, but should he be elected there certainly is a model for a first lady to follow to a political career of her own. Given that both Palin and Thompson are of my generation I agree its high time to turn things over to their peers.
By the way before any of you go nuts, when I refer to Palin and Mrs. Thompson being hotties, its the whole package, not just their looks. It refers more to a state of mind, intelligence and ability. Indeed, if Palin or Thompson were just clerks at the Piggly Wiggly, they'd probably just be considered of average attractiveness.
Indeed, Henry Kissinger may have been correct when he said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
Labels: california republican party, fred thompson, jeri thompson, sarah palin
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 10/05/2007 12:56:00 AM
READ PATRICK RUFFINI'S SALUTE TO SARAH PALIN ("THE GOP'S NORTH STAR") AT TOWNHALL
http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/09/29/the_gops_north_star
FRED THOMPSON: WIFE HOT, HIM NOT
Here's the 10/05/07 Matt Lewis column about Fred Thompson
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/f53dcebd-0ee9-4a74-8d68-ed4c3fbdc440
Fred Thompson Falls Flat, by Matt Lewis
"... Fred Thompson's speech at the American's for Prosperity conference pretty much fell flat. While Thompson was greeted with the best applause, his speech seemed to under-perform -- which seems to be an analogy for his entire campaign.Thompson's style (which one reporter I talked to referred to as "Hollywood") seemed to rub many reporters -- and potential supporters -- the wrong way. His entourage hurried him in to the green room before any reporters or bloggers could ask him any questions. What is more, I'm also told that his team "swept" the green room -- essentially kicking everyone out that wasn't associated with his campaign. While other candidates such as Giulaini, Huckabee, Brownback, and Paul didn't mind sharing the green room with others, Thompson's team asked people to leave ...
SCROLL DOWN TO FIND THE LINK TO THE PETITION TO DRAFT SARAH. PLEASE SIGN IT!
(LATER TODAY) HOW YOU CAN HELP YOUR FAVORITE CANDIDATE TO WIN!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
BULLETIN: GIULIANI IN NHI
The latest national and state polls show Rudy Giuliani surging to the lead nationally and -- of great significance -- drawing even in the key state of New Hampshire. He's doing so with significant support from the evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic communities. "America's Mayor" is advancing in spite of the scorched earth policy of a tiny fragment of evangelicals, such as Laurence White and Larry Perrault, whose effort seem designed mainly to hand the general election to Hillary Rodham Clinton. On White and Perrault, see the two columns I'll write on Thursday and Friday.
Gov. Romney has reportedly spent $2 million in NH, and he served as Governor of the neighboring state of Massachusetts. The spending and proximity may not be enough. If Romney loses New Hampshire, his campaign will be a case of "dead man walking." Senator McCain, who won the primary in the Granite State in 2000 is locked in third place. Mike Huckabee, the approved candidate of the two Larrys (White and Perrault) has only a tiny fragment of the vote and shows no sign of forward momentum.
The following are the figures, released today, from the WMUR (Manchester, NH) poll conducted this week: Romeny, 25%, Giuliani 24%, McCain 16%, Thompson 13%. The results reflect a surge in Giuliani''s support, while Romney has dropped 9% since early this year..
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Gov. Romney has reportedly spent $2 million in NH, and he served as Governor of the neighboring state of Massachusetts. The spending and proximity may not be enough. If Romney loses New Hampshire, his campaign will be a case of "dead man walking." Senator McCain, who won the primary in the Granite State in 2000 is locked in third place. Mike Huckabee, the approved candidate of the two Larrys (White and Perrault) has only a tiny fragment of the vote and shows no sign of forward momentum.
The following are the figures, released today, from the WMUR (Manchester, NH) poll conducted this week: Romeny, 25%, Giuliani 24%, McCain 16%, Thompson 13%. The results reflect a surge in Giuliani''s support, while Romney has dropped 9% since early this year..
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Monday, September 24, 2007
Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Evangelical Extremists
Note: Tomorrow I'll be reprinting two e-mails I've received: one from Matt (of SenseinPolitics) about the positive qualities of Mike Huckabee, the other from John Hawkins (of The Forgotten Street) about the conservative credentials of Fred Thompson. Here's the e-mail I sent to them today:
Matt & John, could I reprint your e-mails (one each)? John Hawkins in Florida, a long-time associate of mine who's a supporter of Fred Thompson), wrote a thoughtful e-mail. Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of him. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (In the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.) What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states).
Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.
One candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9-10% in late November, 2003, and was at 52% in February, 2004.
(Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.) Kerry it turned out was "everybody's second choice" among the Democrats, which may also be the case with Mike Huckabee.
Remember, however, that Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, which I don't believe is possible with Mike. If Mike doesn't win Iowa, he should withdraw and begin planning for the next campaign.
The only real movement in the polls in the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.
There was one poll that showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who aren't going to vote for him in the primary still have a favorable view of him.
I've heard that 59% (think that's it) of the American public hasn't seen so much as ONE debate. The campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.
Of note: Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be going toward Rudy.
Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hades of passing. He's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.
Romney said that abortion should be left up to the states, because that's exactly what would happen if SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade. To Romney's credit, he told people the truth, even though some evangelicals didn't want to hear it. Despite Dr. Dobson's and Rev. Larry White's rants, there is never going to be an amendment overturning Roe. If it happens, it would be the result of actions by by SCOTUS, not by Congress and the states.
The problem with the extreme evangelicals -- the "absolutists" as my friend Sanity102 calls them, is their appalling egoism. The define their own form of Christianity as the only type of belief acceptable to God. They believe that because they want a certain political action to take place that the system has failed if it doesn't. I've compared them them to naughty two-year olds, individuals who start screaming if they don't get their own way.
The absolutists do harm to a campaign like Mike's. One evangelical on the main Huckabee blog said that Mike was heading to perdition because his band played some Willie Nelson songs. Another individual said that the election of Hillary Clinton (herself a liberal Christian) would lead to "the persecution of hundreds of Christians." Other supporters deserted Mike because he said essentially that DC residents were being subject to taxation without representation. Still other evangelicals got in an uproar against Mike because he said there was SOME racism in the opposition to immigration reform.
Perhaps Mike's most controversial statement was when he said, "Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth." This was a slap at evangelicals and others who claim to be "pro-life," but show no concern for children outside the womb who need assistance.
As I've said before, Mike is a better candidate than some of his strongest supporters could ever imagine.
steve maloney
Matt & John, could I reprint your e-mails (one each)? John Hawkins in Florida, a long-time associate of mine who's a supporter of Fred Thompson), wrote a thoughtful e-mail. Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of him. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (In the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.) What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states).
Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.
One candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9-10% in late November, 2003, and was at 52% in February, 2004.
(Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.) Kerry it turned out was "everybody's second choice" among the Democrats, which may also be the case with Mike Huckabee.
Remember, however, that Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, which I don't believe is possible with Mike. If Mike doesn't win Iowa, he should withdraw and begin planning for the next campaign.
The only real movement in the polls in the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.
There was one poll that showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who aren't going to vote for him in the primary still have a favorable view of him.
I've heard that 59% (think that's it) of the American public hasn't seen so much as ONE debate. The campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.
Of note: Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be going toward Rudy.
Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hades of passing. He's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.
Romney said that abortion should be left up to the states, because that's exactly what would happen if SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade. To Romney's credit, he told people the truth, even though some evangelicals didn't want to hear it. Despite Dr. Dobson's and Rev. Larry White's rants, there is never going to be an amendment overturning Roe. If it happens, it would be the result of actions by by SCOTUS, not by Congress and the states.
The problem with the extreme evangelicals -- the "absolutists" as my friend Sanity102 calls them, is their appalling egoism. The define their own form of Christianity as the only type of belief acceptable to God. They believe that because they want a certain political action to take place that the system has failed if it doesn't. I've compared them them to naughty two-year olds, individuals who start screaming if they don't get their own way.
The absolutists do harm to a campaign like Mike's. One evangelical on the main Huckabee blog said that Mike was heading to perdition because his band played some Willie Nelson songs. Another individual said that the election of Hillary Clinton (herself a liberal Christian) would lead to "the persecution of hundreds of Christians." Other supporters deserted Mike because he said essentially that DC residents were being subject to taxation without representation. Still other evangelicals got in an uproar against Mike because he said there was SOME racism in the opposition to immigration reform.
Perhaps Mike's most controversial statement was when he said, "Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth." This was a slap at evangelicals and others who claim to be "pro-life," but show no concern for children outside the womb who need assistance.
As I've said before, Mike is a better candidate than some of his strongest supporters could ever imagine.
steve maloney
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Mike I Like, and Fred I Don't . . . However . . .
One of the more important columns I've written in the past year is the one below questioning Fred Thompson's fitness to be President. A nice lady from Tennessee wrote me an angry e-mail indicating that Thompson had been "a great Senator." I don't believe there is one person in America who could say that with a straight face. There is no significant piece of legislation with Thompson's name attached to it. During his several years in the Senate he left no footprints.
Thus, I'm forced to agree with the Rev. Dobson -- a person I disagree with regularly -- that Fred is man who lacks "zeal and passion," two words which basically mean the same thing. (Dobson believes it's okay to hit small children with wooden spoons, and I -- like most sane people -- don't. I do believe it's fine to hit Dobson with them.)
I'm also ending my consideration of Mike Huckabee as a realistic candidate for the nomination. I believe Mike was one of the few evangelical Christians who ever spoke candidly to his co-religionists -- about life (and it's not ending at birth), about immigration reform, about anti-Catholicism among some evangelicals, about taxes, about poverty, about equal voting rights for citizens in D.C., and many other things.
But Mike's chances of winning the nomination are very slim, in large part because his supporters are strong on prayers for him and short on cash for his campaign. Any candidate who doesn't have $30 million-plus on hand in January of next year had better seek another line of work. That's when the "campaigns" will become indistinguishable from a blizzard of television advertising in America's most expensive media markets.
I hope Mike has a great future -- he's only in his early 50s. But that future will not involve his getting the nomination or winning the election.
In politics getting "half-a-loaf" should be an occasion for joy. Heck, getting a crust of bread is better than nothing. Politics truly is the art of the possible. It's also the art of learning how to live with the imperfect, which is all we're usually going to get in this lifetime. Heaven is way over yonder, and earth is right here beneath our feet.
Stephen R. Maloney
On Monday, I'll reprint John Hawkins' pro-Thompson e-mail, as well as my response. I have major problems with Fred Thompson as a candidate for the GOP nomination.
Thus, I'm forced to agree with the Rev. Dobson -- a person I disagree with regularly -- that Fred is man who lacks "zeal and passion," two words which basically mean the same thing. (Dobson believes it's okay to hit small children with wooden spoons, and I -- like most sane people -- don't. I do believe it's fine to hit Dobson with them.)
I'm also ending my consideration of Mike Huckabee as a realistic candidate for the nomination. I believe Mike was one of the few evangelical Christians who ever spoke candidly to his co-religionists -- about life (and it's not ending at birth), about immigration reform, about anti-Catholicism among some evangelicals, about taxes, about poverty, about equal voting rights for citizens in D.C., and many other things.
But Mike's chances of winning the nomination are very slim, in large part because his supporters are strong on prayers for him and short on cash for his campaign. Any candidate who doesn't have $30 million-plus on hand in January of next year had better seek another line of work. That's when the "campaigns" will become indistinguishable from a blizzard of television advertising in America's most expensive media markets.
I hope Mike has a great future -- he's only in his early 50s. But that future will not involve his getting the nomination or winning the election.
In politics getting "half-a-loaf" should be an occasion for joy. Heck, getting a crust of bread is better than nothing. Politics truly is the art of the possible. It's also the art of learning how to live with the imperfect, which is all we're usually going to get in this lifetime. Heaven is way over yonder, and earth is right here beneath our feet.
Stephen R. Maloney
On Monday, I'll reprint John Hawkins' pro-Thompson e-mail, as well as my response. I have major problems with Fred Thompson as a candidate for the GOP nomination.
To me, he's the "designated conservative," in much the same way as frauds like Duke Cunningham (in jail for bribery and extortion as a congressman), Bob Ney (accepted money for votes from Jack Abramoff), Mark Foley (you know about him), David Vitter (of D.C. Madam fame), and Larry Craig (of men's room notoriety). These people discovered that being "pretend conservatives" (often with reflexive gay-bashing and lots of sentimental nonsense about "traditional families") was the key to winning elections. Those conservative voters who prefer rhetoric over reality backed them without question.
Being a responsible activist and voter means being realistic about the world in which we live. It means understanding that the U.S. is not -- and will not be -- a theocracy. It means recognizing that tens of millions of voters have shifted from Republican to Independent and Democrat.
Being realistic involves understanding that there will never (at least in our lifetimes) be a constitutional amendment outlawing either abortion or gay marriage. There are not 50 votes in favor of such measures in the Senate, and a constitutional amendment requires 67 votes. Candidates who talk about such things as possibilities are pandering and, worse, lying to the public.
In the 2008 election, there will be 22 Republican-held Senate seats up for election, and only 12 Democratic seats. Some of those Republican seats (including the one in Virginia) -- perhaps many of them -- will be lost. The probability is that the Democrats will hold all 12 of theirs.
Changing demographics and the political naivete of some evangelicals will make it almost impossible to win the Presidency. James H. of Louisiana has mentioned that the Republican nominee will have a very hard time being competitive in Florida and Nevada. He could also have mentioned Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, among others.
Ohio, traditionally a Republican bastion, is now a strong Blue state. A liberal Democrat, Strickland, soundly defeated social conservative Ken Blackwell in the 2006 race for the governorship. A very liberal Democrat -- much more so than Hillary Clinton -- named Sherrod Brown won an Ohio Senate seat in 2006.
I keep hearing people who say that people in their church (evangelical) or neighborhood (affluent) "can't stand Hillary," so she will be beatable in 2008. Right now, it appears we would magically need to double such churches and neighborhoods to beat her.
The Gallup Poll shows the most popular male politician in the country is William Jefferson Clinton. The most popular female -- politician or otherwise -- is Hillary Rodham Clinton, with the second most popular being Oprah Winfrey.
Mike Huckabee is a good man, but his bland "goodness" will not enable him to overcome the raw political power of the Clintons. Fred Thompson presumably is a good something, but his cornpone style, vague federalism, and reputation for being the laziest man in D.C. don't augur well for a campaign against Hillary.
I hear the refrain that goes "Run, Fred, run," and all I can think is, "Hide, Fred, hide." In this electoral season, we need not fantasy but rather a brutal honesty about the political situation.
FRED THOMPSON & THE "DEAD CAT BOUNCE": "NO PASSION . . . NO ZEAL"
Picture of Fred Thompson, second wife, and youngest children
Note: I'll continue my "scum of the earth" series on Democratic Senators (Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, Edward M. Kennedy, and others) next week.
NOTE: NEXT WEEK I'LL ENDORSE A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. OBVIOUSLY, IT WON'T BE FRED THOMPSON! IT ALSO WON'T BE MIKE HUCKABEE, WHO IS IN SOME WAYS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE CANDIDATE. MIKE MAY IN FACT HAVE A BRIGHT FUTURE, BUT IT WON'T INCLUDE WINNING EITHER THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION OR THE GENERAL ELECTION.
Fred Thompson!!!!
Fred Thompson????
Former Senator Thompson's presidential campaign has experienced what stock traders call a "dead cat bounce." That refers to a stock whose price drops precipitously and then rises slightly, only to continue its downward trend. The concept behind the phrase is that, if it's dropped from a high enough point, even a "dead cat" will bounce.
Many evangelical Christians urged Thompson to enter the presidential race. However, he didn't exactly take off like a rocket. Evangelical Christian and Focus on the Family guru James Dobson expressed his disappointment with Thompson by saying the candidate had "no passion . . . no zeal."
Dobson got it right. Thompson is in his 66th year -- note: I'm 67 -- and he looks it and acts it. He's eligible for both Social Security and Medicare. Saddled with non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, Thompson is a chronic (mild) belcher and throat-clearer. He usually looks like a man who needs a good nap.
Let's face it: Fred Thompson is a boring guy. He's charisma-challenged. In many ways, he's a living embodiment of Arthur Branch, his character on "Law & Order," a man who never met a risk he wouldn't prefer to avoid.
Prior to announcing his candidacy on "The Jay Leno Show," Thompson ran for the presidency in a manner reminiscent of Warren Gamaliel Harding's Ohio-centric "Front Porch Campaign.".
In Thompson's case, the campaign consisted mainly of regular columns on Townhall.com, a web-site known for the almost total predictability of every comment that appears there. He also gave occasional speeches to the kind of conservative groups that still revere the sacred memory of William Howard Taft.
One observer described Thompson's speaking style as consisting of "conservative cliches . . . punctuated by long pauses." His style with essays isn't much better.
An excellent blogger on townhall, GenXDad, analyzed the many essays Thompson's staff produced for Townhall. He found the pieces only one-step up from the ancient Zen question that asks: "What is the sound of one hand clapping." The answer of course is: silence. GenXDad found nothing insightful or exciting in the Thompson essays. He describes reading them as an eerie experience. http://genxdad.townhall.com/
How can a man produce so many essays and have so little to say? It's like Robert Frost at his lamest: "Good fences make good neighbors . . . something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Actuarial charts suggest that Thompson many not live long enough to see those beautiful children above graduate from elementary school. From the looks of him, his chances of making it to Election Day appear to be about 50-50.
He's announced that even with his now-dormant cancer, his life expectancy will be "normal." In fact, by Inauguration Day in 2009, Thompson will already have exceeded the life expectancy for someone born in 1942.
He's a man with an uneasy relationship with the future. As a Senator after 9/11, he announced that "Now is not the time to leave [his position]." Shortly thereafter, he left.
He should have stayed -- even though of course he could make A LOT more money on TV. .
In reading about Thompson's life, one keeps wondering: what on earth was the man thinking? I realize that a fair number (not enough) people like Fred Thompson, although I can't understand why. He's a guy who chucks social conservatives uner the chin -- but provides no coherent explanation of how he would lead this country.
For example, what was he thinking when he divorced Sharon Elizabeth Lindsey (Thompson), his wife of 26 years? Also, in his lucrative lobbying career, what was he thinking when one of his "pro bono" clients was the dictator of Haiti? And what was he thinking when his TV work on "Law and Order" consisted of laboring for Richard Wolf, a Moveon.org-type who can't figure out which he hates worse: Christians (usually portrayed as lunatics or perverts), Dick Cheney, or the Iraq War?
Was it all about the money? I'll rely on Jerry Maguire to answer that one.
Thompson isn't seeking the presidency with anything resembling enthusiasm. He says he wants the office because there are "things" he could only accomplish in that office. One is almost afraid to ask what those "things" might be.
For some months, I've been fearful of being too candid about some of the presidential candidates. I didn't want to do anything that would detract from the candidacy of Gov. Sarah Palin for vice-president (and, eventually, for President). But Sarah's character and accomplishments can stand on their own. I hope no one defects from Sarah because of something I say, but if they do, so be it. Fearful is not my style.
Thompson is not the man for the presidency. I don't see a single state he could carry in a general election that Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney also couldn't win. Do you?
I expect his campaign -- lacking in passion, substance, and probably money -- to fizzle out. There's no evidence he can raise enough money -- or build a strong organization -- to compete effectively in the Super Tuesday states on Feb. 5, 2008.
Thompson's bowing out of the race, which may happen this calendar year, would be good for America and, frankly, good for him. "Run, Fred, run?" Only if he's running away from his bad decision to announce as a candidate for the nation's highest office.
Now is not the time, and he is not the man.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
One lady formerly from Pittsburgh and now living in Tennessee responded to my post by saying that "Thompson was a great Senator, and he will make a great President!"
In fact, no one, including Thompson claims he was a great Senator. When he was asked what he had accomplished in his terms there, he responded (in paraphrase, but close), "Well, sometimes it the things you DON'T do that matter most." He did excel at not doing things. One thing he didn't do, because he left after saying he wouldn't, was to play any kind of positive role in the War on Terror (although he's recently said he's for it).
Instead, he worked for a TV producer -- Richard Wolf -- who has made the "Law and Order" series the television equivalent of Moveon.org. As Lucy's Ricky Ricardo put it, "He has a heap of 'splaining to do."
Tomorrow, I'll post comments by my friend John Hawkins (of "The Forgotten Street") who hopes Thompson is a conservative. In my case, I've not seen anything that suggests he is electable. He's just another low-energy, aging white guy who will get chopped to ribbons in the general election. He's Bob Dole, circa 1996.
According to Gallup, the most popular male politician in America is Bill Clinton. Also according to Gallup, the most popular female -- politician or otherwise -- in the U.S. is Hillary Clinton (with Oprah second).
You figure it out.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Abortion: A Modest Proposal to Do Away with It
Question: Who's the visitor from Austin, Texas? I love the city of Austin, including the world's one remaining hippie coffee house and Sixth St., my musical version of dying and going to Heaven. Hook 'em horns! I also love all visitors from Alaska, including one from the North Pole! Santa? I have a regular visitor from a Native Alaskan village. I promise to be in Anchorage one day in the not-too-distant future. If you have read the following piece previously, note that there have been changes, indicated by the paragraphs in italics.
Note: Unlike Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal," mine has nothing to do with eating children.
On Wednesday, I'm hoping to do "God's work," to continue coming up with a Human Life Amendment that might actually have a chance of passing. The "abortion issue" is solvable, although perhaps in a way that will make both sides more than a trifle unhappy. I won't finish this until Wednesday, perhaps as late as noon EDT, but I truly do want to solicit your comments as it unfolds.
It will help if you go to http://wikipedia.org/ and look up 'Human Life Amendment." The piece is accurate, and it will tell you that the last serious effort to pass a "pro-life" constitutional amendment took place in 1983, with proposed legislation by Sen Hatch (R, UT) and Sen. Eagleton (D, MO). It failed rather miserably, 49 votes for, 50 against.
As a constitutional amendment, it required for passage 67 votes in the Senate and 291 in the House. If it had gotten through those bodies, it would then have required ratification by three-fourths of the states. I doubt -- everybody doubts -- such an amendment would now get anything like 49 positive votes.
Various candidates, including Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson (although he's rather vague on the subject) have proposed constitutional amendments overturning Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, those amendments have zero chance of passing. That will change to minus-zero if Hillary Clinton is elected President and brings with her, as expected, a big majority of liberal Democrats in Congress.
If you want to know what I'm struggling to deal with, I invite you to read a letter to Mike Huckabee by Dr. Laurence White, a big-time Lutheran pastor in Houston. His approach is to utter, "A curse on both your houses." He says it doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton wins the election, because he's fed up with Republicans who promise progress on the sancity of life and deliver zilch.
I have some problems with Dr. White. He strikes me as more of a nihilist than a theist. He also has a disturbing habit in his writings of comparing the moral climate in the U.S. with that in Nazi Germany, which is preposterous -- and utterly renders him an apostle not for a representative democracy but for a theocracy. His chances of getting his theocracy are about the same as Osama bin Laden's getting us to convert to Islam.
Dr. White's letter is followed by a more sensible e-mail from Larry Perrault, who is basically a wonderful guy who tends to look on politics (always a thoroughly mundane business) in theistic terms. Dr. White quotes the line that "politics is the art of the possible," and then he goes on to demand nothing less than the impossible: the total eradication of abortion.
You can find Dr. White and Larry by clicking on the following: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
In my case, I love the possible. I believe that through politics you can accomplish SOME good. You can't accomplish ultimate good, because that is reserved for Heaven and the presence of God.
Quick question: how many abortions are there annually in the U.S.? The CDC (and these numbers are always a couple of years behind) says 850,000. That number has been declining for years, and let us hope it's still doing so.
What is my Human Life Amendment that I believe will move swiftly (or, more probably slowly) through the Congress?
It states, "All abortions after the 10 weeks of gestation shall be illegal in these United States except in proven cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother."
I'm hoping President Sarah Palin, after her surprise upset defeat of incumbent Hillary Clinton in 2012, will propose words very much like mine. With the bright-eyed Republicans Palin brings in with her, she will have a decent chance of getting it through the Congress -- with significant Democratic support.
But what about Roe v. Wade? The Palin Amendment would supersede it. Roe v. Wade would go into what Karl Marx called "the dustbin of history."
Unlike the proposal by Mike Huckabee, whom I love and may end up endorsing -- the Maloneys having a big thing for lost causes -- my amendment will pass. If Hillary, whom Sarah will beat like a rented mule, were still in the Senate, she'd probably vote for it. After all, it was Mrs. Clinton who called "every abortion . . . a tragedy." We may give her a chance to put her money where her mouth is.
Will Dr. White like my amendment? I fear he would put the Lutheran equivalent of a contract out on me. He may ask, after he gets through sputtering, "How many abortions would your so-called amendment prevent?"
My answer would be: approximately 200,000 per year. That is approximately 200,000 more than Dr. White's "hold-your-breath-until-you-turn-blue" approach to life issues.
About this point, my militantly Lutheran (!!!) daughter with the five children would back Dr. White and ask pointedly: "What about the other 650,000?!!?" And I, with my own five children, would say: "Wait until tomorrow to find out. "
We will never reduce abortions in this country to zero. Pre Roe v. Wade as many as 300,000 abortions per year took place, most of them quite illegal. (Nobody knows the precise figures from yesteryear because people weren't talking much about their abortions in those days, but there were a lot of them.)
(I like to fight with Dr. White, because he's nearly as cantankerous as I am. But he and I are in agreement on many more things than either of us would like to admit. We both have a tendency toward apocalyptic language that probably frightens small children and elderly people.)
Let me chip away at the 650,000 while I still have the energy. How many women say they have abortions because they're too poor to have a baby? It's more than 21%, or roughly 175,000 women, many of whom apparently are Black or Hispanic, although a good number of them are Caucasians. [Note: I understated these numbers in a previous draft of this piece.
In my Solomonic way, I ask: what do you do to encourage these women to have their children? Let's see, when people say that they don't have enough money, you follow the lead of the football player in "Jerry Maguire," and YOU SHOW THEM THE MONEY.
Since only a teeny fraction of it would be coming out of my pocket, let's give them $7,000 a year for two years -- and perhaps a smaller sum after that. Every year, you would hand out $1.2 billion, plus whatever it cost (too much) to administer the program and provide appropriate counselling.
The big question is why I think this approach would get through Congress when nothing else has. I will explain but not tonight . . .
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Note: Unlike Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal," mine has nothing to do with eating children.
On Wednesday, I'm hoping to do "God's work," to continue coming up with a Human Life Amendment that might actually have a chance of passing. The "abortion issue" is solvable, although perhaps in a way that will make both sides more than a trifle unhappy. I won't finish this until Wednesday, perhaps as late as noon EDT, but I truly do want to solicit your comments as it unfolds.
It will help if you go to http://wikipedia.org/ and look up 'Human Life Amendment." The piece is accurate, and it will tell you that the last serious effort to pass a "pro-life" constitutional amendment took place in 1983, with proposed legislation by Sen Hatch (R, UT) and Sen. Eagleton (D, MO). It failed rather miserably, 49 votes for, 50 against.
As a constitutional amendment, it required for passage 67 votes in the Senate and 291 in the House. If it had gotten through those bodies, it would then have required ratification by three-fourths of the states. I doubt -- everybody doubts -- such an amendment would now get anything like 49 positive votes.
Various candidates, including Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson (although he's rather vague on the subject) have proposed constitutional amendments overturning Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, those amendments have zero chance of passing. That will change to minus-zero if Hillary Clinton is elected President and brings with her, as expected, a big majority of liberal Democrats in Congress.
If you want to know what I'm struggling to deal with, I invite you to read a letter to Mike Huckabee by Dr. Laurence White, a big-time Lutheran pastor in Houston. His approach is to utter, "A curse on both your houses." He says it doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton wins the election, because he's fed up with Republicans who promise progress on the sancity of life and deliver zilch.
I have some problems with Dr. White. He strikes me as more of a nihilist than a theist. He also has a disturbing habit in his writings of comparing the moral climate in the U.S. with that in Nazi Germany, which is preposterous -- and utterly renders him an apostle not for a representative democracy but for a theocracy. His chances of getting his theocracy are about the same as Osama bin Laden's getting us to convert to Islam.
Dr. White's letter is followed by a more sensible e-mail from Larry Perrault, who is basically a wonderful guy who tends to look on politics (always a thoroughly mundane business) in theistic terms. Dr. White quotes the line that "politics is the art of the possible," and then he goes on to demand nothing less than the impossible: the total eradication of abortion.
You can find Dr. White and Larry by clicking on the following: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
In my case, I love the possible. I believe that through politics you can accomplish SOME good. You can't accomplish ultimate good, because that is reserved for Heaven and the presence of God.
Quick question: how many abortions are there annually in the U.S.? The CDC (and these numbers are always a couple of years behind) says 850,000. That number has been declining for years, and let us hope it's still doing so.
What is my Human Life Amendment that I believe will move swiftly (or, more probably slowly) through the Congress?
It states, "All abortions after the 10 weeks of gestation shall be illegal in these United States except in proven cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother."
I'm hoping President Sarah Palin, after her surprise upset defeat of incumbent Hillary Clinton in 2012, will propose words very much like mine. With the bright-eyed Republicans Palin brings in with her, she will have a decent chance of getting it through the Congress -- with significant Democratic support.
But what about Roe v. Wade? The Palin Amendment would supersede it. Roe v. Wade would go into what Karl Marx called "the dustbin of history."
Unlike the proposal by Mike Huckabee, whom I love and may end up endorsing -- the Maloneys having a big thing for lost causes -- my amendment will pass. If Hillary, whom Sarah will beat like a rented mule, were still in the Senate, she'd probably vote for it. After all, it was Mrs. Clinton who called "every abortion . . . a tragedy." We may give her a chance to put her money where her mouth is.
Will Dr. White like my amendment? I fear he would put the Lutheran equivalent of a contract out on me. He may ask, after he gets through sputtering, "How many abortions would your so-called amendment prevent?"
My answer would be: approximately 200,000 per year. That is approximately 200,000 more than Dr. White's "hold-your-breath-until-you-turn-blue" approach to life issues.
About this point, my militantly Lutheran (!!!) daughter with the five children would back Dr. White and ask pointedly: "What about the other 650,000?!!?" And I, with my own five children, would say: "Wait until tomorrow to find out. "
We will never reduce abortions in this country to zero. Pre Roe v. Wade as many as 300,000 abortions per year took place, most of them quite illegal. (Nobody knows the precise figures from yesteryear because people weren't talking much about their abortions in those days, but there were a lot of them.)
(I like to fight with Dr. White, because he's nearly as cantankerous as I am. But he and I are in agreement on many more things than either of us would like to admit. We both have a tendency toward apocalyptic language that probably frightens small children and elderly people.)
Let me chip away at the 650,000 while I still have the energy. How many women say they have abortions because they're too poor to have a baby? It's more than 21%, or roughly 175,000 women, many of whom apparently are Black or Hispanic, although a good number of them are Caucasians. [Note: I understated these numbers in a previous draft of this piece.
In my Solomonic way, I ask: what do you do to encourage these women to have their children? Let's see, when people say that they don't have enough money, you follow the lead of the football player in "Jerry Maguire," and YOU SHOW THEM THE MONEY.
Since only a teeny fraction of it would be coming out of my pocket, let's give them $7,000 a year for two years -- and perhaps a smaller sum after that. Every year, you would hand out $1.2 billion, plus whatever it cost (too much) to administer the program and provide appropriate counselling.
Yes, some of these women would still continue to have abortions, but it seems likely that most of them would take the money and then go to term and deliver their children.
But should we actually give people money to have children? In fact, we already do it on a massive scale with the dependent-deductions on federal income taxes.
With my amendment's prohibition on abortion AFTER 10 weeks of gestation, as well as the monetary payments to poor women, the "total" of abortions THEORETICALLY prevented would be in excess of 370,000. As I explained, some of the women involved -- probably tens of thousands -- would fall through the cracks and have pregnancy terminations.
Also, I admit there's some double counting in my numbers, which is impossible to avoid right now. That is, some of the women who'd have abortions in the first 10 weeks would also be poor. But the offer of monetary assistance would be during the first 10 weeks -- and hopefully after. The reason for continuing the payments beyond 10 weeks would be to prevent illegal abortions.
Granted, my recommendations may sound cynical to some people. I don't care how it sounds. I am interested in actually preventing abortions -- as opposed to chanting pro-life slogans for the rest of my days.The big question is why I think this approach would get through Congress when nothing else has. I will explain but not tonight . . .
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
