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.
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Friday, November 9, 2007
A STRATEGY FOR WILLIAM RUSSELL AGAINST MURTHA: "CONTEST EVERY VOTE"
BULLETIN: I received the following today from Adam Brickley about a radio appearance on behalf of Sarah Palin: I will be appearing TONIGHT at 7:00 PM Eastern/4:00 PM Pacific (3:00 PM Alaskan) on Libertarian Politics Live with Eric Dondero. You can listen live at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com.
This is another big-time internet talk show, with past guests including a congressman and numerous representatives of major conservative and libertatian think tanks and publications. Eric Dondero is a national Republican political consultant and founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He formerly served as a Libertarian Party National Committeeman and senior aide to Rep. Ron Paul (though supporting Rudy Giuliani in the current election).
"In the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed."
"When it was over, she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they'd like to hear the specials."
"Mrs. Thatcher said, 'I will have beef.'
Yes, said the waiter. "And the vegetables?"
"'They will have beef too.'"
"Too good to check, as they say. It is certainly apocryphal, but I don't want it to be. It captured her singular leadership style, which might be characterized as 'unafraid.'"
"She was a leader."
From Peggy Noonan's column in Thursday's The Wall Steet Journal, Read the entire article at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010838
NOTE: The following strategy applies to dozens of Republican candidates -- and perhaps more than that -- who are engaged in tough races with Democratic incumbents. A three-month or even a six-month campaign won't work in those circumstances. Republican efforts for 2008 need to be underway NOW.
Margaret Thatcher is known as "The Iron Lady." In order to beat John Murtha, Lt. Col. William Russell must be the Iron Man.
Granted, many political observers are skeptical about William's chances. They believe 12th District voters have an unshakable habit of being like Pavlov's dogs, compulsively salivating every time "The Prince of Pork" appears on the ballot.
I'm under no illusions about how difficult it will be to win against Murtha. But if William can establish himself as a true leader, someone who can advance real prosperity and security in the 12th congressional district, then he can prevail on Election Day, one year from now.
William must define clearly, compelling, and briefly why Murtha's form of deal-making is bad for people in the district. In other words, William has to stay away from political rhetoric and instead GET HIS STORY STAIGHT. His message must resonate with voters, including those who have voted several times for Murtha.
Also, he needs to build on the 80,000 vote foundation -- the ballots Diana Irey won in 2006. (In fact, she got 80,000 votes more than in the previous election, when Murtha ran uncontested).
To win, William has to win the "extra voters," most of them Democrats and many of them Independents, who voted for George Bush in 2004. In that election, Bush and Kerry split the votes of the 12th District, where the Democrats have a heavy edge in registration. It's doable, but it won't be easy.
Another step William and his supporters must take is to make inroads with minority voters. They're not a huge segment of the voters in the 12th, but they will be significant in forging a winning coalition. In fact, Black people who vote regularly -- admittedly, many don't -- are a lot like the Caucasians who will support William.
One thing he must do is enlist Black soldiers and veterans to accompany him as he solicits votes. He won't need an "army" of such individuals -- perhaps about a dozen or more. They'll be people who will vouch for his courage, decency, and commitment to key values.
Over the next several months, William needs to talk to EVERY African-American individual who has political influence in his or her community. These people will include barbers, hairdressers, ministers, teachers, and other professionals. These people should be receptive to William's message of prosperity and national security.
I'll write more about this subject, but William has take roughly 15,000 "Murtha voters" and turn them into Russell supporters. He has to convince most nominal Democrats that he's a better choice for Congress than John Murtha.
In short, he needs to make the words "It's time for a change" into a household saying. Murha has been around too long and is too self-centered to serve the 12th District effectively.
Every day between now and the election, William and his supporters need to make "converts." If he doesn't concede a single vote, he can win.
Note to visitors: Take a look at my new personal finance and lifestyle columns at: http://livebetteronless.blogspot.com/
This is another big-time internet talk show, with past guests including a congressman and numerous representatives of major conservative and libertatian think tanks and publications. Eric Dondero is a national Republican political consultant and founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He formerly served as a Libertarian Party National Committeeman and senior aide to Rep. Ron Paul (though supporting Rudy Giuliani in the current election).
"In the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed."
"When it was over, she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they'd like to hear the specials."
"Mrs. Thatcher said, 'I will have beef.'
Yes, said the waiter. "And the vegetables?"
"'They will have beef too.'"
"Too good to check, as they say. It is certainly apocryphal, but I don't want it to be. It captured her singular leadership style, which might be characterized as 'unafraid.'"
"She was a leader."
From Peggy Noonan's column in Thursday's The Wall Steet Journal, Read the entire article at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010838
NOTE: The following strategy applies to dozens of Republican candidates -- and perhaps more than that -- who are engaged in tough races with Democratic incumbents. A three-month or even a six-month campaign won't work in those circumstances. Republican efforts for 2008 need to be underway NOW.
Margaret Thatcher is known as "The Iron Lady." In order to beat John Murtha, Lt. Col. William Russell must be the Iron Man.
Granted, many political observers are skeptical about William's chances. They believe 12th District voters have an unshakable habit of being like Pavlov's dogs, compulsively salivating every time "The Prince of Pork" appears on the ballot.
I'm under no illusions about how difficult it will be to win against Murtha. But if William can establish himself as a true leader, someone who can advance real prosperity and security in the 12th congressional district, then he can prevail on Election Day, one year from now.
William must define clearly, compelling, and briefly why Murtha's form of deal-making is bad for people in the district. In other words, William has to stay away from political rhetoric and instead GET HIS STORY STAIGHT. His message must resonate with voters, including those who have voted several times for Murtha.
Also, he needs to build on the 80,000 vote foundation -- the ballots Diana Irey won in 2006. (In fact, she got 80,000 votes more than in the previous election, when Murtha ran uncontested).
To win, William has to win the "extra voters," most of them Democrats and many of them Independents, who voted for George Bush in 2004. In that election, Bush and Kerry split the votes of the 12th District, where the Democrats have a heavy edge in registration. It's doable, but it won't be easy.
Another step William and his supporters must take is to make inroads with minority voters. They're not a huge segment of the voters in the 12th, but they will be significant in forging a winning coalition. In fact, Black people who vote regularly -- admittedly, many don't -- are a lot like the Caucasians who will support William.
One thing he must do is enlist Black soldiers and veterans to accompany him as he solicits votes. He won't need an "army" of such individuals -- perhaps about a dozen or more. They'll be people who will vouch for his courage, decency, and commitment to key values.
Over the next several months, William needs to talk to EVERY African-American individual who has political influence in his or her community. These people will include barbers, hairdressers, ministers, teachers, and other professionals. These people should be receptive to William's message of prosperity and national security.
I'll write more about this subject, but William has take roughly 15,000 "Murtha voters" and turn them into Russell supporters. He has to convince most nominal Democrats that he's a better choice for Congress than John Murtha.
In short, he needs to make the words "It's time for a change" into a household saying. Murha has been around too long and is too self-centered to serve the 12th District effectively.
Every day between now and the election, William and his supporters need to make "converts." If he doesn't concede a single vote, he can win.
Note to visitors: Take a look at my new personal finance and lifestyle columns at: http://livebetteronless.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
SOLVING THE ABORTION ISSUE: A GIANT JIG-SAW PUZZLE
Solving abortion or any moral and political problem is not a matter of who shouts the loudest. It's a question of "mental computing." In the words of the always superb magazine The Economist: "At first glance, the task . . . looks impossible . . . The secret, as with any computing task, is to break the problem into smaller, more managebable chunks." The Economist is not talking about abortion, but its point is relevant to that subject.
That's exactly what I'm trying to do with the hideously complex and controversial issue of abortion.
My abortion columns will total at least four in number. It's important for those concerned with sharply reducing the number of abortions in the US (and perhaps overseas) to at least read quickly through all the columns. Doing this series is at times mind-boggling. Column 2 (this one) will come up around noon Wednesday. Column 3 will come up later today (Wednesday afternoon or early evening). Please send your comments, as several people have done.
(In column 1, I'm changing the numbers and the cost related to women who have abortions mainly because they're poor. Of the women who have abortions, more than one-in-five cite lack of money. My solution is to give them money to prevent abortions.)
I appeal to good people, including Dr. Laurence White and Larry Perrault, both important figures in Houston politics and thought, not to settle for a pro-life position that is little more than an assertion of moral superiority. Frankly, people who are against MOST abortions, and I'm one, shouldn't be pro-life for the sake of being pro-life. We need to get beyond extremist rhetoric (e.g., comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and calling embryos "infants"). Those approaches exacerbate the problems involved with abortion.
If you haven't read Dr. Laurence White's letter to Mike Huckabee (and Larry Perrault's comments), please take a look at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
If you're deeply interested in this issue, please read the following (plus the footnoted material if you have time), which is authoritative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
If you want to see Biblical references RELATED TO ABORTION, the pickings are rather lean. The key passages are in Exodus: "22: And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." This text, the Septuagint. written around 250 B.C., which is even before my time.) On the subject of abortion, Jesus left no recorded words. The New Testament of the Holy Bible is silent on the issue
In the History of the West -- and especially in the important writings of early (18th century) legal scholar William Blackstone -- the concept of "quickening" (the first detectible movements of the embryo, which occur about midway through a pregnancy). In discussions of when (and if) abortion should be permissible, quickening plays an important role.
If you'd like to stay away from ancient philosophical questions regarding quickening and go the more contemporary discussions, take a look at: First Fetal Movement : Quickening, from the American Pregnancy Association, as well as Fetal movement: Feeling your baby kick, babycenter.com.
That's exactly what I'm trying to do with the hideously complex and controversial issue of abortion.
My abortion columns will total at least four in number. It's important for those concerned with sharply reducing the number of abortions in the US (and perhaps overseas) to at least read quickly through all the columns. Doing this series is at times mind-boggling. Column 2 (this one) will come up around noon Wednesday. Column 3 will come up later today (Wednesday afternoon or early evening). Please send your comments, as several people have done.
(In column 1, I'm changing the numbers and the cost related to women who have abortions mainly because they're poor. Of the women who have abortions, more than one-in-five cite lack of money. My solution is to give them money to prevent abortions.)
I appeal to good people, including Dr. Laurence White and Larry Perrault, both important figures in Houston politics and thought, not to settle for a pro-life position that is little more than an assertion of moral superiority. Frankly, people who are against MOST abortions, and I'm one, shouldn't be pro-life for the sake of being pro-life. We need to get beyond extremist rhetoric (e.g., comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and calling embryos "infants"). Those approaches exacerbate the problems involved with abortion.
If you haven't read Dr. Laurence White's letter to Mike Huckabee (and Larry Perrault's comments), please take a look at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=350
If you're deeply interested in this issue, please read the following (plus the footnoted material if you have time), which is authoritative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
If you want to see Biblical references RELATED TO ABORTION, the pickings are rather lean. The key passages are in Exodus: "22: And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." This text, the Septuagint. written around 250 B.C., which is even before my time.) On the subject of abortion, Jesus left no recorded words. The New Testament of the Holy Bible is silent on the issue
In the History of the West -- and especially in the important writings of early (18th century) legal scholar William Blackstone -- the concept of "quickening" (the first detectible movements of the embryo, which occur about midway through a pregnancy). In discussions of when (and if) abortion should be permissible, quickening plays an important role.
If you'd like to stay away from ancient philosophical questions regarding quickening and go the more contemporary discussions, take a look at: First Fetal Movement : Quickening, from the American Pregnancy Association, as well as Fetal movement: Feeling your baby kick, babycenter.com.
Someone's going to ask me something like the following: "You say the Bible is mostly silent on abortion, but what about the admonition "Thou shalt not kill?" The idea that abortion (after quickening) might be homicide is an old one, but murder is a legal question. Some of my fellow Christians tell me that capital punishment is murder. However, our legal system does not in any sense defense the execution of people who commit murder as in any way itself "murder."
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has indicated that abortion is not murder. Also, Justice Blackstone said in the 18th century that in modern society (he meant Great Britain) abortion (after quickening of the foetus) is not viewed as murder, but rather as what he called a "heinous misdemeanor." The passage from Exodus seems to foreshadow Blackstone's view.
Frankly, discussing abortion as murder is a great way to make rhetorical points that help ensure the problem will never get solved. Moreover, half the people in America who regard abortion as a form of manslaughter (or even murder) believe it should be permissible in almost all cases.
At some point, I'll put up a link to a blogger called "The Libertarian," a Ron Paul-site that has an excellent debate between pro-choice and pro-life people (including yours truly). The exchange is intense, but highly civilized, and points up the divide between social conservatives and libertarian conservatives. Basically, the libertarians say abortion should be none of the government's business, while the conservatives say it is society's moral duty to protect the unborn.
The overall goal -- the humane approach -- should be to reduce the number of abortions and, relatedly, increase the number of adoptions. It should not be to make debating points.
More to Come . . .
It's fascinating to me to see the people who visit this site. In the last 24 hours, I've had visitors from Boulder, CO; Washington, DC; Orange, TX (twice), Rockville, MD; Elizabethtown, PA; Waianae, HI (twice, hi Sanity); Port Angeles, WA (a frequent visitor); Detroit, MI (twice); Branch, MI (twice); Atwood, IL; New York, NY; Caldwell, NJ; Ventura, CA; Nothridge, CA; Portand, OR; Anchorage, AK; Little Rock, AR; Colorado Springs, CO (hi Adam); and Austin, TX (twice); among many others, including several locations overseas. You're all very welcome here. Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions. Please note the comments to my columns on abortion and the one on gays and evangelicals.
Friday, September 7, 2007
ABOUT SARAH: I SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND NO ONE ELSE
ABOUT SARAH PALIN, HER POLITICAL FUTURE -- ONE FULL OF ABUNDANT PROMISE -- WILL DEPEND ON HER ACTIONS, WHICH MIGHT JUST AMAZE THE WORLD. I AM PLAYING A SMALL (BUT NOT INSIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HELPING ENSURE THAT FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE DEGREE TO WHICH ANYONE SUPPORTS HER SHOULD DEPEND ON SARAH AND NOT ON ME. I WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH AS I SEE IT, WHICH SHE DOES, AND WHICH ALL PEOPLE SHOULD DO.
In regard to the Sarah Palin effort, I've been associated with it for several months. I'll tell you a secret about the effort: it's a totally democratic undertaking. It's a true "coalition of the willing."
I sometimes list myself as part of the "National Coordination Team," but everyone who backs Sarah for higher office (and not just the vice-presidency) is a member of that national coordination team. Perhaps we should call it "the National UN-Coordination Team?"
I do not in any official sense represent Sarah Palin. I do not speak FOR her, but rather ABOUT her. What I say about Sarah -- or anyone or anything else -- represents my view. I will do my best to be truthful in anything I say, and I assure you I will be hard-hitting.
Obviously, I also don't speak for any other blogger, columnist, or individual associated with the advancement of Sarah's political career at the state and national levels. They can speak for themselves, and sometimes we will disagree, which is fine.
People who support Sarah Palin (mainly for the vice-presidency in 2008 and for the presidency at some later date) reflect a variety of viewpoints -- one is a liberal Democrat (!!!!) and the rest are mainly moderate, conservative, or libertarian Republicans or Independents. This is as it should be in any political movement that has at least a chance of success. If you're in a coaltion where everyone agrees with you, then you're in a losing effort.
There are currently about 45 bloggers and columnists who have affirmed support for Sarah. Some of these people who have the luxury of doing so are devoting full-time to the "Sarah Project." Others, including one sailor on active duty in the Middle East, are doing everything they can.
Presidential candidates favored by those who also back Sarah include: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Tommy Thompson (who's withdrawn as a candidate), Ron Paul, and presumably others. There's no litmus test on this matter, but it probably would be a good idea for any serious presidential candidate to have Sarah's phone number on speed-dial.
The list of Republican candidates about whom I've said nice things is a long one. (If you want evidence of that, I'll provide it.) For those who care, I'm especially attracted to the presidential campaigns of (in alphabetical order): Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and John McCain. I believe Hunter and McCain have almost no chance of winning, but I have tremendous respect for both.
I will support the Republican ticket in 2008 -- no ifs, ands, or butts. As I've been saying, in politics "half-a-loaf" is the equivalent of a seven-course-meal. Any candidate who claims to agree with you (or me) on every issue is not passing what the computer geeks call "the straight-face test."
Most experts (and serious pollsters) think it's unlikely the Republican presidential nominee will win in 2008. I agree with that assessment (sadly), but that will have zero effect on my own efforts to help ensure that the next President is someone other than Mrs. Clinton. Unless she stumbles badly --and unexpectedly -- she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008.
According to the Gallup Poll, the second-most respected woman in America is Obama-supporter Oprah Winfey. The person at the top of the Gallup list is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm sure you don't need me to outline the implications of those poll results.
As for support for Sarah, it's primarily a matter of the head and the heart. If at any time an individual would like to withdraw his or her support for Gov. Palin, they're of course welcome to do so. There's no one to stop them. They would suffer no recriminations from me (or anyone else I know of).
However, if anyone makes defamatory or false statements about Sarah, I will respond, as I imagine would many other people. Also, if anyone makes false or defamatory statements about presidential candidates, including Democratic hopefuls, I will also respond.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Note: I'll write later today about Mike Huckabee's campaign strategy and, at some point, about false statements made about Rudy Giuliani.
In regard to the Sarah Palin effort, I've been associated with it for several months. I'll tell you a secret about the effort: it's a totally democratic undertaking. It's a true "coalition of the willing."
I sometimes list myself as part of the "National Coordination Team," but everyone who backs Sarah for higher office (and not just the vice-presidency) is a member of that national coordination team. Perhaps we should call it "the National UN-Coordination Team?"
I do not in any official sense represent Sarah Palin. I do not speak FOR her, but rather ABOUT her. What I say about Sarah -- or anyone or anything else -- represents my view. I will do my best to be truthful in anything I say, and I assure you I will be hard-hitting.
Obviously, I also don't speak for any other blogger, columnist, or individual associated with the advancement of Sarah's political career at the state and national levels. They can speak for themselves, and sometimes we will disagree, which is fine.
People who support Sarah Palin (mainly for the vice-presidency in 2008 and for the presidency at some later date) reflect a variety of viewpoints -- one is a liberal Democrat (!!!!) and the rest are mainly moderate, conservative, or libertarian Republicans or Independents. This is as it should be in any political movement that has at least a chance of success. If you're in a coaltion where everyone agrees with you, then you're in a losing effort.
There are currently about 45 bloggers and columnists who have affirmed support for Sarah. Some of these people who have the luxury of doing so are devoting full-time to the "Sarah Project." Others, including one sailor on active duty in the Middle East, are doing everything they can.
Presidential candidates favored by those who also back Sarah include: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Tommy Thompson (who's withdrawn as a candidate), Ron Paul, and presumably others. There's no litmus test on this matter, but it probably would be a good idea for any serious presidential candidate to have Sarah's phone number on speed-dial.
The list of Republican candidates about whom I've said nice things is a long one. (If you want evidence of that, I'll provide it.) For those who care, I'm especially attracted to the presidential campaigns of (in alphabetical order): Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and John McCain. I believe Hunter and McCain have almost no chance of winning, but I have tremendous respect for both.
I will support the Republican ticket in 2008 -- no ifs, ands, or butts. As I've been saying, in politics "half-a-loaf" is the equivalent of a seven-course-meal. Any candidate who claims to agree with you (or me) on every issue is not passing what the computer geeks call "the straight-face test."
Most experts (and serious pollsters) think it's unlikely the Republican presidential nominee will win in 2008. I agree with that assessment (sadly), but that will have zero effect on my own efforts to help ensure that the next President is someone other than Mrs. Clinton. Unless she stumbles badly --and unexpectedly -- she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008.
According to the Gallup Poll, the second-most respected woman in America is Obama-supporter Oprah Winfey. The person at the top of the Gallup list is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm sure you don't need me to outline the implications of those poll results.
As for support for Sarah, it's primarily a matter of the head and the heart. If at any time an individual would like to withdraw his or her support for Gov. Palin, they're of course welcome to do so. There's no one to stop them. They would suffer no recriminations from me (or anyone else I know of).
However, if anyone makes defamatory or false statements about Sarah, I will respond, as I imagine would many other people. Also, if anyone makes false or defamatory statements about presidential candidates, including Democratic hopefuls, I will also respond.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Note: I'll write later today about Mike Huckabee's campaign strategy and, at some point, about false statements made about Rudy Giuliani.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
