Sunday, October 28, 2007

History Repeats Itself

Consider the following passage:
-
Those on the Religious Right, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-choice fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the embryo is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the born man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.
-
Sounds like your typical pro-abortion hyperbole, right? Demonize the opponents as fanatics and claim the mantle of reason for yourself. Right out of the playbook.
-
Well, it is, but the interesting thing is which playbook. Y’see, these words were spoken many years ago by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, in his famous
Cornerstone Speech. Of course, he was talking about Northerners, the Negro, and the white man where I substituted in the terms of today’s debate, but it’s remarkable to note that his spiritual successors are using the same tired, discredited arguments to justify their dominance of their chosen inferior class.
-
(Incidentally, the speech is also interesting in that Stephens’ rhetoric pretty clearly refutes the idea that the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution they produced, viewed slavery as a decent societal norm. Well worth a read.)

Friday, October 26, 2007

Who Will Brownback Endorse?

Failed presidential hopeful and supposed socon standard bearer Sam Brownback is considering endorsing one of the remaining GOP candidates. Is it Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, whose conservative credentials have come under fire yet aggressively claim the mantle of life? John McCain? Mike Huckabee?
-
Nope. Try Rudy Giuliani.
-
That’s right—during the primary Brownback may throw his support behind the
single greatest foe of his supposedly defining cause. Why?
-
“I’m going to meet with him and I’m going to talk to him and hear what he is specifically saying now because he’s changed on a number of the abortion issues,” Brownback said in an interview. “He’s changed on partial-birth [abortion] and he … has said he would appoint strict constructionists.”…When asked about Giuliani’s position on allowing women the right to late-term abortions, also known as partial-birth abortions, Brownback said: “He is opposed to it. That’s what I’ve been told indirectly. I want to hear it from him.”
-
Bulls***. Giuliani’s abortion position is no secret.
It’s all come out during this campaign, and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Brownback doesn’t know exactly where Giuliani stands. Are you telling me Mr. Pro-Life never campaigned on the GOP frontrunner’s publicized deficiencies on abortion? No way. My guess is that ol’ Sam is gonna ask Rudy, “If I endorse you, maybe giving your campaign some nice social-conservative window dressing, what’s in it for me?”
-
Jim Geraghty
guesses Brownback is just being polite, but I’m not convinced:
-
“While he didn't endorse the ex-mayor, he praised him as an "excellent leader" and said he was "much more comfortable" with Giuliani's views on abortion and gay rights issues after the meeting,” according to the Washington Post. Asked by reporters in a brief press conference after the meeting with Giuliani if he could support a "pro-choice" nominee, Brownback said "I don't know that he described himself...as a pro-choice candidate" and then said he wanted to let Giuliani explains his own view.
-
Spoken like a true pro-lifer…not. If Scam Brownback ends up endorsing Giuliani in the primary, it means he didn’t really mean it when he talked up the life plank's centrality is to the Republican platform. He just figured the unborn were a good gimmick.
-
Another possibility: the Hill quotes a Brownback source as saying “We’ve done some internal polling to see where [Brownback supporters] are going to make sure they’re not flocking to someone we’re not going to endorse.” So you mean to tell me Brownback is going to end up telling his fans who to choose as America’s leader not based on his convictions or his honest assessment, but based on a poll?! If this quote is accurate, then it’s obvious Brownback is a phony.
-
Pro-lifers should have known this man (who, let’s face it, was never going to be president anyway) was a fraud the minute he changed his vote on the amnesty bill within the space of eleven minutes after sticking his finger in the political wind. Fortunately, now that he’s out of the picture, the social-conservative choice for the presidency is becoming
increasingly clear, and hopefully will become more so the more people learn about Thompson and Huckabee. It’s time to follow the lead of National Right to Life Committee co-founder Dr. John Willke and unite behind Mitt Romney.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Monday, October 22, 2007

Societal Insanity

So now middle-schoolers need free birth control too, apparently. We're systematically dismantling our kids' capacity for self-control, replacing it with an affirmation of indulgence, and we’re doing so at increasingly younger ages. This is appalling.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

GOP Debate Reaction

I caught most, but not all (missed the first ten minutes or so), of tonight’s debate. A few thoughts:
-
Mitt Romney: A good performance. His gay marriage answer was OK, but I’ve heard him deliver it more eloquently. The rest of his answers came off confident and conservative, and his exuberance in response to “Can Hillary be president?” will likely go over well.
-
Rudy Giuliani: Another strong performance overall, but there was one very interesting tidbit. Hizzonor reiterated that he doesn’t support the Federal Marriage Amendment, but then said if judges did start imposing same-sex marriage on the states, he would support it. He says this has always been his stance, but I’ve never heard it before. But Rudy would never change his positions for political expediency, would he? Of course not.
-
Fred Thompson: He was awake, and actually had a bit of spark tonight. I think he represented himself well, and his answer about education was especially strong. But his spin on the Planned Parenthood lobbying story was disgraceful. First, he made a distinction between “private practice & public service.” What’s your point—as long as you vote the right way, you’re entitled to make money by helping the bad guys when you’re off the clock? No acknowledgment whatever that what he did was wrong; in fact, he dismissed the whole thing as “Planned Parenthood is now attacking me over this because I’m their worst nightmare.” As some of his thugs
just helped me demonstrate, Thompson’s full of it. He should be ashamed of himself.
-
John McCain: Good (if futile) performance. I especially thought his line about seeing the letters “KGB” in Vladimir Putin’s eyes was phenomenal. But his claim to be a “consistent conservative”…consistently maverick (read: wrong) on a whole host of oft-cited issues. And his observation about the lack of a GOP majority in Congress; now why do you suppose that is, Amnesty John?
-
Sam Brownback: GONE. Good riddance.
-
Mike Huckabee: Very polished, and some good one-liners, as usual (especially about the aging hippies & drugs), but seemed to have a problem with answering questions directly.
-
Ron Paul: Still demented.
-
Duncan Hunter: Not as good as his early debates. He too had a bit of a problem with direct answers.
-
Tom Tancredo: Okay performance, and he had some good conservative reminders for the crowd. Still a waste of airtime, though, as are Hunter, Paul, Huckabee & McCain.

Fred Thompson & the Diet Marriage Amendment

Fred Thompson opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds that a nationwide definition of civil marriage would violate the principles of federalism. Instead, he has proposed a constitutional amendment that would exempt states from having to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses and bar judiciaries from redefining marriage. I believe this idea (let's call it the Diet FMA) is a poor substitute for the FMA most conservatives advocate.
-
First, amending the constitution is a difficult task which will require considerable public support. And the motivating force behind social-conservative turnout for President Bush and for the numerous state marriage amendments that have won sure as heck wasn’t constitutional theory (important though federalism may be, dry legal theory is largely the domain of policy wonks and pundits, not the average voter). It’s their belief that marriage as a man-woman union is a central tenet of civilization that drove them to get out and fight for results. Simply put, I very much doubt the Diet FMA would energize people into the same kind of turnout that the actual FMA would.
-
The second problem is with the federalism angle. The principle, that most decisions are rightfully those of individual states to decide and that the proper scope of the federal government is very limited, is an important one which should be restored to prominence in American governance. However, the same Founding Fathers who set the precedent of federalism also gave us a system of amendment by which certain values & provisions, if they meet the high bar necessary for ratification, can be enshrined at the federal level. There’s an
abundance of precedence for this—the Second Amendment prevents every state from abridging the right to bear arms, under the Eighth no state can impose excessive bail or fines, slavery is banned everywhere under the Thirteenth, and the Fourteenth says no state can deny the equal protection of the laws to people within its jurisdiction. With this in mind, it’s wholly legitimate for those who believe in marriage’s societal importance to say, “We believe this is so central, so basic a principle to a stable & healthy society, that we want this to be a national standard” (and there’s a powerful case to be made that marriage meets that standard). I would remind those averse to the FMA on federalist grounds of certain language in the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In other words, it says federalism, though important, stops at the Constitution’s edge.
-
The path to amendment is a difficult one, and rightfully so. It should be reserved for all but the most important issues to American society. Ultimately, it all comes down to how important one views marriage—and how much one wants
a candidate who thinks it’s equally important.

Attack of the Fredheads

Y’all know I’m a harsh critic of Fred Thompson, putting me at odds with a hefty chunk of the blogosphere. Fortunately, the Fredheads I’ve known, such as Olbroad and Silent E, are terrific folks. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Fredheads at Thompson’s official site. Hoping to either find some clarification I’d missed or change a few minds, I entered the discussion on this thread about Thompson’s speech before the Values Voters Summit (registration is required to post & view comments. It’s free, but you do have to leave a mailing address, so you can probably expect junk mail. Hopefully it isn’t written by the following dolts.). What follows is a partial transcript of our exchange, with some post-game commentary added in red. The last names have been removed to protect the ignorant- er, innocent, but the original grammar, spelling & punctuation have been preserved for comedic value.
-
---
-
ME: Anybody ever notice that there’s something kinda important missing here? Fred likes to speak in the general about the sanctity of life, but Fred’s opposition to criminalizing abortion is far more recent than the other pro-life convert in the race (If we’re not supposed to trust Romney ‘cuz 2005 is too recent ton convert, then Fred’s worse -
he said this to Sean Hannity THIS YEAR!). Can anyone tell me where Thompson has outlined just HOW he plans to implement his pro-life principles, beyond simply overturning Roe?
-
ROBERT: Nice try Fred’s Pro Life your spinning lol [Yup, things are gonna go downhill reaaaal quick.]
-
ME: Huh?
-
ROBERT: Calvin read Fred’s Issues and Principles he said yesterday he would VETO anything that was pro abortion.
-
ME: Vetoing efforts to expand abortion is not the same as proactively working to end it. You dodged the fact that I just gave you video from THIS YEAR where Fred suggests he doesn’t want abortion criminalized.
-
ROBERT: Bye
-
ME: “Bye?” How does that refute anything I said?
-
KRELL: Robert -You’re dealing with a person that lacks the motivation to go and read Fred’s positions, on this site, and the intelligence to put all this together with Fred’s comments. Calvin seems to not read what is there but, rather, what he wants to be there. [Translation: Danger, Will Robinson! Circle the wagons! Deploy defensive ad hominem!] He’s beginning to sound very much like a Ron Paulite. [I sound like a Paulite? Oh, the sweet, delicious irony!]
-
ROBERT: Bye I dont need your advice on how and who I vote for you go vote for your guy and I will vote for my guy at this point anyone undecided is brain dead any way [Somebody’s brain-dead, at any rate…seriously, though, if undecideds are to be trashed and nobody else is gonna change his mind anyway, why the heck does Bobby bother to participate at all? Aren’t all campaign blogs a waste of time?]
-
ME: OK Robert, better luck next time. Krell, do you really think responding to objections about Fred with empty, obnoxious personal attacks reflects well on you, or this website? If so, that’s your loss.
-
KATHLEEN: I just wrote my first contribution check to a politician EVER. (My husband did, too.) I believe that Sen. Fred Thompson has the vision and priciples needed to lead this country. I urge Mr. Freiburger to check out
a spot on this site. (I was previously referred there to answer my concerns about “specifics”)
-
ME: Kathleen, I’ve been to that page several times already. Those aren’t specifics by a long shot. I already know about his RTL voting record, too. But I want somebody to be able to tell me where Fred has made himself clear on any of the following:
- Banning abortion at the state level
- Banning abortion congressionally
- The Human Life Amendment
-
[Indeed, all that Thompson’s “Principles” page says about abortion is that families are “built around the sanctity of life” and that he would use “the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life.” This is really odious: Fred sprinkles his rhetoric with pro-life buzz phrases and thinks that gets him out of having to grapple with the entirety of the issue. Let the buyer beware; Fred’s obviously not the straight-talk candidate as advertised.]
-
JOHN: You are obviously here to create trouble. [Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!] Any intelligent person would already know that any such legislation would be an act of futility just like the democrats have been doing with SCHIP, Armenian genocide declarations, Rush Limbaugh reprimand letters. The best way to end abortions is through appointing conservatives to the supreme court which Fred has pledged he would do many many times. Who did President Bush choose to help get Chief Justice Roberts nomination through the appointment process? [Yes, Fred wants Roe overturned. Good for him. But everybody knows that would not “end abortions;” it would simply enable the people to decide abortion policy once again. There’d still be a long way to go. More importantly, if you believe nominating judges is the only thing a president can do about abortion, you’ve pretty much just made the case for Rudy Giuliani, as well.] The difference between Fred and the other GOP front runners is that he has NEVER supported abortions. They all claim to support appointing conservative judges but only Fred has always been pro-life. [Wrong! John is clueless about his own candidate, as we’ll see below.] Fred leads, the other guys follow. Just like coming to Rush Limbaugh’s defense when he was being attacked on the senate floor. Romney and McCain both said Rush should apologize and it wasn’t until Fred stood up and defended Rush that the other candidates quickly fell in behind Fred with staements supporting Rush. Contenders and Pretenders. We know which one our candidate is! Do you? [Ah, isn’t off-topic rambling grand? Reminds me of that twit “things come undone” from
YouStinkLeft…I will say that Fred deserves cheers, and the others jeers, for the Rush/phony soldiers controversy, however. The Fredheads might do well to observe that serious observers are capable of giving their own criticism, and their opponents credit, when justified…]
-
ME: “Here to create trouble?” Tell me, John, is “impugn their motives” simply your knee-jerk reaction to anyone who voices disagreement? I came here because 2008 is an important decision, and Fred deserves the same level of scrutiny as everyone else. “Fred has always been pro-life?” I’m sorry to hear that you don’t seem know terribly much about your candidate’s record.
Fred Thompson circa 1994: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” This, along with the video I linked to above, should make people think a second time about Fred. Lastly, it’s telling that you call actual pro-life legislation “acts of futility.” Serious pro-lifers know that overturning Roe, while a great moment, is just a first step.
-
KRELL: Calvin, who is your candidate? ““This, along with the video I linked to above, should make people think a second time about Fred.” It doesn’t sound to me like you are a Fred Thompson supporter. [Figured that out all by yourself, did you?]
-
ME: That’s because I’m not a Fred Thompson supporter. I support Mitt Romney. My reasons are explained at my blog [Fred
here and Mitt here]. My choice was made based on the entirety of their records. I’m well aware of the flip-flop charges against Romney, but as I’ve shown, Fred flip-flopped on abortion, too - and much more recently. If you wanna debate the relative merits of each candidate overall, please stop on over to my blog sometime.
-
ANDY: Banning abortion at the state level—Not the President’s job, nor should it be. It’s called federalism, read up on it. [I didn’t claim it should be. A candidate’s views here matter because a pro-life president ought to set a moral example, draw attention to the plight of the unborn, and urge people to do the right thing state-by-state. It’s called leadership; read up on it.] Banning abortion congressionally—Can’t happen unless RvW is overturned. [So what? I thought we were all in agreement that we need judges who will overturn Roe.] Even then, it would likely never pass. [Maybe not within the next several sessions of Congress, but the whole point of politics—and that pesky “leadership” thing—is to work proactively to shape public opinion in effort to build support for legislative goals like this in the long term. Plus, by Andy’s logic everybody should support Giuliani, since most head-to-head polls have shown all the other candidates failing to Hillary Clinton.] The Human Life Amendment—The bar is far too high for this to be an accomplishable goal. [See above. While we’re on the subject of constitutional amendments, though, I’d like to point out that Fred’s alternative marriage amendment (the “Diet FMA,” if you will) would face the same high bar, yet would be highly unlikely to motivate numbers of voters comparable to the actual FMA (for reasons I plan on addressing in a near-future post). Who’s got his head in the clouds?]
-
So, what can we do? Appoint proper judges to address the problem and get rid of the judicial tyranny that has caused the death of over 40 million Americans. [Again, plenty of those deaths will keep happening post-Roe.]
-
Fred will tell you himself that while he considered the abortion battle back in the 90’s to be little more than a political football that both sides were throwing at each other, he has always come down on the side of life. [Did Fred come down on the side of life when he said “the ultimate decision must be made by the woman?” When he suggested to Hannity he wasn’t interested in going further on abortion than overturning Roe? When he
lobbied to relax federal abortion restrictions? What about in several of these instances? Andy’s either very uninformed, or he’s lying.] His commitment to the pro-life movement was strengthened when he saw the sonogram of little Hayden.
-
Now, you can pretend that this is some kind of late conversion. If you’re a Romney supporter, you can pretend that there’s some kind of moral equivalency between Romney’s steadfast support of a woman’s ‘right’ to kill her offspring and Fred Thompson’s dislike of the politics of the abortion movement. [While we’re on the subject of my man Mitt, it bears mentioning that I don’t have a different standard for him that I do for Fred. My point is that his comments should be especially concerning from a man who can’t give us a straight answer today about where exactly he stands. And you don’t hear any of us Romney supporters trying to claim our guy has always been pro-life. Fred supported the exact same “right.” There’s no way to describe Andy’s characterization as anything other than dishonest.]
-
Pretend anything you like, but I’ll take a guy who was on our side [no, he wasn’t] and got more serious about it over time over a guy who was 100% against our side and decided to do a 180 degree flip just so he could run for president [Embryology opens a lot of eyes, Romney openly admits that he was wrong, and as governor
he was far from “100% against” us.] any day of the week and twice on Sunday. [Funny how Andy insists he’s on “our” side, but he happens to believe that every pro-life measure beyond overturning Roe would be a waste of time. Does not compute…]
-
JOHN: Thompson now says he is pro-life and calls Roe “bad law.” It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year career in the Senate, his voting record was solidly pro-life. [I know he calls himself pro-life. That’s my point—we’ve never had a clear explanation of what constitutes “pro-life” in Fred Thompson’s book. And his voting record, which I’ve
addressed before, is good, but he didn’t vote on the central issue of a general abortion ban. The question remains open. Now, to Thompson’s credit he has said authorities “can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors, as far as I'm concerned,” but notice the use of “they.” He’s detaching himself from the debate. That’s not straight talk or leadership.]
-
Your link only supports Fred’s position. [No, it has Fred dead-to-rights as a pro-choicer.] Nice attempt to put a spin on his position. [Shoddy attempt to lie for your candidate.] Won’t work here! [Only ‘cuz you’re all neck-deep in Kool-Aid. Or illiterate; I’m not sure which.] With a democratic majority in the house and the senate, any legislation banning or making abortion illegal would be futile just as I have already stated. The first step would be to appoint more constructionist conservative judges. Getting congress back into a GOP majority would be necessary to do any of the things you propose. [Umm…duh?] Fred’s position on this issue is one of strength when compared to the records of his opponents. [Let’s see…Rudy, Mitt & McCain all advocate appointing strict constructionists, with the latter two openly desirous that Roe be overturned. Furthermore, Romney
supports the Human Life Amendment as part of a long-term goal to end abortion. Whose position is one of strength?] Nice try though Calvin the “troll”! [What an idiot…] Maybe you could dig up some more stuff from your DailyKos, MediaMatters and MoveOn.org sources with better credibility. [John-Boy sure has some nerve lecturing people on credibility, considering everything above.]
-
JOHN: Calvin, Since you are a troll [That's me, Rumplestilzken!] and you are so adept at digging, [Actually, you don’t have to dig much before Fred’s fairytale allure starts to wear off.] please find just one singular vote that Fred has EVER made on the side of pro-abortion and come back to post it here. [Well, pro-lifers weren’t too thrilled with his votes for McCain-Feingold…] Only problem I have with your weak article is it only says Fred was solidly on the side of life and doesn’t give him the 100% endorsement on the side of life which we all know he was. If he had EVER cast a single vote on the side of choice it would have already been well publicized and thrown into his face a thousand times. [Voting records are useful, but they’re ultimately insufficient, because they only cover the aspects of an issue that happen to reach the Senate floor.] Problem for the trolls like you is that he has a 100% pro-life voting record so therefore you must scour the globe for some comments that the media twisted their own spin on. [When all else fails, blame the media! Here’s your challenge, John: explain to me how Thompson’s direct words, “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own,” can be characterized as anything other than an endorsement of the right to abortion.] It won’t work here. [“Cuz we’re illiterate!”] And your weak little statement about giving Fred a fair level of scrutiny, the others are being scrutinized because they are either still pro-choice or have been in their pasts. [So was Fred.] They are simply being dragged out into the light kicking and screaming. [And now it’s Fred’s turn, no matter how much you want to maintain your sleazy little double-standard.] Which screamer is yours? LMAO
-
ROBERT: go Mitt lol go lol coubullgh cougshouit [What are you, twelve?]
-
ROBERT: Seek the Information and ye shall find its out there
-
ME: I’d advise you to do the same.
-
ROBERT: I have and I support Fred Your negative posts do nothing but stregthen my support for Fred Thompson thanks for the energy [This might be impressive, if only Rob had, oh, I don’t know…refuted my “negative” posts. Here it’s just pathetic.]
-
ROBERT: P.S. who are you supporting maybe we can enlighten you as you have us
-
ROBERT: Calvin here is a fred’s speech yesterday [
PDF link] go read it . send me your Candadates speech and I will read it Fair and Balanced
-
JOHN: Perhaps this is NoWay’s new screen name. [Ha! This paranoia is just a riot!] Funny how the trolls like to remain in the shadows about who they support. Expect a lot more of these types as Fred surges into the lead. [The fact that these bozos continue on this thread about my candidate being a secret, even after I said it, is hilarious too.]
-
ME: Guys, if you can muster the strength to read, scroll up a little, and you’ll find I already said who I support: Mitt Romney.
-
STEPHANIE: Once Fred gets ahold of Mitt, Mitt will be toast. Tell me, how did Romney vote on abortion in MA. [Uh, governors don’t vote…] With his rhetoric back then, I’d say his abortion voting record is nowhere near perfect like Fred’s is. [Stephanie, did you do anything other than skim my arguments? Debating people who ignore basic facts is getting old. On a related note, I think it’s ironic that elsewhere in the thread, Steph says Ron Paul’s “supporters are like a bunch of lemmings that would more than likely follow the guy off a cliff if he jumped.” Pot, meet kettle.]
-
ROBERT: You need to go go support Romney after sunday he will need a hug [What is this, an elementary-school playground where sophomoric taunts are the stock in trade?]
-
ME: Hmm. Here I was, hoping for a serious debate about serious issues, and instead I find a bunch of juveniles who aren’t really interested about anything more than cheerleading for somebody they’ve built up into some sort of golden idol who must NEVER be criticized.
-
What an embarrassment. Conservatives are typically capable of so much better.
-
You had the chance to make a case for Fred to me. And you blew it big-time. Since the majority of you are unwilling (or simply unable) to defend your candidate in a mature, principled way (and since this is obvious to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid), I’d probably be wasting my time pursuing this any further. And so, adieu.
-
JOHN: Good bye Troll, and good riddance! Don’t let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya! [Ouch, Johnny! You really got me there!]
-
ROBERT: Mitt Romney LMAO sorry I will not be going to his site. [It’s just as well. They sometimes use big words
over there.] I know what he said to get elected to Mass so you cant erase the Video Bye Bye now [Neither can you. But unlike you hypocrites, I’ve never tried to whitewash my guy’s flaws.] I thought you were a Ron Paul nut when you were talking Pro Life but to think Romney is more Pro Life than Thompson is ignorance [No, it’s simple: Romney supports the Human Life Amendment, Thompson doesn’t.]
-
JOHN: From everything Calvin posted he was NOT here for any debating, he was here for some Fred bashing. [I tried, Rat-Boy. You guys responded to points with insults. Good luck wiping this stain off your record.] He can go back to any one of his many liberal democratic sites to do that.
-
JOHN: If you will notice, Calvin did not prop up another candidate to compare with Fred on the abortion issue. Instead he chose to try to persuade us that Fred is no better than the rest of the pack. In other words to drag down our guy to the level of his candidate whoever that may be. [If you guys had been up for an actual debate, I would’ve loved to have made the case would be better for the right to life than Thompson. I’m sorry you chose instead to derail things.] His notion that he came in here with an open mind and could have been “won” over is pure trash as evident by the garbage he posted. [For any of these Kool-Aid-drunk zombies to lecture anyone else about open-mindedness is the real “garbage.”]
-
MATT: I will say this once…A Mormon will not win the executive seat..no matter how this race is won…if mitt can’t win Alabama…he has no shot of being president… [We’ll see about that…] Calvin you’re a nitwit…I’m willing to take the odds on a democrat over Mitt..any day of the week. John Mccain an Fred Thompson are the only two who can upend her because they’re real men. [Sorry, dude, that might be considered persuasive on the playground, in the locker room, or at the pub, but here it’s just lame.]
-
---
-
That’s the extent of my fight with them (‘till I give ‘em the link to this post, that is), but elsewhere in the thread, several more whoppers can be found. For instance, too bad John didn’t take his own advice that “Attacking anyone with a critique of Fred’s performance will not be helpful to Freds campaign. It is okay to disagree, but lets not attack each other and demean somebody elses opinions.” I guess he forgot when I came in. The “Sycophant of the Month” award goes to BJ, who told somebody to “Trust the man! He really knows what he is doing and his plan is to confound the pundits and the media with the American people uniting behind his common sense, down to earth I’ll tell you when I’m damn good and ready views.” If many people actually consider that good advice, then God help us all…
-
Interestingly, at one point
Sean Hackbarth comes in with an admonition to keep things civil. Robert & Krell simmer down; Jeff, however, says “ but its plain to see when there are….shall I say, ‘less’ than genuine opinions expressed and I personally think the should be ‘Called out’.” Now, I know that phonies & trolls are real phenomena, but these guys seem to go beyond caution and into paranoia. Of course, they reverted to uncivil form with me, without sanction.
-
I think my favorite part, though, is when they go into total tinfoil-hat mode over some sort of imaginary anti-Fred bias at Fox News Channel, and decide FNC should be boycotted as punishment. Thompson’s had how many exclusive, free-ride interviews with Sean Hannity by now? Utterly delusional…
-
The close second would be Stephanie. Responding to Jake’s criticism of Thompson’s marriage stance, the unhinged Steph says: “Jake you are either a homo yourself and are trying to hide it by TRYING to get all of us not to support Fred because of this one issue.” Indeed.
-
I know that whenever you challenge somebody’s beliefs you can expect some hostility, but I honestly wasn’t expecting to find a blend of stupid, juvenile & dishonest of this magnitude, a right-wing equivalent of a
Daily Kos thread. “Cyberspace is big, and there are a lot of losers in it. So what?” I don’t doubt there are similar clowns embarrassing themselves on behalf of the other candidates, but I happen to think this encounter highlights something important: we as conservatives must hold ourselves to higher standards—of honesty, of independence, self-reflection, of maturity—than the Left does. If we aren’t even doing that at one of our presidential frontrunners’ official websites, the Right has a problem. The presidency is too important to compromise our principles or give free rides to any leader, and it’s especially too important to be decided by cults of personality, the likes of which have built Fred Thompson into some sort of storybook hero.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Credit Where Credit Is Due

"I'm pro-life because I know what it is like to live without human rights."

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Around the Web

In his latest column, Jonah Goldberg gives the bottom-line reason why no decent or responsible person can support abortion: “I don’t see how you can be that sure, which is why I’m pro-life — not because I’m certain, but because I’m not.”
-
More
good news from Iraq, but the bulk of the article is about how decreasing violence is bad for the cemetery business. Cry me a river.
-
As mayor, Rudy Giuliani formed a coalition to combat “anti-immigrant” legislation—which included George Soros, who “Hizzonor” (dopey nickname) recently lashed out at. Seems to me like a two-in-one flip-flop at least as bad, if not worse, as the charges the
Rudy hacks regularly level at Mitt Romney. Ye hypocrites!
-
Speaking of the hacks, you know something’s rotten in Denmark when “Republicans”
favorably cite the Associated Press.
-
The other frontrunners were unsurprisingly peeved last week when Romney claimed to be the candidate representative of the “Republican wing of the Republican Party,” and responded in kind. That’s politics. But, none of the others came close to telling the kind of lie Fred Thompson’s campaign did, by claiming Romney “ran for Senate to the left of Ted Kennedy.” The discrepancies in Romney's record are a fair issue.
This, however, is a lie - not a matter of casting facts & circumstances in a certain light. I guess ol’ Fred is OK with lying to people to win the presidency. That should give his supporters pause.
-
New, promising books: there are too many of ‘em!
-
Dinesh D’Souza (author of
one of the aforementioned books) has an interesting take on miracles, science, and the lack of conflict between the two.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

She's Ba-ack!

Ann Coulter’s new book is If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, a Coulterism compendium sure to send any liberal (or milquetoast Republican) into convulsions. Phil Brennan interviews Ann for NewsMax here. Check it out!
The views expressed on this weblog are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any other websites, blogs, campaigns, publications, or organizations where I have been employed and/or my work has been featured, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of any individuals employed by or otherwise affiliated with such groups.