Year: 2007

Fred Thompson: Pro-Abortion?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, Fred Thompson, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
Video here. First, one thing must be pointed out in Thompson’s defense. Though factually accurate in saying Thompson’s 2001-2002 National Right to Life voting record is a weak 33%, the number leaves viewers with the dishonest perception that Thompson voted for killing babies 66% of the time. In reality, there were only three pieces of legislation on the record for that year, and the two he differed with NRTL on were his votes supporting campaign finance reform. Fred certainly deserves heat for that, but being wrong on that issue is not related to one’s stance on whether or not unborn babies deserve legal protection.
–
(For those who don’t know, NRTL opposes McCain-Feingold because of its limitations on the free-speech rights of organizations such as themselves. I think this whole affair suggests that advocacy groups should reconsider their grading systems—for instance, Fred should have one score on principle-related votes, like parental notification, embryonic stem-cells, etc.; and a separate score for peripheral issues like this one.)
–
The year before, several more life issues came before the Senate, and on all of them, Thompson voted pro-life. This, combined with the fact that he openly opposes embryo-destructive medical research and Roe v. Wade (plus he’s more conservative on other issues) means he’s definitely a better candidate than Rudy Giuliani…but…
–
…the video does highlight a very real flaw in the blogosphere’s dream candidate (here’s the full thing uninterrupted). The best he offers is that states should have “some leeway” in how they legislate abortion, but he also mumbles (by the way, this is what passes for a great communicator?) that, as a state legislator, he would not vote to “criminalize a young woman” who made the choice to abort. Satisfied that the issue boiled down to states’ rights for Thompson, interviewer Sean Hannity moved on to other topics.
–
In other words, Thompson is employing the exact same dodge Rudy Giuliani uses about “throwing women in jail.” If it’s dishonest when Rudy does it, why is it OK for Fred? The Senator from Tennessee needs to be forced to answer this question: “If a bill criminalizing most abortions only prosecuted abortionists and abortion providers, leaving women seeking the abortions alone, would you vote for or sign it?”
–
I don’t see much here that signals a serious comprehension for the sanctity of life or a willingness to stand against abortion, and frankly, I’m getting a little fed up with the fairytale hero Fred is imagined to be. Sorry to break it to you folks, but he’s no “southern fried Reagan,” and you most certainly will “have to settle,” as I’ve pointed out in the past.
–
I know I’m going against the blogosphere tide on this, and I’m not trying to cause trouble for trouble’s sake. But especially after eight years of George W. Bush, choosing a Republican standard-bearer is too serious a decision to be made on the basis of personality hype. Nobody’s asking for perfect, but in 2008, America needs to unite behind a strong conservative with a genuine record of leadership and accomplishment. And the sooner we stop looking at Fred Thompson through rose-colored glasses, the better.

Coulter Strikes Back

Calvin Freiburger Coulter, demagogues, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, lying, media, Shepard Smith
Ann unloads some righteous fury on her richly-deserving detractors. I do disagree with Ms. Coulter in one area, though—I would make one change to this sentence (in red): “I’m a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash, Web traffic, or TV ratings off of my coattails.”
–
Meanwhile, it’s noteworthy that Fox News’ Shepard Smith embraced the Left’s smear. Is FNC still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy ™?

Senate: No to Amnesty!

Calvin Freiburger Bush, good news, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, immigration, Senate, victories

Aww, what a shame:
–
The US Senate voted Thursday to kill off a landmark immigration bill which would have granted a path to citizenship to 12 million illegal immigrants, in a severe blow to President George W. Bush.
–
In a stunning defeat for the bill, which would have also established a merit-based immigration system, Senators voted by 53 to 46 votes against moving ahead with a final vote on the measure.
–
The 46 votes mustered by the supporters of the bill were well short of the super-majority of 60 votes needed to keep alive the measure, branded an “amnesty” by opponents.
–
Before the vote, Senators from both sides said a vote to derail the bill would likely doom efforts to tackle immigration reform before the 2008 presidential election.
–
The bill had represented one of President George W. Bush’s last, best hopes for a signature second-term domestic achievement, and its failure will come as another painful blow to a White House besieged with political woes.
–
The measure had staggered in the Senate for weeks, collapsing earlier this month under fierce opposition, mainly from conservatives who branded it an “amnesty” for those who broke the law to enter the United States.
–
Democrats from conservative districts also found it difficult to support the bill, and some of them also fretted at the terms of a guest worker program included in the bill.

Target: Ann Coulter

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, conservatism, Coulter, demagogues, Edwards, Hackbarth, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, hypocrisy
Another day, another liberal lie about Ann Coulter:
–
Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to “stop the personal attacks,” a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards’ husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.
–
This is an utter mischaracterization of what Ann actually said (video at the sidebar here). In no way did she express a desire to see John Edwards murdered. No honest observer could even think she even found the prospect of Edward’s death amusing. Her actual point was that, since around the same time of Ann’s CPAC snafu Bill Maher got away with seriously expressing a desire to see Dick Cheney dead, the apparent lesson was: death threats against politicians fine, crude words against politicians intolerable.
–
Be sure to check out the video of Elizabeth Edwards’ ambush on “Hardball. Methinks Mrs. Ambulance-Chaser’s plan backfired?
–
Then came the obligatory anti-Coulter whining from Sean Hackbarth (it’s a shame when conservatives act like liberals, isn’t it?).
–
A note to the hacks on both sides: get over it. Ann doesn’t have a single word she should retract or be embarrassed about.
–
(Oh, and Ann’s full ABC interview—not the dishonest video snippet Hackbarth got from a left-wing blog—is actually quite good.)
–
UPDATE: Thanks to Mark Levin’s good memory for exposing Elizabeth Edwards’ phoniness and hypocrisy:
–
Elizabeth Edwards is blasting second lady Lynne Cheney for objecting to John Kerry calling her daughter “a lesbian” during Wednesday night’s presidential debate.
–
In the ugliest outburst yet in the Kerry-lesbian contretemps, the woman who wants to replace Mrs. Cheney told ABC Radio network news Thursday morning, “I think that [Mrs. Cheney’s complaint] indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter’s sexual preferences.”
–
These people are despicable.
–
UPDATE 2: By the way, here’s the column Mrs. Ambulance-Chaser was referring to.

Disaster Averted

Calvin Freiburger Bob Barker, game shows, GSN, humor, moonbats, Price is Right, Rosie
Rosie O’Donnell won’t be the successor to Bob Barker after all. We won’t be hearing any “You could win this brand new stove, whose fire incidentally can’t melt steel…”
–
Actually, I don’t really care that much if they want to wreck The Price is Right. The occasional fix of old & new game shows on GSN is enough that if they want to experiment with Rosie the Unhinged, I say go for it.

Scientists Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, environment, global warming, science
How often have we heard that mankind’s contribution to global warming has been proven to be significant and dangerous, the debate’s over, and the dissent is a minority comprised of Flat-Earthers, oil-company stooges and clueless twits? Well, as is so often the case when dealing with liberals, the truth happens to be another story.
–
Enter the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine’s Petition Project. (Big thanks to Matt, who called attention to the petition in this debate.) Their position is as follows:
–
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
–
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
–
So how many signatures do they have? Any lefties in the audience may wanna sit down (all emphasis mine):
–
During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
–
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
–
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.
–
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
–
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
–
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
–
Also, here is another partial list of scientific dissenters and their comments (I know I’ve blasted reliance on Wikipedia in the past, but in this case the reliability of what you see on the website is not an issue, because each entry is an external link to the actual story or article).
–
So what does this prove? “All these people reject man-made global warming; therefore, it’s false?” That’s not what I’m trying to say at all. The point is that the dissent is substantial enough that simply adding up the players on each side and throwing in with the supposedly-bigger team isn’t a reliable or conclusive enough method to reach a conclusion. You’d think liberals, what with their high-minded talk about logical thought and questioning authority, could appreciate such an idea. But you’d apparently be wrong.

Responding to Iraq Lies

Calvin Freiburger http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, lying, reporter, War on Terror
The Reporter has published my latest letter, a brief rundown of lie vs. truth in Iraq.
–
The truth about Iraq:
–
Lie: “Bush lied about WMDs.”
–
Truth: 2002’s National Intelligence Estimate concluded “Iraq is continuing … its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs.” British, German, French, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence all agreed. The Robb-Silberman Commission found “no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments.” We found 1.77 metric tons of uranium. Polish forces found chemical warheads. Charles Duelfer testified that Hussein intended to restart his programs, and there’s reason to believe WMDs were smuggled to Syria.
–
Lie: “Iraq’s unrelated to terrorism.”
–
Truth: A few examples to the contrary: We’ve found rolls of jihadists trained in Iraq at places like Salman Pak. We know of repeated meetings between Iraqi and al-Qaeda operatives, including the planning meeting for the USS Cole bombing. Jihadists have found safe haven in Iraq.
–
Lie: “U.S. forces terrorize innocent Iraqis.”
–
Truth: Almost all troops have fought heroically and humanely. Incidentally, antiwar hero Jesse MacBeth, a supposed Iraq vet who “confessed” to partaking in American atrocities against Iraqi civilians, was recently exposed as a fraud who never once set foot in Iraq.
–
Lie: “Iraq’s a civil war.”
–
Truth: Writing for Middle East Quarterly, Sgt. David Patten explains: “While the government is weak, there is no political force presenting it with a serious challenge. Iraq is, indeed, an unstable nation, but there is little danger of regime change, the ultimate purpose of a civil war. The armed groups most likely to participate in an eventual civil war lack both the capacity and the will to enter into such a conflict in earnest at the present time…[but] Premature withdrawal could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the conditions for a civil war that do not currently exist.”
–
“Without victory, there is no survival.” – Winston Churchill

Odds & Ends

Calvin Freiburger http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
Here’s a global-warming debate on Boots & Sabers. If the issue is settled and the enviros have won, then why do they expend so much effort (well, mostly blood pressure) in trying to re-fight it?
–
Nun Wars: HUH?! (Kinda reminds me of Spy Hard…)
–
Cindy Sheehan lashes out at her own side again. Say, I though Cindy had retired from the antiwar movement a while back. Shouldn’t she…I dunno…shut up?
–
Herman Munster: accept no substitutes!
–
Rudy Giuliani’s commitment to the War on Terror—pretty much the only legit conservative reason to vote for him—faces new scrutiny, and it ain’t pretty.
–
(Hat tip to the Corner for the above two.)
–
And now for something completely different: a wild new ride for the next Batman film (because this blog hasn’t been quite nerdy enough lately).