GOP

Fred Thompson

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Fred Thompson, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
It’s official: Fred Thompson has dropped out of the presidential race, and word is that he’s neither interested in a VP slot nor a Cabinet post. On an apolitical note, my prayers go out to him and his mother, who is reportedly ill.
–
Thompson’s campaign failed because of a couple factors, both within and beyond his control. To start with the latter, several of the early primary states simply were not looking for conservatism, as Mike Huckabee & John McCain’s victories have shown. While I must admit some measure of satisfaction at the ramifications this has for Mitt Romney’s chances, I would much rather have President Thompson than Huck, the Maverick, or Rudy Giuliani in the White House, and stronger support for him would have at least been reassuring that the Republican Party still takes the Reagan coalition seriously.
–
Second, Thompson is a man with a reasonably conservative voting record, and a knack for articulating conservatism clearly and plainly, but in the run-up to his candidacy, the blogosphere built him up into so much more. He was the second coming of Ronald Reagan, we were told, the knight in shining armor who would ride in and save us from the three-headed RINO known as Rudy McRomney. No man could have lived up to such fire.
–
On the flip side, he tried playing with that fire, and got burned in two ways. First, he milked the “consistent conservative” mantra for all he could…even though it wasn’t true. Abortion, immigration, McCain-Feingold, and No Child Left Behind—four separate issues on which he initially took liberal (and, in the case of NCLB, anti-federalism) positions, but later moved rightward. Granted, I welcome his changes of heart, just as I welcome Romney’s. But Thompson’s choice to compound his past errors with fresh lies, while compelling to the most ardent Fredheads, served instead to dull the man’s shine in the eyes of more critical observers. And even his current platform was found wanting in key areas. While positioning himself as a cultural conservative, he supported neither full legal protection for the unborn nor a national definition of marriage.
–
Second, whether it was the hero-worship going to his head or natural arrogance, Thompson seemed to think the GOP nomination was his for the asking. I suspect he expected to ride the hype straight to the nomination. Since he’s obviously the base’s only choice, who needs a well-oiled organization? Fools who couldn’t see the obvious were dismissed as anti-Thompson conspirators.
–
Now that he’s out, there’s speculation that Fred Thompson, just as his fellow ex-candidate Duncan Hunter has pledged to do, will take on a more active role for conservatism in other venues. I hope he does, and despite my criticism, I welcome his contributions to the fight for America, and thank him for making the attempt to give our nation a conservative president.
–
The good news is, we still have a strong, full-spectrum conservative in the race, and he’s got the skills, organization, and funds necessary to go all the way…if we’re willing to unite behind him. Ladies & gentlemen, it’s never been clearer—Mitt Romney is the man for the job. Let’s give it our all to put him in the White House.

Massachusetts Tested, Conservative Approved

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, Coulter, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, McCain, RINOs, romney
As if National Review, Robert Bork, Tom Tancredo, and the founder of National Right to Life weren’t enough right-wing bona fides, now Mitt Romney receives the Ann Coulter endorsement:
–
Unluckily for McCain, snowstorms in Michigan suppressed the turnout among Democratic “Independents” who planned to screw up the Republican primary by voting for our worst candidate. Democrats are notoriously unreliable voters in bad weather. Instead of putting on galoshes and going to the polls, they sit on their porches waiting for FEMA to rescue them.
–
In contrast to Michigan’s foul weather, New Hampshire was balmy on primary day, allowing McCain’s base — Democrats — to come out and vote for him.
–
Assuming any actual Republicans are voting for McCain — or for liberals’ new favorite candidate for us, Mike Huckabee — this column is for you.
–
I’ve been casually taking swipes at Mitt Romney for the past year based on the assumption that, in the end, Republicans would choose him as our nominee. My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate.
–
I had no idea that Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire planned to do absolutely zero research on the candidates and vote on the basis of random impulses. Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car.
–
One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain.
–
This point was already extensively covered in Chapter 1 of “How To Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)”: Never take advice from your political enemies.
–
Turn on any cable news show right now, and you will see Democratic pundits attacking Romney, calling him a “flip-flopper,” and heaping praise on McCain and Huckleberry — almost as if they were reading some sort of “talking points.”
–
Doesn’t that raise the tiniest suspicions in any of you? Are you too busy boning up on Consumer Reports’ reviews of microwave ovens to spend one day thinking about who should be the next leader of the free world? Are you familiar with our “no exchange/no return” policy on presidential candidates? Voting for McCain because he was a POW a quarter-century ago or Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher is like buying a new car because you like the color.
–
The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide.
–
New York Times columnist Frank Rich says Romney “is trying to sell himself as a leader,” but he “is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue.”
–
But Rich is in a swoon over Huckabee. I haven’t seen Rich this excited since they announced “Hairspray” was coming to Broadway.
–
Rich has continued to hyperventilate over “populist” charmer Huckabee even after it came to light that Huckabee had called homosexuality an “abomination.” Normally, any aspersions on sodomy or any favorable mentions of Christianity would lead to at least a dozen hysterical columns by Frank Rich.
–
Rich treated Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ” as if it were a Leni Riefenstahl Nazi propaganda film. (On a whim, I checked to see if Rich had actually compared Gibson to Riefenstahl in one of his many “Passion” reviews and yes, of course he had.)
–
Curiously, however, Huckabee’s Christianity doesn’t bother Rich. In column after column, Rich hails Huckabee as the only legitimate leader of the Republican Party. This is like a girl in high school who hates you telling you your hair looks great.
–
Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a “flip-flopper.” I’ve looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has “flipped” on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts — or, for short, “the Soviet Union” — Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion.
–
Romney’s first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy — whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote “The Communist Manifesto” to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.
–
Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life — a group I trust more than the editorial board of The New York Times. Romney’s Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a “flip-flopper.”
–
After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: “(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice.”
–
Pro-abortion groups like the Republican Majority for Choice — the evil doppelganger to my own group, Democratic Majority for Life — are now running videos attacking Romney for “flip-flopping” on abortion.
–
Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. Romney governed as a pro-lifer and has been viciously attacked by pro-abortion groups.
–
By contrast, Giuliani cleverly avoids the heinous “flip-flopper” label by continuing to embrace baby-killing. (Rudy flip-flops only on trivial matters like illegal immigration and his own marital vows.)
–
And, of course, Romney is a Mormon. Even a loser Mormon like Sen. Harry Reid claims to be pro-life. So having a candidate with a wacky religion isn’t all bad.
–
At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican — a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn’t dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) — except Huckabee. And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn’t have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp. So there won’t be any intern issues and there won’t be any Billy Carter issues.
–
It’s also possible that Romney will turn out to be a conservative Republican — at least more conservative than he was as governor of Massachusetts. Whatever problems Romney’s Mormonism gives voters, remember: Bill Clinton came in third in heavily Mormon Utah in 1992.

Debate Reaction

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, McCain, RINOs, romney, Ron Paul
Didn’t we just do this?
–
Deja vu aside, I’ve gotta admit that tonight was Fred Thompson’s night. Alert and on target, he stood out from the pack (plus, he gave Huck a much-deserved whuppin’). His performance didn’t by any means overcome his problems on the issues or his disingenuousness, so I still can’t support him in the primary. But the general? We could do far worse.
–
My man Mitt did well tonight, and his suggestion that Ron Paul stop reading the Tyrant of Tehran’s press releases rocked. But he didn’t stand out, either. I think he’s trying to compete for the change banner a little too much (though, to be fair, it’s not a new thing for him – he’s always framed himself as the Mr. Fix-It candidate). Just show us the Mitt Romney that blew away CPAC 2006 and delivered “Faith in America,” and there’s no contest.
–
John McCain and Rudy Giuliani gave passable, but unremarkable performances. Rudy’s lucky social issues weren’t on the docket, and McCain rightly noted that we don’t trust DC to solve immigration – leaving out the fact that he’s one of our main reasons, naturally.
–
The knives were out for Mike Huckabee tonight, and he didn’t handle it well. Did he raise taxes? “What I raised was hope.” Bah. He’s a phony, and on stage he sounded like it. It’s telling that the only time he looked strong was in comparison to Ron Paul (on Israel).
–
Speaking of Rabid Ron, why was he even invited (aside from his trademark court jester role)? Did he pout too much about the last one? His foreign policy is disastrous, he flirts with anti-America-ism, and he comes across as an unstable coot. Maybe he was just there to artificially raise everyone else’s stature by comparison. Lame.

Post-Debate Analysis

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, debate, Fox News, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, McCain, romney
Some reactions to last night’s debate…
–
The absence of the bottom tier was refreshing (and also whipped the Paultergeists into a frenzy).
–
I think Romney, Thompson & Giuliani all had good nights, though Huckabee suffered when Mitt pinned him to the wall.
–
We all know John McCain is a genuine war hero, but he seemed to remind us of it more than usual last night. If he’s not careful, he could wind up reminding voters of John Kerry (only without the treason).
–
There’s a perception out there that moderator Chris Wallace denied Fred his full share of the airtime. I sure didn’t see it.
–
The talking point du jour has been “change” lately, and Rudy actually had the best answer to it: that change can be for better or worse, and isn’t a positive in and of itself.

A Village in Arkansas Is Missing Its Idiot

Calvin Freiburger 2008, dishonesty, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, lying, Medved, Pakistan, RINOs, War on Terror
Good Lord, where to begin…
–
Yet another smarmy episode for the “Why Mike Huckabee Is Wildly Unfit to Be President” file: whining that Mitt Romney is mean to him, Huck prepares an attakc ad of his own, then decides to take the supposed high ground by not running it—just before airing it for reporters.
–
You might be surprised to hear that such defense hawks as Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Richard Allen are foreign policy advisors to Mike’s campaign. Y’know who else was surprised? Gaffney, Bolton & Allen.
–
The governor took some, uh, interesting lessons from Benezir Bhutto’s assassination.
–
A lot of people have things to say about the Huckster. And they ain’t pretty.
–
Despite what the decreasingly-credible Michael Medved may say, it’s way past time to get this bozo off the national stage.
–
UPDATE: Here’s the video of Huck’s press conference to show the ad he doesn’t want you to see (think about that for a minute), as well as the revelation that—surprise!—he’s lying again. It seems Huckabee is claiming he decided not to run the ad ten minutes before making his speech, yet TV stations were told not to run the ad two hours before.
–
As for the ad itself, you notice that it doesn’t actually address any of Romney’s anti-Huck claims?

Recap: Huck, Mitt & Fred

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, Fred Thompson, GOP, guns, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iran, romney, scandal
Looks like I spoke too soon about the potency of Mike Huckabee’s campaign—his standing has improved pretty dramatically in recent weeks. I still can’t see him winning the nomination, but I can see him further dividing the cultural Right, thereby helping Giuliani’s chances.
–
Of course, once people take notice of you, the warts get noticed too—and Huck’s got warts in spades. This Hot Air post links to a lot of the details, and there’s even reason to question his credibility on his main/only selling point, social conservatism. Most recently, Huck’s been taking flak for his foreign policy vision, which is peppered with complaints to the effect of “George Bush has been too mean,” both to the international community and to Iran (yes, that Iran).
–
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has picked up a couple major endorsements: National Review makes a compelling argument that not only is he the best man for the job, but his nomination is necessary to keeping the Republican coalition together; and Judge Robert Bork trusts Romney to shape the Supreme Court as President. Mitt’s much-speculated-about “Faith in America” speech (transcript here, video here) was outstanding, as well. From religion’s actual role in our nation’s past to its proper role in her present, he brought these truths to the public eye with eloquence and passion.
–
It hasn’t all been clear skies for Mitt, though. Romney’s recent Meet the Press appearance highlighted his past willingness to consider a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as well the fact that he stands by his support for an assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.
–
On immigration, I’d be lying if I said Romney’s changes of opinion don’t give me pause, and I don’t begrudge anyone for mistrusting him. But again, there are also reasons to be wary of his opponents (check the Hot Air link above for the dirt on Huck, and my archives for Fred Thompson). Speaking of immigration, though, Romney’s not the only one who’s seen the light—here’s the “consistent conservative” arguing for a path to citizenship, every bit as recently as Mitt, if not more so.
–
As for guns, Romney is wrong. But every member of the Republican field is lacking in some way. It’s our job, then, to take a hard look at our priorities as conservatives. If gun rights are your number-one issue, then by all means, vote for Fred. I’m a full-spectrum conservative who understands and values the right to bear arms as well as the next guy. But I consider one million abortions annually a greater injustice than assault weapon bans, so the right to life takes precedence—and there (as well as marriage), Thompson is lacking. Further, as I’ve argued before, the fact that Mitt is sticking to his guns (no pun intended) seems to run counter to the idea that he’s a phony who abandons his opinions for expediency.

Open Letter to the National Right to Life Committee RE: Fred Thompson

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, Fred Thompson, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, pro-life
Please forward & distribute the following message to every pro-life minded voter you can. The right to life and the presidency are too important for us to stand idle while our leaders make such a colossal mistake.
–
—
–
To the Leadership of the National Right to Life Committee,
–
As a longtime pro-life activist, I read with great concern reports that the National Right to Life Committee intends to endorse Sen. Fred Thompson for the Republican presidential nomination (PDF link). With all due respect, this decision is utterly maddening.
–
As a lobbyist, Thompson lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood, and his campaign denied it until faced with the proof. He was a major proponent of so-called campaign finance reform, which has been a major impediment to the pro-life movement. He has suggested that he would not vote to ban abortion at the state level (indeed, on the campaign trail he says state authorities “can do whatever they want” about abortionists, distancing himself from the debate—and in both of these stories, he raises the specter of pregnant women thrown in jail, a common pro-abortion scare tactic). Most recently, he told Tim Russert that he opposes the Federal Human Life Amendment, because “people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about.”
–
Clearly, when Thompson says he will use “the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life,” he doesn’t have any sort of meaningful legal protection for the unborn in mind. One has to wonder, then, why the NRLC would throw its support behind a man whose rhetoric doesn’t match his promises.
–
Is it because he opposes Roe v. Wade, and promises to appoint judicial originalists to the Supreme Court? So do Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain. Is it because of doubts about Romney’s sincerity? It can’t be—Thompson was once pro-choice as well, and it isn’t clear that his current position is significantly different. Or is it because simply, as their endorsement says, they think Thompson “can win”? If such a (premature) calculation is their reason, then it’s truly depressing to see the NRLC put politics over principle.
–
There is a reasonable pro-life case to be made for Thompson, should he be our sole alternative to Sen. Hillary Clinton. But we are in the primary, not the general election, and the pro-life goal should be the candidate who will be the best advocate for unborn rights. As NRLC co-founder Dr. John Willke has recognized, that someone is Mitt Romney, who, in addition to pro-life stances on Roe, judges, taxpayer funding, and partial-birth abortion, also expresses support for nationwide legal protection for the unborn—including the Human Life Amendment.
–
The NRLC’s own “Open Petition to the Republican Party” (PDF file), which demands a pro-life presidential candidate, cites the GOP platform’s declaration that “Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Based on his own words, Fred Thompson is not an advocate of legislative protection for the right to life, and therefore fails your own standard. Why are you settling for the lesser of America’s pro-life options, and why are you doing so at this stage in the race?
–
In endorsing Thompson, you are setting a precedent that actually threatens the future success of the pro-life movement. If you decide Thompson’s weak stand on abortion is now enough to make someone our movement’s standard-bearer—especially when there is still a stronger viable alternative—you are, in effect, saying that pro-life doesn’t mean as much as it once did. You are defining the term down. Out with “certain unalienable rights” and in with the right to decide in favor of abortion as “what freedom is all about.”
–
For the sake of the one million unborn babies per year who will be murdered by abortion, I beg you to reconsider this endorsement. If you do not, however, you can be sure that many pro-lifers like me will remember this incident, and find other organizations and paths with which to defend life—if need be, even from actions of the NRLC.
–
Calvin Freiburger
http://rightcal.blogspot.com

Thompson Opposes the Human Life Amendment

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, Constitution, Fred Thompson, GOP
Transcript here and video here. Since federalism seems to be this guy’s excuse for everything (except on a state or local government’s right to set tax policy, apparently) I wonder if he has a problem with the Thirteenth Amendment too on states’ rights grounds?
–
If you support the Human Life Amendment, then there’s only one major candidate who agrees with you.

Who Will Brownback Endorse?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, Brownback, dishonesty, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, hypocrisy, pro-life
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.