GOP

Barack I’ll-Bomb-Ya

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Democrats, GOP, Islamofascism, Obama, Pakistan, War on Terror
For a while I was hoping Hillary Clinton would get the Democrat nomination, but now I’m thinking maybe Barack Obama would be the better general election opponent. First he agrees to unconditionally meet with America’s enemies within the first year of his administration, and now he’s threatening to invade Pakistan. Y’know, a Muslim nation that not only didn’t attack us on 9/11 (where have I heard this before?) but whose government is actually an ally? Oh, and did I mention that Pakistan already has nukes?
–
Dean Barnett posts an appropriate bumper-sticker on the subject, and Mitt Romney nailed it, too: “from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”

2008 Food for Thought

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, corruption, Fred Thompson, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post

Dick Morris explains why Fred Thompson (who, it turns out, did lobby for abortion) doesn’t have much credibility when he claims to be an “outsider” who can change the DC culture.
–
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be focusing the bulk of their attacks on somebody else…

Top 10 Ways President Bush Can Further Alienate His Base

Calvin Freiburger Bush, Frank J, GOP, humor, IMAO

At this point, never say never:
–
10. Publicly make out with Nancy Pelosi.
9. Not listen to anyone unless they speak in Spanish.
8. At his next meeting with generals, start shouting, “No blood for oil!”
7. Endorse Ron Paul.
6. Demand a new investigation into 9/11 to find out if he knew about it before it happened.
5. Become a coyote.
4. Start writing diaries on The Daily Kos.
3. Publicly make out with Ted Kennedy.
2. Convert to Islam.
–
And the number one way President Bush can further alienate his base…
–
Have Dick Cheney resign and appoint a new VP: Harriet Miers.

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.

Open Letter to Michael Medved

Calvin Freiburger apologists, conservatism, demagogues, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, immigration, Medved, talk radio
Dear Michael Medved,
–
Thank you for the fine work in your recent Townhall column, “Capturing the Language to Assure Liberal Dominance.” The piece eloquently and effectively tackles one of the chief pollutants in the national discourse. However, I cannot help but notice a little irony here—in the wake of the latest immigration bill’s announcement, you have employed the very same pollutant in the Republican establishment’s defense.
–
You asked, “Why did [Senator John Kyl] oppose immigration reform, but this time he’s in favor of it?” Just as “pro-choice” is a technically-accurate-yet-biased term for abortion advocacy, labeling the new legislation “reform” suggests it to be inherently good, and even worse, calling Kyl a one-time opponent of “immigration reform” dishonestly suggests he opposed doing anything to change the system, suggests that we oppose reform itself, rather than a particular type of so-called “reform.”
–
This is a deception you’ve put forth repeatedly. You claim we “want so desperately to preserve the status quo of the current broken system, with all its obscene costs, hypocrisy, and security threats to our country.” You cannot possibly believe that we somehow approve of the status quo, so why write it?
–
Most troubling, however, is the stunning ease with which you dismiss the serious, substantive criticism of this bill as “the hysterical (and increasingly dishonest) denunciations of ‘amnesty’ on talk radio.” On your show you said “That’s political posturing, that’s sloganeering by people who, it seems to me for their own political interests, are telling people what they want to hear. I don’t know why people wanna be upset about this.” It’s clear that you’ve made an active, concerted effort to demonize & trivialize bill opposition as fanatic, sinister, and dangerous, culminating with the obscene, demagogic characterization of Tom Tancredo as “racist” (yet Lanny Davis is OK? What a disgrace.). It’s stunning to juxtapose the Medved spin with the American reality (although I do have to thank you for one thing—your tactics provided the inspiration for a book I’d like to write someday: When the Right Goes Left).
–
The following is an exhaustive (but rest assured, not definitive) list of people who, according to you and Linda Chavez, are apparently a bunch of racists, liars and/or fools. Click on each name and you’ll see or hear their stance on the latest immigration developments. Most are strong “comprehensive-reform” opponents, while some are open to the general concepts of guest worker programs & amnesty (by the way, they’re at least honest enough to call what they support by its real name), but all are united on one point: the flaws in this bill are far more severe than you are willing to admit.
–
Glenn Beck
Bill Bennett
Tony Blankley
Robert Bluey
William F. Buckley
Tammy Bruce
Amanda Carpenter
Ann Coulter
Jim DeMint
John Fonte
David Frum
Newt Gingrich
Sean Hannity
Hugh Hewitt
Duncan Hunter
Laura Ingraham
Terrence Jeffrey
Mickey Kaus
Charles Krauthammer
Mark Krikorian
Bill Kristol
Mark Levin
David Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh
Kathryn Jean Lopez
Rich Lowry
Heather MacDonald
Michelle Malkin
Andy McCarthy
Edwin Meese
National Review Editors
Peggy Noonan
Kate O’Beirne
John O’Sullivan
Ramesh Ponnuru
Dennis Prager
Robert Rector
Mitt Romney
Phyllis Schlafly
Jeff Sessions
Thomas Sowell
Mark Steyn
Andrew Stuttaford
Cal Thomas
Fred Thompson
George Will
–
Read that list again. You’ll see a great many of your colleagues in writing, blogging & talk radio, including some enormously distinguished & admirable Americans, and conservatives whose work you personally have extolled in the past. Just like you, they’ve spent years passionately fighting for conservative values in the court of public opinion. Just like you, they’ve gone to tremendous lengths to defend President George W. Bush from liberal demagoguery. But unlike you, they’ve reached their breaking point as far as how much bull they’re willing to tolerate from this ineffectual White House and Republican Party. After just a few of their detailed, thoughtful commentaries, you ought to see that there’s no “racism” or “hysteria” in their sincere concern. Our devotion to America’s future is sincere, and it deserves better than the cheap demonization which seems to be your stock in trade.
–
Calvin Freiburger

CFO Giuliani Archive

Calvin Freiburger 2008, blog, conservatism, GOP, Guliani

The following is a list of links to all of my commentary on Rudy Giuliani, for easy access on CFO’s “Just say NO” sidebar to your right (listed in chronological order):
–
“An Apologist for Giuliani”—dissecting Deroy Murdock’s “pro-life case for Rudy”
–
“2008 Presidential Lineup”
–
“Ann Coulter, Rudy Giuliani & the Republican Crossroads”
–
“The Party of Values”—observation on Giuliani’s dubious marital history
–
2 Headlines: “Rudy Judges Leaned Left” & “Many Unaware of Rudy’s Social Liberalism”
–
“This Is Your Brain on Drugs”—dissecting another “socially-conservative case for Rudy”
–
“Terror Warrior?”—Rudy’s chief strength may not be all it’s advertised as
–
“America’s Mayor Aborting Own Candidacy?”—Rudy all-but-giving social conservatives the finger
–
“Tidbits from the Republican Primary”
–
“First Republican Primary Debate”
–
“The Latest on Rudy”
–
“Second GOP Debate”
–
“Liberal Leanings as Conservative Credentials?”—the difference between Giuliani-support and Romney-support
–
Bishop Thomas Tobin’s RSVP to Mayor Giuliani
–
“GOP Round 3: Full Impressions”

GOP Round 3: Full Impressions

Calvin Freiburger 2008, CNN, conservatism, debate, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Gilmore, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Huckabee, McCain, romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson
Now that I’ve had the chance to give the full Republican debate a listen, I’ve got some impressions (I’ll start with the lower tiers just for fun):
–
Ron Paul: He only seemed sane because he wasn’t asked about the war as much. But I hear Mike Gravel is looking for a running mate…
–
Tommy Thompson: Pi-ti-ful.
–
Mike Huckabee: I’ve been surprised at how well he’s carried himself, and Round 3 was no exception. Not amazing (especially when mixing up Reagan’s birthday & anniversary of death), but a good performance. Too bad it’s all for naught.
–
Sam Brownback: “Three-state political solution,” “comprehensive reform,” blah blah blah. No thanks.
–
Tom Tancredo: Blunt talk, but pretty unpolished. His biggest flaw, though, is that he doesn’t get it on Iraq. Congressman, this war is about preventing the jihadists from becoming Iraq’s dominant force, which would have disastrous ramifications beyond her borders—not merely what the Iraqis will make of our sacrifice. But he definitely had the ‘whoa’ moment of the night when he said, as President, he’d have no choice but to ask George W. Bush not to “darken the door” of his White House. No arguments here.
–
Jim Gilmore: I’m sorry, but who are you again?
–
Duncan Hunter: Another job well done. If we were to totally throw away the “who can win” factor, Hunter would be my man, hands down (if only Hunter had been the guy to trade DC for Hollywood for a few years!). But he’s gotta be in the running for VP. At 58 years old, he’d be in a pretty darn good position after 8 years of a good conservative White House. (I was disappointed that he didn’t give Scooter Libby’s plight its proper consideration, though.)
–
John McCain: I liked his answer about the disastrous alternatives to the troop surge, plus his line about making pork spenders “infamous.” Overall, McCain has managed to lock down the tone issue of his past performances—instead of angry & unhinged, he came across as passionate, confident & in control. Too bad this development comes on the heels of Amnestygate.
–
Rudy Giuliani: An interesting show. Once again his abortion answer was indefensible (I’d think long & hard about that lightning, pal), and while his immigration answer was carefully worded to sound harsh, his only beef is with identification—no concern whatsoever for the fence, for the effects of amnesty, etc. But I have to admit I was surprised at how much his answers about the war impressed me. In none of Rudy’s past speeches, TV appearances, etc., have I seen the fiery leader others are smitten with. Last night was the first time I saw a hint of man who takes this fight seriously. He also gets points for his Libby defense. So can you count me among the smitten? Not by a long shot. I still can’t respect Rudy Giuliani the man, and I still believe Rudy Giuliani the nominee will have devastating effects on the party, movement & nation. Hear me, conservatives: THIS MAN MUST BE STOPPED (by the way, did you notice my Stop Rudy sidebar?). But if worse comes to worse, what about Rudy in a general election? He’ll have to do a lot more than this to show me that his terrorism and free-market answers aren’t just a repeat of his immigration answer: all style, no substance.
–
Mitt Romney: Well done, but not without a few bumps in the road. What I liked: terror remarks, Libby answer, “I’m not going to apologize for becoming pro-life,” the perfect answer to the Mormon question, immigration sentiments, the “three-pillared stool” analogy for the Republican coalition (free markets, strong defense, & family values), and lip service to ANWR drilling. Not so hot: I bet some viewers will still be understandably-unsure how his healthcare plan differs from Hillarycare, his answer about oil company profits was unclear (I won’t contest his grasp of where they’d be best spent, but you’re not talking about government forcing them to spend their own money a certain way, are you?), and any 6-year-old could’ve told Team Romney that running Spanish ads would come back to bite ‘em before long.
–
BONUS CANDIDATE—Fred Thompson: He’s got an appealing demeanor, and I applaud his answer about Libby (even better than Rudy’s & Mitt’s). But did anyone else in the “conservative alternative” crowd notice how weak his abortion answer was? But Fred’s biggest flaw was that his sparring partner was Sean Hannity—not the ten men who, whatever else may be said of them, have dived into the fray and put their reputations on the line in three debates so far. Besides Fred’s other conservative deficiencies (McCain-Feingold, impeachment, etc.), doesn’t anyone else find his lateness in declaring just a bit smarmy? (Apparently not.)

GOP Round 3 – A Bad Night for the Country?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, debate, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
I missed the debate tonight, and I haven’t looked at anything from it in detail yet, but I know a lot of people over at the Corner are saying Giuliani had quite a good night. I pray they’re wrong, and I pray the party is capable of seeing through and ultimately rejecting this creep.
–
UPDATE: Bishop Thomas Tobin stands up to the Woman’s-Right-to-Execute candidate. (Thanks EFM).