GOP

The Latest on Rudy

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, ethics, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Kerik, pro-life
Laura Ingraham gets this week’s “Pundit with Principles” award for (not following Hannity’s lead and) actually grilling Giuliani on abortion.
–
I’m currently debating the Mayor’s support for premeditated child homicide at Bloggers4Rudy.
–
If Rudy “hates” abortion, he’s got some ‘splainin’ to do: Remarks to NARAL’s “Champions of Choice” Luncheon, and his spin as to why he donated to Planned Parenthood doesn’t hold water. (hat tip: EFM)
–
Bill Donohue asks a great question: “If helping pregnant women make choices is the supreme issue for Rudy Giuliani, then he should be able to document all the checks he’s written to support Crisis Pregnancy Centers—not just Planned Parenthood. If he can’t, it is logical to conclude that the only real choice he thinks is worthy of his money is the one which results in the death of innocent human beings. And that would make him a fraud.” (hat tip: K-Lo)
–
“But he significantly increased adoptions in the Big Apple, right?” Not so fast.
–
Oh and by the way, Rudy’s problems aren’t all abortion-related: meet Bernie Kerik, the elephant in the room (no pun intended).

First Republican Primary Debate

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, debate, Duncan Hunter, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, McCain, Ron Paul, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson
Full video here. Best performances: Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, & Duncan Hunter. John McCain did well, though the almost-angry tone that soared talking about the war seemed a little odd in other places (vowing to follow Osama bin Laden “to the gates of Hell” was a great touch, but his smile afterward was just creepy). The rest of the candidates were fair…except for Tommy Thompson & Ron “Kos-wing-of-the-party” Paul. Just go home, you two. Please.
–
Some points of interest:
–
One of the things the three who impressed me most managed to do was work in issues that were otherwise on the back burner: for instance, Mitt worked a McCain-Feingold jab into a pro-life answer, Hunter’s now-famous “Yes, and let me use the rest of my time on Iran” answer to “Are you a compassionate conservative?,” and Tancredo getting in immigration repeatedly.
–
When asked about churches who ex-communicate pro-choicers, Romney turned the tables on the Left by noting that, thanks to the separation of church & state, churches have the freedom to do what they want. Overall he was passionate, optimistic, & confident; and several have noticed (even Savage?!).
–
Tancredo had some nice moments, such as calling Roe v. Wade’s hypothetical overturn “the greatest day in American history,” calling for the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and noting that their host, the Reagan Library, was in honor of a man who was not a centrist.
–
Giuliani may have know the difference between Sunni and Shia, but offered little to match the hype (especially not Michael Medved’s ridiculous description of him as “Reaganesque”). Certainly not his “eh, whatever” reaction to Roe’s future fall. Weak.

Tidbits from the Republican Primary

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
Mitt Romney has a great Townhall piece blasting McCain-Feingold (by the way, he’ll also be giving the commencement address at my soon-to-be school, Hillsdale College).
–
Fred Thompson: “mulling summer announcement,” though he hasn’t made a final decision yet. I would humbly point out to my fellow conservatives two things: 1.) there’s a Republican primary debate just days away, and 2.) right now, my guy is an actual candidate.
–
Whoops: “Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani released his latest slate of New Hampshire supporters last week. One problem: Not all of them back the former New York City mayor.”
–
And John McCain: idiot.

America’s Mayor Aborting Own Candidacy?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, pro-life
Too early to be sure, but one can only hope…
–
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.
–
“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.
–
Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.
–
“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.
–
Over at the Corner there’s some doubt as to what precisely Giuliani meant, but to me, it’s immaterial. We know he’s an extremist on abortion, and that he hasn’t a clue what judicial originalism means. I don’t think there’s any doubt that he’d love it if the social Right would just vanish, and chances are this was a case of the real Rudy bubbling to the surface.

Division on the Right

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, Fred Thompson, Gingrich, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
I’ve got a bone to pick with two of our potential candidates: Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich.
–
Not on policy grounds—both men are (though not perfect) conservative enough to win my support, should they conquer the primaries. I think Thompson has a chance of winning, Newt not so much, but there are a lot of people excited about the mere possibility of their candidacies. Which is why the “maybe” status of their candidacies bothers me.
–
If you want to be president, go for it. Make your cases and do your best to rally the Right. I wouldn’t jump ship (I’m convinced Mitt Romney is the best the field has to offer), but if you can convince the most voters that you’re the standard-bearer, I’ll be more than happy to fight for you after the primary.
–
On the flip side, you need to make a decision. If you’re not going to run, you need to say so. A lot of people’s hopes are resting on you two—especially on Thompson—and it’s not right to get their hopes up over nothing.
–
It’s this state of limbo that bothers me. Until you make a commitment, your presence in the mix only serves to divide the Right’s support, and help Giuliani—and if we’re going to save the Republican Party from becoming the RINO Party, we need to unite behind a real candidate.

Remembering the Emancipator in Fond du Lac

Calvin Freiburger conservatism, fondy, GOP, Lincoln
Last night the Fond du Lac County Republican Party held its annual Celebration of Lincoln Dinner at the local Holiday Inn, where we enjoyed some great speeches by Judge Annette Ziegler, Attorney General JB Van Hollen, and Owen Robinson, who made at least a couple elected Republicans in the audience squirm with his unapologetic call for authentic conservatism from our party (always a plus!).
–
We also remembered that yes, Virginia, Abraham Lincoln was, in fact, a conservative in a series of three speeches delivered by local Republicans, which I’d like to share with you:
–
Lincoln on the Constitution (delivered by me)
–
Today’s Left claims it should be obvious that our Founding Fathers intended our Constitution to be a living, malleable document. It wasn’t obvious to Abraham Lincoln. In fact, Lincoln explicitly rejected that view. “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate,” the President said. “The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” He warned his countrymen: “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
–
Lincoln had direct experience with matters of constitutional interpretation; he was known on the national stage when the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision reinforced the notion that black men were property. Taking exception to the Roe v. Wade of his day, Lincoln responded to Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion on June 26, 1857. “We think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this.” He rejected Taney’s assertion “that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution…in five of the thirteen States—to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina—free negroes were voters, and in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had.” The future president next took his day’s judicial activists to task: “[In the beginning] our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it.” In Lincoln’s eyes, the Court made a “mere wreck and mangled ruin” of “our once glorious Constitution.”
–
Needless to say, he read the document differently. “The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use…it was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.”
–
Like today’s conservatives, Abraham Lincoln boldly stood against those who sought to corrupt the Founding Father’s original intentions. He warned America that “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having resigned their Government into the hands of the eminent tribunal.” In doing this, he set a standard for his Republican Party to follow. It has with men like Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist; and hopefully will continue into the future.
–
Lincoln’s Faith (delivered by Viola Sheppard)
–
Scarcely a day goes by without another critique of the “Religious Right.” Today President George W. Bush is accused of making decisions solely because Jesus tells him to, and we are constantly warned that social conservatives threaten the “separation of church & state.” Fortunately, our current president can be reassured that he stands in good company—Abraham Lincoln was every bit as religious, and even more explicit.
–
On August 15, 1846, Lincoln clarified his faith for the Illinois Gazette: “That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures…I do not think I could, myself, be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at religion.” It is easy to understand Lincoln’s strength of character when we know how heavily he relied on a higher power. He told biographer Noah Brooks that “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom, and that of all about me, seemed insufficient for the day.”
–
Lincoln brought God with him to the presidency. As he left Springfield, Illinois for Washington, DC, he told an audience that “Without the assistance of that Divine Being…I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail.” If they lived in the mid-1800s, surely President Bush’s secular foes would cringe at the way Lincoln saw himself and his position “as an instrument of Providence,” who had an “earnest desire to know the will of providence…And if I can learn what it is, I will do it.” Lincoln understood what Jefferson enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, what the Framers before him knew to be true: “Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is the spirit which prized liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors.” It was this long-established understanding of freedom, as God’s gift to humanity, which led the President to view slavery as “degeneracy” for which he called upon Americans to “pray for [God’s] mercy…that the inestimable boon of civil & religious liberty, earned under His guidance and blessing by the labors and sufferings of our fathers, may be restored.” It was this faith that drove his Herculean efforts to unite America, to continue on in the midst of war.
–
The depth of Lincoln’s faith was expressed in his last words to his wife that fateful night at Ford’s Theatre. Mary Todd Lincoln recalled that her husband “said he wanted to visit the Holy Land and see the places hallowed by the footprints of the Savior. He was saying there was no city he so much desired to see as Jerusalem.” John Wilkes Booth’s bullet struck a moment later, and the First Lady mournfully noted “the soul of the great and good President was carried by the angels to the New Jerusalem above.” In his April 24, 1865 memorial address, Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax fittingly noted: “The last act of Congress ever signed by [the President] was one requiring that the motto, in which he sincerely believed, “In God We Trust,” should hereafter be inscribed upon all our national coin.”
–
During a time that tried America like no other, our nation was blessed to have such a morally-certain leader. We must thank God for Lincoln’s crucial placement in history, and, in today’s war, take heart in his example. Abraham Lincoln never forgot that our God-given liberty was worthy of our blood, sweat & tears. Neither can we.
–
Lincoln’s Conservative Values (delivered by Laura Eckhart)
–
It’s no secret that today’s youth aren’t learning history properly, and President Lincoln is one of the many casualties of historical revision. For instance, in a piece titled “What Lincoln Foresaw,” University of California professor Rick Crawford cites a letter the president supposedly sent to Colonel William Elkins, which reads: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…” What great evil did Lincoln “predict?” Capitalism. “Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow…These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people.”
–
In fact, this letter is a forgery. It surfaced in 1888, and John Nicolay, one of Lincoln’s White House secretaries, actively worked to refute it. The real Abraham Lincoln rejected socialism and class warfare. He told the New York Workingman’s Democratic Republican Association, on March 21, 1864, that “Property…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise…Let not him who is homeless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
–
If President Lincoln’s words tell us anything, they tell us that he would certainly have far more in common with the Right than the Left. On March 9, 1832, discussing the importance of education, he said “That every man may receive at least, a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an object of vital importance.” Lincoln’s view stands in stark contrast to today’s universities, which teach resentment, not appreciation, of America’s institutions. Lincoln understood that “the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next,” so he would be disheartened to see how classroom indoctrination takes advantage of that reality today.
–
Lincoln didn’t appreciate moral relativism, either. “Important principles may, and must, be inflexible,” he said. And subjective truth? “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?” he asked. “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” When combating media bias, conservatives should remember Lincoln’s belief that “If given the truth, [the people] can be depended upon…the great point is to bring them the real facts.” Would the president have approved of today’s litigation culture characterized by Senator John Edwards? Doubtful; in the July 1, 1850 “Notes for a Law Lecture,” he urged: “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket?…resolve to be honest in all events, and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer.”
–
On matters of war and peace, there’s little doubt that Lincoln would urge perseverance in today’s War on Terror. President George W. Bush has said that we didn’t ask for this war, but we’ll wage it rather than surrender. Echoing that understanding, President Lincoln said the following in his Inaugural Address: “Both parties depreciated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and one would accept war rather than let it perish.” Lincoln knew he had to keep fighting the Civil War: “I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me…” he told Secretary of State William Seward.
–
The conservative values of the Republican Party have a long, proud heritage, and they work. It was principled, common-sense American conservatism that led Abraham Lincoln through national threat and strife, and into the ranks of history’s finest.
–
—
–
(If anybody’s interested in the research behind these speeches, I used The Words of Abraham Lincoln, America’s God & Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, and Abraham Lincoln Online.)

Victory & Defeat Surge in the Reporter’s Pages

Calvin Freiburger GOP, Iraq, reporter, RINOs
Recently, two local Republicans (who I’ve had the honor of working with over the past few years)—Holly Schwefel & Jim Kiser—had this editorial published in the Reporter:
—
“The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.” — Abraham Lincoln
These words are as true today as they were nearly 200 years ago.
We are in a struggle. We have endured falls. We are not only at war, but we are in a fight for our lives and for the very existence of this country that we so dearly love.
It is easy to forget this reality as we tend to our daily business. It’s easy to separate ourselves over time from the terrorist attacks five years ago that catapulted our nation into this war. It’s easy to say, “Stop the war, bring home the troops, and give peace a chance,” yet have no other credible plan.
However, no one ever said this was going to be easy. No one ever promised that the terrorists would lie down and surrender their weapons and their ideologies and their hatred. In fact, President Bush warned from the very beginning that this would be a long battle and that it would require much sacrifice, not only from the American military, but from the American people.
Only two weeks ago, the U.S. House of Representatives, with the support of 17 wayward “Republicans,” decided to take the easy way out through passage of a resolution condemning President Bush’s plan for a troop surge.
Their very public vote now deserves a very public response. In supporting this resolution, these “Republicans” gave our troops and our president a vote of no confidence. They gave not only hope, but validation to the enemy — the terrorists that would rejoice to see you and me dead in the streets.
These “Republicans” told the enemy that if they only resist long enough, America will give up and turn its back on our friends. These “Republicans” sent a message across the globe that not even the Bush Administration’s own party is willing to stand up for what is right.
But worst of all, these 17 Republicans turned their backs on the people who elected them — the same people who re-elected President Bush because of his tough action against terror and for his ability to lead during times of crisis.
Why is it so difficult for these Republicans to see how much their actions affect the morale of our soldiers and their families? Why are they so blinded by stature and chairmanships and re-election campaigns? Why do we stand by while they continue to prove how out of touch they are with our American way of life?
True Republicans support “peace through strength,” which does not mean looking for a fight, but most surely doesn’t mean backing down from one. True Republicans have a fundamental passion for freedom and for protecting that freedom, whatever the cost.
True Republicans work to secure our country today so that the children of tomorrow may have peace. True Republicans never turn their backs on the brave troops who daily risk their lives to ensure that we are able to enjoy all the blessings of this great land.
So, shame on those 17 Republicans for being out of touch with our American reality; shame on them for not recognizing the country’s need for unity rather than politics; shame on them for turning their backs on American troops; shame on them for giving hope to the enemy; and, what a shame it is that in this very Republican Sixth District, our own Congressman Tom Petri was one of those 17.
—
Predictably, it didn’t take long for a liberal genius to enlighten them:
—
Mr. (Jim) Kiser and Ms. (Holly) Schwefel, I would like to thank you for your editorial on March 6 concerning Rep. Tom Petri’s recent vote.
Perhaps we will see it reprinted in high school textbooks in the year 2050 to explain to future generations why the United States did not survive to see its 250th birthday. Blind partisanship is as dangerous to our future as Communism or terrorism ever was.
The Republicans had complete control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our government for six years. They accomplished nothing with Social Security reform, aside from a weak and confusing prescription drug plan. They achieved little to solve the health-care problem, they looked the other way as the president set up secret prisons in Eastern Europe and condoned and even encouraged torture of terrorist suspects, and suspended habeas corpus, a process put in place by civilized society 900 years ago.
I could go on but the point in question is the troop surge in Iraq. We have seen the administration completely mishandle Iraq from the nonexistent WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) to the “stay-the-course” mentality. More than 3,000 soldiers were killed, 25,000 injured and a civil war springing up in the middle of it all. How can anyone have confidence that suddenly, after four years, despite all the signs that tell us otherwise, the tide will be turned and democracy will flourish?

The Republican Party has been hijacked by the neo-conservatives. We need free-thinking politicians who have the personal integrity to do what Rep. Petri did.
When given the choice of what is best for the country and what is best for the party, Mr. Petri chooses the former. You choose the latter and for that you should be deeply ashamed.
Bill Zeleske
—
If Holly & Jim are blind partisans because they advocate the conservative position on the war, then what does that make Mr. Zeleske, who assails no less than seven supposed Republican flaws, and then raises the Left’s knee-jerk specter of “neo-conservatives”?

(Oh, and I’m sure history books will blame the Right for all of America’s troubles for many years to come—but not because some conservative-induced downfall.)

So what’s my take? I’m cautiously optimistic on the surge. Though I’m not sure 21,000 will be enough troops in the long run, we’re already seeing results:

—

Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — favored targets of car bombers. There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

—
The plan is substantive enough that it deserves a chance, and the support of all who seriously want victory in Iraq. As a non-binding resolution, this condemnation bill Petri voted for serves no other purpose than to distance politicians from both President Bush and the idea that we’re going to stay in Iraq until the mission is accomplished. Whatever the intentions behind it, the effect is just as my friends said: to give “our troops and our president a vote of no confidence. They gave not only hope, but validation to the enemy.”

Petri’s alternative is to partition Iraq into three basically-autonomous provinces for the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. Offhand, here are just a few of the problems I see in this plan: 1.) While certain sects dominate certain parts of Iraq, each has its share of minorities. Does Petri expect that it would be easy (or easier than the surge, at the very least) to forcibly uproot, say, Shiites from their homes in Iraqi Kurdistan & just plop them elsewhere nice & neat? 2.) Petri acknowledges his plan “will require negotiations over territory and oil revenues.” You think THAT’S gonna be a walk in the park? 3.) He also mentions “policing to keep the different parties apart,” which emphasizes that he’s advocating an Iraq governed by religious segregation. Won’t that serve as validation to the various bigotries that animate a segment of the violence in Iraq? After all, saying that segregation is the only way to resolve sectarian animosity suggests that there’s something natural & permanent to it. It seems to me that’s the very opposite of what our war against religious fanaticism should be.

But the real shame in Petri’s vote isn’t rejecting Bush, or touting a foolish alternative. It’s the fact that Petri has kept his mouth pretty much shut about Iraq all this time, and especially the surge plan, which has been on the table since early January. So the man we send to Washington to represent us doesn’t tell us that he opposes a major Republican position until after he casts his vote? That might be Bill Zeleske’s idea of “personal integrity;” it’s not mine.