John Vincent Coulter, RIP

Calvin Freiburger Coulter, RIP
This week, Ann Coulter eulogizes her recently-departed father. It begins:
–
The longest baby ever born at the Albany, N.Y., hospital, at least as of May 5, 1926, who grew up to be my strapping father, passed away last Friday morning.
–
As Mother and I stood at Daddy’s casket Monday morning, Mother repeated his joke to him, which he said on every wedding anniversary until a few years ago when Lewy bodies dementia prevented him from saying much at all: “54 years, married to the wrong woman.” And we laughed.
–
John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them: men […]
–
Read the rest, and please say a prayer for the Coulter family.

Campaign Financing

Calvin Freiburger blogospheliberalism, campaign finance, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, Owen Robinson, vatism
Owen Robinson’s latest column tackles campaign-finance reform:
–
There is a new push by some to use taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns. For years there has been a voluntary program in place by which taxpayers can offer some of their money for political candidates by checking a box on their tax forms and submitting the funds. These funds are set aside and offered to candidates who agree to certain fundraising and spending limits. Very few candidates accept the public funds because the spending limits that they require are too stringent for how real-world campaigns are run.
–
In Wisconsin, there is a new proposed law regarding public financing of elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates. This is part of an ongoing effort by some folks to make all campaigns publically funded.
–
The proposed law increases spending limits and makes some other tweaks, but by far, the biggest change that it makes is to use money from the general fund instead of from funds that taxpayers volunteer for that specific purpose. In other words, the bill seeks to use money that was taken from taxpayers with the threat of imprisonment instead of money that the taxpayers agreed to donate for a specific cause.
–
This is a monumental shift and for reasons both philosophical and pragmatic, this bill and other efforts to use taxpayer funds for political campaigns should be soundly rejected.
–
The philosophical reason for rejecting the publically financing of political campaigns is quite simple. Citizens should not be forced to pay for the advocacy of ideas that they oppose. Conservatives should not be forced to pay for television ads by a liberal candidate touting the glories of government controlled health care any more than a pacifist should be compelled to fund a radio campaign by a candidate who supports the Iraq War.
–
There is a deep gulf between being forced to fund government programs with which one disagrees and political campaigns with which one disagrees. The government programs were put in place by duly elected representatives of the citizenry. Nobody has elected the candidates running campaigns.
–
Beyond the philosophical reasons for rejecting publically financed campaigns, there are two extremely pragmatic campaigns. First, publically funded campaigns further strengthen the hand of incumbents in political campaigns.
–
Incumbent politicians enjoy a much greater ease in accessing media coverage. They can hold press conferences on things that they have done. They can send out surveys and informational mailings at taxpayer expense – with their names prominently displayed, of course. They are called upon for comments on pending issues by reporters and columnists. In short, an incumbent walks into any political race with the advantage of name recognition and coverage that can cost a challenger thousands of dollars to overcome.
–
Publically financed campaigns level the playing field, but only in terms of campaign spending. Since the incumbent enjoys such an advantage going into the race, the challenger will always be at a disadvantage.
–
Furthermore, one has to remember who sets the rules for who qualifies for public funds, how much can be spent, and on what it can be spent. Anyone na•ve enough to think that incumbents won’t twist the rules to their advantage deserves to be forced to pay for campaigns.
–
The great mantra of the supporters of taxpayer financing of campaigns is that it will “get the money out of politics.”
–
Hogwash.
–
The truth is that there is no moral or constitutional way to prohibit people and groups from advocating in an election. If WEAC wants to spend $2 million on television ads in support of a candidate, there is no way to stop them – nor should there be. One of the quintessential American principles is that citizens have a right to speak freely about their government. This includes advocating for or against candidates for political office.
–
If a candidate’s campaign is publically funded and he is permitted to spend $300,000 and a group of citizens spends another $2 million on his behalf, how is that different from today? Is the candidate any less “beholden to special interests” than if the group did the same thing under the current rules? No, not at all. The mechanics of political campaigns will remain the same.
–
Corrupt politicians will remain corrupt and honorable politicians will remain honorable. The only thing that will be different is that the politicians won’t have to work as hard to raise funds because the taxpayers will be forced to surrender theirs.
–
Like most campaign reform measures, taxpayer financed campaigns do nothing to solve the problems they purport to solve. Instead, they strengthen the hand of incumbents while creating more problems for those incumbents to “solve.”
–
Reject taxpayer financing of political campaigns. Instead, let’s focus on transparency and accountability. Every corrupt politician is only one election away from unemployment if the citizens will it.

Odds & Ends

Calvin Freiburger culture, Duncan Hunter, Fox News, Fred Thompson, free speech, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, O'Reilly, rap, Steyn
Good cultural news? Debbie Schlussel points to a possible shift away from rap music, in the form of decreasing sales. I’d have to see more than this to be persuaded that an actual movement away from this garbage is taking place, but we can hope.
–
Fred Thompson entered the No-Spin Zone tonight. Bill O’Reilly treated him well, and he came off well. Can we dispense with the “Fox is out to get me” hooey now?
–
Mark Steyn takes on the thought police and Canadian Islamic Congress here.
–
Duncan Hunter is staying in the race, and unfortunately, it sounds like he’s going into meltdown mode. Congressman: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BE THE NOMINEE.
–
The 20 most annoying liberals? Indeed.

"I’ve Killed More Babies Than You Have!"

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, Democrats, evil, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, murder, NARAL, Obama
You know the Democrat Party is messed up when this sort of thing is seen as a selling point: Hillary Clinton is professing to be a more vigorous defender of babykilling than Barack Obama. But in this skirmish, Obama has the upper (lower?) hand:
–
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
–
So Barack is even more extreme than NARAL. I don’t think Hillary can top that, but the fact that she’d like to speaks volumes about her.

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.

Near-Confrontation at Sea

Calvin Freiburger Iran, military, War on Terror
This was a close one:
–
According to CNN, the U.S. ships were “harrassed” and received “threatening” radio transmissions from the Iranians, including a communication that included remarks to the effect that the American boats would be blown up. The report was later confirmed by the Pentagon.
–
No shots fired, but at least one U.S. ship was making preparations to fight, according to the report. Five Iranian ships were said to be involved in the incident, which took place in the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping channel for Middle Eastern crude.
–
Obviously, this is part of Bushilter Co.’s master plan to keep his power by drumming up fear about innocent Muslims. Obviously.

Pathetic

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, demagogues, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, torture, treason, useful idiots, War on Terror, Wisconsin
I’ve never thought too highly of Wisconsin blogger and frequent Boots & Sabers commenter Scott Feldstein, but now he’s hit a new low. On December 19 he wrote an irate post about how morally inferior those of us who support torture of terrorists in certain circumstances are. The (censored) highlights:
–
When the f*** did we start condoning state sanctioned torture? Raise your hand right now if you’re for torture. I’ll make a list of people whom I would not let walk my dog, let alone have any position of responsibility or judgement. A list of moral retards…Anyone who wants to trade their souls for some perceived security is a chickens*** motherf***er who should be kept far away from small children and sharp objects.
–
Of course, we know waterboarding has worked, and a lot of innocent American civilians could very well be dead today if Feldstein had his way. Oh, and this guy’s concern about human rights, compassion, and the US’s moral credibility is wholly selective—predictably, he supports killing innocent babies. Phony.
–
As pathetic as all this is, it isn’t what spurred me to write this post. In the comments section, we see the following exchange:
–
MIKE: being a fomer us marine if it saves only one of my brothers im all for it,fight fire with fire. it is clear to me none of you have ever been to a combat zone or have ever served this great nation! its called war for a reason.suck it up butter cups!
–
SCOTT: It’s clear to me, Mike, that you don’t really understand what makes our nation great in the first place.
–
MIKE: Your telling a us marine he doesnt understand what makes his nation great ! its people like me that went to somolia ,the gulf .i earned my f***ing stay, what the f*** have you done? just keep running your sewer we all need a breeze
–
SCOTT: I stand by what I said, Mike. One of the things that makes our nation great is the fact that we have respect for individual liberty and human rights. One of the chief manifestations of this value is the fact that we don’t torture people. I won’t give up my values for safety (real or perceived). How about you? Thanks for your service, by the way. As for what I’ve done, I earn the money that pays your salary.
–
Where does this twerp get off thinking he can tell an American serviceman he doesn’t understand his country’s greatness? The arrogance, the sense of innate superiority, is stunning. What a pathetic, disgusting hypocrite.

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?