About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Typical, Inflammatory Coulter: Why CPAC Invited Her, I Will Never Know

Posted by on Saturday, March 03, 2007 9:28:42 AM
 I am only going to take a moment to address this, and I do hope Ann Coulter is happy with herself. That link will send you to Captain Ed's site. The quote is there, and I will not repeat it here. What has happened to this once, admirable conservative. all of a sudden, lately, she has gone from being sensible to unhinged; at least in public.

There is a reason why we do not listen to Michael Savage. He is as fringe as the majority of the Left, and he sits on our side. So, both sides have nuts like the fringe dwellers. Granted, our side does not have the "fever swampers," but with people like Ann coulter on our side, sometimes I wonder. I am sure Ann will get a chuckle out of the all the notice that she has garnered from her comment at the end of her CPAC speech, and I am sure she will do a column or make a comment telling us conservatives to grow thicker skin.

No, Ann. You need to grow up. The Left dislikes you because of how downright nasty you can get in a column, calling them on their hypocrisy and their lies. You know their tricks as well as they do; as well as any staunch conservative does. But these antics that you keep pulling is not endearing you to the conservative base. You are irritating it. These are people who have supported you, and would continue to support you were it not for your continued, childish antics.

I do hope the people at CPAC pick up on this. I hope they see that she tends to make an @$$ out of herself when she sees fit to do so. As Captain Ed astutely noted, it is time the GOP get over this hang-up about homosexuality. Those people will not miraculously become straight tomorrow. To closae this out, I would like to highlight this from Captain Ed's post, as it seems that he has a little debate raging in his comments section:

First, criticizing Coulter's use of the word "f****t" is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We're not advocating her arrest for using the word. We're just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. This is no different than Melissa McEwan calling Christians "Christofascist Godbags" and Amanda Marcotte's incendiary hate speech about Catholics. We howled about that when John Edwards hired them; why do we defend Coulter's appearance at CPAC?

Also, if CPAC continues to invite Coulter to these events, then unfortunately, these little rhetorical bombs reflect on conservatives. We just spent most of the week criticizing John McCain for not meeting the conservative base at CPAC. If Coulter said this in an interview on her own, it would not have reflected on CPAC or conservatives but on herself. Yesterday, though, she used our platform for that little nugget of vileness -- and some in the audience cheered her for it. Conclusions can reasonably be drawn from that.

Her comments DO reflect on us, especially when it is at an official event like this. Can anyone imagine if she was a keynote speaker at the RNC, and dropped a rhetorical bombshell like that? We could kiss the White House good-bye because deep down inside voters, for the most part, are appalled by behavior like this. And Captain Ed has a very viable point when it comes to the Marcotte/McEwen dust-up.

Here are two women who purposefully insulted Christians because of God's knows why. Maybe they are not religious. Maybe, like many on the Left, they cannot believe so many people would "delude themselves." Regardless, we call them on the carpet for a lack of decency, but we are willing to give Ann a pass? I think not. Her statement was below the belt and beyond comprehension. If I were involved in any major campaigning for the GOP, and there was fundraiser where she was planning to attend, I would personally have nothing to do with that event. The only way she is going to get it through her head that she cannot act like this in public--especially at an official GOP event--is if the base tells the event people that if she attends, they will not.

We liked Ann. We still do enjoy her columns. They pale in comparison to some of her live junkets. This marks the third time I know of that I have taken her to task for her unprofessional and inflammatory behavior. I do not care what she thinks of John Edwards--a man right now who is lucky to come in third in the DNC straw polls. We know what she thinks of Hillary. And I cringe to think what she might have said about Obama.

It would have been a lot easier for Ann to stand up, applaud the candidates that were there, talk about each one, and move on. No, she had to pull an Al Franken and end her speech on a bad joke. And in doing so, she left CPAC with a black eye. Way to go, Ann. Now it falls to us to take the brunt of the criticism when the Left starts firing potshots over the comment.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CPAC Round-up: The GOP Stars Shine; Rudy's Speech Not As Good As It Should Have Been

Posted by on Friday, March 02, 2007 4:07:17 PM
 How I wish we were at CPAC this year. Not just to see Rudy, but to meet former Speaker Gingrich, former Governor Huckabee, and fellow bloggers in the Blogger's Corner. (Strange that CPAC calls it a corner because as Captain astutely points out, it is not a corner, but rather a row.) But enough on semantics. That is not why i decided to do this post. No, I decided to pick up on something that Captain Ed posted about the AWOL John McCain:

It's not often I disagree with my friend John Podhoretz at The Corner, but today's post on John McCain and CPAC struck me as rather odd. In response to a post by Kathryn Jean Lopez that scolded McCain for skipping both NRI and CPAC, John said that McCain was right to stay away:

If I were a McCain adviser, there's no way I would recommend he attend CPAC. The stakes are simply too high. It's a total sandbagging opportunity for people who want to derail him. The last thing he needs is a headline like "Conservatives boo McCain," and you know people attending CPAC know it and would love nothing more than to provide that headline. Anything less than a performance that wowed his enemies on the Right would only do him injury.

I understand John's analysis, but all this does is confirm that McCain has no business running for the Republican nomination. McCain has gone out of his way to stress his conservative credentials, especially on hot-button topics such as abortion and the war. If that's true, then what does he have to fear from a conference of conservatives predisposed to his positions? In fact, if he claims to represent conservatives, why should he fear speaking in front of a group of them?

We debated this quite a bit on Blogger's Corner yesterday (which is somewhat misnamed, since we occupy a row and not a corner, but that's another story).Someone made the point that the eventual nominee needs the people in this conference to act as foot soldiers in the general election. What does it say to those foot soldiers if that nominee is too afraid to face them because he might get booed -- a slim possibility in any case? How does that nominee inspire loyalty in those he explicitly spurned out of the gate?

If McCain wanted to win the nomination as a straightforward Rockefeller Republican, his snub would make sense. It makes none if he wants to convince us that he's more conservative than Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two men with spottier records than his but two men who had the intestinal fortitude to appear before conservatives to make their case. John is usually spot-on in his analysis, but he's off the mark here.

UPDATE: Another blogger here at the BC reminds me that Arlen Specter showed up here yesterday and gave a speech, and no one booed him -- and the conservatives have more reasons to boo Specter than McCain.

Indeed, this is a bad message for John McCain to send to the base, and anyone who states that CPAC does not represent the base is sadly mistaken. Thomas and I have made no attempts to obfuscate our distaste for John McCain. We have watched him closely in recent years, and as he is the senior senator from Arizona, we felt it necessary to keep an eye on him. His pratfalls in recent years have raised the ire of conservatives across this nation. He knows that.

But it would seem smarter of him to appear before those who dislike them in an attempt to persuade them. He will not win friends or supporters by snubbing the same people he needs on his side to win. And that is precisely what he did with CPAC. Of course, after his snide comment about "wasting" the lives of troops over in Iraq during his Letterman appearance would not have endeared him to those at CPAC. And yes, he might have been booed by those there. But in the end, he still should have appeared. After all, Newt Gingrich showed up, and he still has not announced his candidacy. (I am sure that many at CPAC congratulated him for his his statements on Hillary Clinton; not that we needed a reminder of her shameless tactics.)

This was, in my opinion, not a snub by McCain. This was an outright retreat from the base. I would also like to note that Slate's John Dickerson did a story about how McCain plans to handle the Rudy momentum. (A word to the rest of the GOP candidates out there--he will use the same tactics against them, as well.)

McCain also trails Rudy Giuliani by almost 20 points in the latest Time and ABC/Washington Post polls. For now, the McCain team is taking a measured approach to the widening gap. Their principal strategy is to wait and let Giuliani fall of his own weight. Once conservatives learn about Giuliani's pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay-rights positions, McCain aides expect, their rival's support will diminish considerably. Giuliani's commitment to conservative judges took a knock Thursday, and Giuliani supporter and former solicitor general Ted Olson went right on the air to rebut the charges to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. As Giuliani's own research suggests, the press is also likely to cover his three marriages, business dealings, and experience during the Vietnam War. The McCain campaign will make no Clintonlike efforts to draw their rival off-sides, at least for the moment. They will hope the press does their work for them (sometimes with their guidance).

He is relying on his so-called, self-defined "base." He believes the press is his base, but fails to understand that should he obtain the nomination, the press will turn on him the way a rabid dog turns on it's owner. His base should be conservatives--the same ones at CPAC. He opted out of this event; with his spokesman at CPAC covering for him talking about how he had planned events already on the books. Regardless of his "booked" events, he should have at least made a small appearance at CPAC. It is the only way he could shore up the base, and reinforce his conservative principles.

Before I sign off, I would like to add this addendum, courtesy of K-Lo @ NRO's The Corner:

Romney's addressing CPAC now and oh boy is this different than the disappointing speech he gave in late January at the NRI conservative summit. A few red-meat lines: "It's time to take government apart and put it back together." Wants to make it "simpler, smarter, and smaller." He said, "I will fight to repeal McCain-Feingold." Talking about the marriage fight he said "It is the people who are soveriegn in America, not a few folks in black robes." He talks confidentally about the war and has a good line about how Pelosi and read shouldn't be dictating frontlines strategy. He's gotten a ton of applause and has kept a steady beat. This is a speech — ending on a forceful, adament, ticked-off but optimistic about the future note. "Our traditonal values" are on the line, we're under attack, and the government is a mess and he's not going to stand for it, dammit.

This is the speech he should have given in January at our summit. This is the speech he should have given when he launched the campaign. This speech — this is a rallying speech.

I hate to say it, but it sounds like the "victory" at CPAC goes to Mitt Romney rather than Rudy Giuliani, as Dean Barnett addresses:

In the scheme of things and even in the very limited scope of judging this afternoon’s speech, the Matthews faux pas was a tiny thing. But it was revealing. The entire speech didn’t work. The whole thing was off. It was boring. Rudy entered the hall welcomed as a rock star. He then put the crowd to sleep as his lack of preparation became a glaring weakness.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ben Smith Goes After Rudy's Defenders

Posted by on Friday, March 02, 2007 2:53:29 PM
Last time I'm going to touch on this issue because, frankly, I'd like us to move onto other news that Rudy. Ben Smith is at it again over at the Politico, taking swipes at Giuliani over his judicial picks. This time he drew a bead on Bill Simon's talk with Captain Ed at the CPAC event, and Ted Olsen's interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday. Mr. Smith is, of course, referring to the Mayor's committee that sent him the judges he had to pick from, and posits that Rudy could have done more to show he stood for the sort of judges that he is claiming he would appoint to the United States Supreme Court.

While I get the point, I think Mr. Smith fails to see the overall point, or at least the differences in jurists. Rudy appointed judges to the criminal courts, and subsequent lower courts to deal with crime and social issues. (As I stated yesterday, this includes familial problems, divorces, etc.) There is an overwhelming difference between these courts, and the US federal court system. The New York courts don't deal with issues of Constitutional jurisprudence. They deal with state laws and statutes. One of Rudy's "Democrat" judges isn't going to address freedom of speech issues.

Add to the mix Ted Olsen, which Rudy stated in his interview with Hugh Hewitt that he'd be talking to Mr. Olsen above anybody else when it comes to constructionist jurists. I trust Ted Olsen's judicial philosophy, and I trust that Rudy won't be bucking his recommendations. But trust is something that's earned. It's not given freely. Let's just say that I trust Rudy not to make a Souter mistake, a purposeful Ginsburg choice, or a Miers snafu.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Column Up At Common Conservative

Posted by on Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:21:36 PM
 Ladies and gentlemen, this is your friendly, neighborhood reminder that it is that time of the month again, and Thomas and I are proud to unveil our brand new column at Common Conservative, and our first as staff writers for Mr. Lindaman. It is now guaranteed that we will be there on the 1st and 16th of every month imparting our sometimes quirky but always serious opinions on a particular subject, or subjects.

This new column marks a departure from the normal routine. As Mr. Lindaman reminded his readers in an e-mail about two weeks ago, we have been a mainstay there, known for our Passing Thoughts In Life's Rearview Mirror columns where we recount the months biggest stories. This column today--making the case for Rudy Giuliani--was important enough for us right now that we decided to move our traditional column aside. And just to satisfy David Kirkpatrick, no we weren't paid to write this piece.

But despite some minor self-promotion about our piece, there are others equally matched to us. Mr. Lindaman tries to explain the current Congress, and helps readers to understand what has happened to the body, in general. (That does come with his trademark wit and sarcasm at no extra charge.)

Vincent Fiore brings up the ghost of years past in reopening the discussion on the Strategic Defense Inititive, this time minus the usual list of "Sith Lords."

Global warming and climate change are the focus of Patrick Shanahan's fine piece, and no, to the chagrin of Hollywood, the answer to the issue is no The Goracle."

We welcome newbie staff writer Larry Simoneaux to the Common Conservative fold, and his piece on "improvements" in recent years seems to have a fitting place in history. After all, will we return to the same old, same old in 2008 as the candidates proclaim themselves "improved" from previous elections?

William Calhoun takes a different, much shorter stance in opposition to Rudy compared to our own piece. We are not saying Rudy is THE one, but he is definitively the R-O-L-A-I-D-S the nation needs to prevent a Hillary presidency.

Border Patrol agents doing their jobs, and suddenly becoming the bad guys in the eyes of DHS and ICE is the focus of Sher Zieve's superb piece.

Thomas Ledford,/li> dicusses a few inconvenient truths regarding the hype of global warming. (And again, "The Goracle" is not the answer.)

Nobel Peace Prizes are vexing Doug Patton as he ponders why "The Goracle" is even being considered. (C'mon folks, it's not like he pulled a Carter and slammed hi own nation to win one. for Gore, there should be some pre-qualifiers for this award.)

Erik Rush talks about freedom of speech and what that means to the Left. Just a clue, I do not think it means what they think it means. We get to pipe up, as well. This is not just a one-way street.

And, Christopher Adamo closes out this issue with a little reminder regarding the hypocrisy and deceit of the Left. It is definitely a party that tells the nation "Do as we say and not as we do," rather than giving us the same freedom they claim their station in life grants them.

As always, this post will remain at the top of the page for the next 24 hours. Updates (and there will be some as tomorrow is our day off together and we REGULARLY co-blog throughout the day) will be below this post. Please, go an enjoy the fine minds at Common Conservative, and welcome the two neewest additions to Mr. Lindaman's staff.

Thomas & Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Captain Ed, Bill simon Dispel The Rudy Judge Issue

Posted by on Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:20:39 PM
 In keeping up with this running montage of posts concerning Rudy's judicial appointments (debate begun by Ben Smith of The Politico who has agreed to an interview with Hugh Hewitt today on Hugh's show), I'd like to bring up this from Captain Ed:

I asked Simon about the recent issue with judges. The Politico posted an article on Rudy's track record on judicial nominations, and reported that Giuliani appointed more Democrats than Republicans to the bench as Mayor. Hower, Simon called this misleading. The mayor does not have a free hand in judicial appointments in New York City. An independent panel gives the mayor a choice of three candidates for each open seat, and the mayor has to select from those three. Rudy did not choose the candidates; he had to select one of three locked-in choices.

For the record, according to Captain Ed, Bill Simon was at the CPAC meeting today, and happened to stop by Blog-row. Mr. Simon's statement is backed up by historical fact. The m,ayor doesn't get to choose the guy he wants. He chooses from among the three judges assembled by the independent panel.

Right now, we're listening to Hugh's interview with Ted Olsen, and he has repeated what I have said, which is that he would choose people based on their judicial philosophy. He wants the most-qualified jurist he can find to be on the high court that will interpret, not invent the law. Mr. Olsen assures Hugh that Rudy would make the right choices for the federal bench, and that he's not going to press the social issues the way some people perceive to possibly attempt.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ben Smith Responds To Hugh's Column On Rudy's Judges: I respond To The Retaliation

Posted by on Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:27:46 PM
 Ben Smith has fired back at Hugh Hewitt after Hugh posted a column addressing Mr. Smith's assertions regarding Rudy's judicial appointments as mayor. I quote:

Rudy hasn't responded, as far as I've seen, to my story today on his judicial appontments, and his campaign declined to make his senior aides available when I was writing it.

But the conservative blogger and talker Hugh Hewitt -- who says "reliability on judges" should be the "second most important issue" for GOP voters -- has some interesting transcript from a recent interview he did with Rudy. Mostly, Rudy talked boilerplate conservative Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito-boosting talk, but he also dipped into his own record:

"My goal [in New York] was more the criminal justice issues. You know, were they going to be tougher on crime, basically. Were they going to interpret some of the massive grants and rights that were given to criminals with an eye toward protecting the victims and protecting society. And I think I did a pretty good job of that. I can’t say I was 100%, but I think I did a pretty darn good job of that."

That's consistent with what I reported, and I wish I'd seen the quote before I filed. The president of the International Lesbian and Gay Judges Association, a Giuliani appointee, for example, found a way to lable lap-dancing "prostitution," and convict people for it.

But tough-on-crime has little to do with constitutional interpretation. Indeed, the central point here is that he was appointing judges not with matters of jurisprudence in mind at all, but with policy results in mind. That's emphatically not what social conservatives say they want, and I think really not what they want from a pro-choice president.

"Rudy Giuliani needs to respond in detail to the Politico’s barrage," Hewitt writes. (Barrage?)

OK, so maybe it wasn't a barrage in the true sense, but the piece was clearly designed to place Rudy's possible appointments in doubt. And while Mr. Smith does acknoweledge there is a difference between Constitutional jurisprudence and criminal/social matters, he fails to understand the difference, as highlighted in his final paragraph above. The criminal courts are to enforce the laws on the books. When it comes to family law, again the question goes to what the laws state.

Now, are there going to be the occasional jurists who go a little wonky at times? Of course. Mark Levin wrote an outstanding book regarding that very subject, and so did Jan Crawford Greenburg. Both showed how judges inject their personal preferences into decisions, and those particular opinions have no jurisprudential backing whatsoever.

Yes, Rudy appointed some judges that might have questionable opinions, but as he stated in the interview with Hugh, he gave no litmus tests to these jurists. He wanted to know if they were qualified, and if they believed in upholding the law. They did. He appointed them. Let's face it, judges aren't going to be right 100% of the time. As Marcie and I have shown (and Hugh, and the guys at PowerLine, and Mark Levin, and the guys at Confirm them) we call the judges to account when they make nutter decisions. And that's just on the federal judiciary. If we criticized every judge on every level of the law, we'd never be commenting on anything else.

While we understand the point of Mr. Smith's piece, and his answer back to Hugh, we still insist that there is a definitive difference between criminal court judges, and those that sit on the Appeals court and the USSC. The judges that Rudy appointed didn't have to wrangle with Constitutional issues, be it at the state or federal level. We have confidence that when he states he is looking for jurists in the mold of the constructionists/textualists on the high court, he means it. But again, Hugh is right. Rudy does need to answer the question regarding his own philosophy on federal judges. He can't simply cite "judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" and walk away. People want to know the type (name them if possible) that he'd appoint, and where his philosophy regarding the Constitution is. We know that he is a proponent of States rights, and that's a start. No's the time to expand on that.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Politico Slams Rudy's NYC Judges: In His Defense, I Explain The Differences

Posted by on Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:10:50 PM
 Part of baseball is knowing how to play small ball. That's what we're doing today. Because we are a bit busy at home today, we're doing hit-and-run posts; those not as long as our usual posts, but we're trying to keep up on news today. And I'd like to address this piece from the Politico discussing Rudy Giuliani's choices for the bench in New York:

But most of Giuliani's judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito -- much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology. ...

... Giuliani's judicial appointments continue to win good reviews in New York legal circles for being what conservatives sometimes say they want: competent lawyers selected with no regard to "litmus tests" on hot-button social issues. Many of these people were in the mode of Giuliani himself: tough-on-crime former prosecutors with reformist streaks and muted ideologies.

"He took it very seriously -- he spent a lot of time with these candidates," recalled Paul Curran, a Republican and former U.S. attorney who chaired Giuliani's Commission on Judicial Nominations. "He was looking for judges who were willing to enforce the laws."

The mayor of New York appoints judges to three of the state's lowest courts, the Criminal Court and Family Court, which deal with lower-grade crimes than the state's Supreme Court, the main trial court and the Civil Court, which deals in relatively small financial disputes.

Now, why do you think I highlighted the above paragraph? Succinctly put, he was putting people on the bench to deal with crime and social issues (such as divorce and family law matters). They weren't appointed to the New York State Supreme Court. The heaviest thing these judges would have to deal with are the nuances between murder and manslaughter; indecency and vandalism. They weren't determining issues regarding the Establishment Clause, the Due Process Clause, or Double Jeopardy clause. They didn't deal with Constitutional issues.

Hugh's right in stating that he needs to address this at CPAC, but I'm sure that this is similar to the point he would make. And I'm sure even Hugh would agree, especially after his interview with Rudy, that there is a significant difference between criminal and Constitutional law. Hugh also reminds us (not that Marcie and I need such a reminder) that Ted Olsen is working with Rudy and is supporting him. In that interview with the former mayor, the following exchange took place:

HH: You know, you picked up Ted Olson’s endorsement, taking a digression. That’s a big deal. Will he be playing a role in your campaign?

RG: He sure will. I mean, Ted Olson is someone I have…first of all, he’s a very, very good friend. I mean, he’s someone…he’s been my friend since those days, and we’ve been through a lot together. Yes, Ted will play a very big role in my campaign, and I mean, if Ted weren’t my very, very good friend, he’d be somebody I’d still want to rely on as probably one of the biggest experts on the Constitution in this country, and the person who probably has argued before the Supreme Court more than anybody I know.

HH: He or Judge Starr, one of those two are the two most…

RG: He or Ken have probably argued before the Supreme Court more than anyone that I know, and their knowledge of it is remarkable. I mean, it’s a great asset to anybody.

HH: Will he help you pick judges if you are the president, and you’re making Supreme Court selections?

RG: He’d be one of the first people that I’d turn to for advice and help and assistance. And I was involved in the Reagan administration in the judge selection process, although that was run by the deputy attorney general, and I was involved in the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. But I watched all of it, and I appointed 100 judges myself. And it’s something I thought of, when I was the Mayor, as one of the most important things that I did.

So, for all the conservatives out there that suddenly self their stomachs jump when they read this piece last night, calm down, and pop a couple Tums. I still trust that should he become president, Rudy will appoint judges that possess the judicial philosophy of a Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Rudy is, we should remember, a law-and-order sort of person. He is also, by far, a candidate that believes that the States should have a greater role in determining some of the issues that conservatives seem to have a problem over when it comes to him. For years now, the USSC has been ignoring the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the States' rights to make laws governing their citizenry.

We have seen them undermine the States in a number of key cases. Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Casey, Carhart, and Granville are just a few of the cases where the high court has overruled the States' own laws, and handed such issues over to the federal government--the judiciary specifically--directly violating the Tenth Amendment's enumerated right of making and enforcing laws on citizens on issues not yet in the purview of the federal government.

While his judges may not have been up to par for some critics, his choices for criminal and civil matters will differ from those he would choose to put on the federal bench. While the Politico article acknowledges this in part, it doesn't trully address it. I have. We still stand by Rudy in his assertion he would nominate constructionists to the federal bench. And that, folks, is more than I can say for John McCain, who prefers to usurp the president's power to nominate judges, and has no problem denying nominees their appropo up-or-down vote.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jack Murtha Pipes Up Again; Slapped Down By Small-Fish

Posted by on Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:29:36 PM
 I am the first one out the gate today, and I discovered this op-ed from Jack Murtha through Real Clear Politics. Needless to say, I think it would be best if Mr. Murtha kept his mouth shut before he upset his fellow Democrats in the House, again:

Let's revisit history. On Nov. 17, 2005, I said that the failed war policies of this administration were destroying the future of our military. I said that our military is stretched thin, that the war in Iraq is resulting in significant shortfalls at our bases in the United States and that we must rebuild our Army. I knew then that the war policies of this administration were unsustainable and that our military preparedness and strategic reserve would suffer.

After visiting Iraq in 2003, I was the one who found severe shortages in body armor and shortages in armor and spare parts for our military vehicles. I worked with my colleagues to fix these problems. Since the start of this war, Congress has provided an additional $145 billion for essential war fighting and life sustaining items which the president did not ask for but which were needed. Congress also provided funding for 30,000 extra troops as a "temporary increase in end strength" because our military asked for it.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of all Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest levels of readiness. Just the opposite is true today. Virtually all of our active-duty combat units at home and all of our guard units are at the lowest level of readiness.

This rates more like revisionist history rather than a revisitation of it. The armor question was dealt with rather quickly by the Pentagon once it was determined that our enemies were using IEDs against convoys, and the Humvees needed stronger armor. In fact, his assessment of a lack of armor or readiness now is a farce; a political talking point at best turned into a desperate lie from the Left.

The units are ready to be deployed, and the sheer fact he is citing Gen. Pace shows the desperation Jack Murtha is espousing. Gen. David Petreus has said his units in Iraq are quite ready, well-equipped, and doing their jobn. They do need the extra forces over there to continue a surge that has been met with a great deal of success since the new offensive began despite what the critics have been saying. But Jack Murtha and the Democrats are trying to spin it as though our troops are not up to the task. They are also lying about how much they care about the safety and well-being of the troops.

If they actually believed that, then they would not be trying to pass non-binding resolutions in an attempt to constrain the president and turn more people against the plans for victory. If they truly believed that, then they would not be sending a message to our enemies, with thier constant squabbling and attempts to micro-manage things, that this nation is divided over our efforts to destroyt them. If they truly believed that they appreciated the troops efforts, they would not be trying to "undeclare" a war they cannot, or to withdraw the troops before their mission is done.

Jack Murtha is certainly entitled to his opinion, though we would prefer it was a bit more educated than what he is presenting to the public. It is clear from his op-ed that he has an axe to grind, and a soapbox to stand on with the hopes that someone will listen to him. The Blue Dog Democrats in the House rebelled against his latest not-so-stealthy attempt to undermine the president. If he keeps this up, there is likely to be repercussions coming from his constituents and his colleagues. And when that happens, there will be no hiding behind Nancy Pelosi's skirt to protect him. He is significantly raising the ire of many of his colleagues in the House, and they appear to have had just about enough of this dishonorable cry-baby.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Slapping The NY Times For Lowbrow Journalism

Posted by on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:57:59 PM
 Our readers know that we listen to Hugh Hewitt. We read his blog, and we respect his opinion amidst the millions of bloggers out there. But this post today irritated the Hell out of both of us:

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times called my publisher today and requested an interview with me about A Mormon In The White House. I called him back, and the conversation began with the history of the project and my experience filmg Searching For God In America in the mid-90s. As is my practice, I invited him to conduct the interview on my show so that America could hear how the MSM goes about its work. He declined.

Then Mr. Kirkpatrick asked me how much my advance had been, which I declined to state.

He then asked if I was aware of a Boston Globe story from last year about Romney's spreading money around the conservative movement. I had not heard of or seen that story.

And shortly thereafter he asked if I or any entity related to me had been paid by Mitt Romney or any organization affiliated with him to write the book.

Excuse me? How does this relate to a legitimate question? Better question, since when do MSM journalists think that anyone who supports a particular public figure--be it the president, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, et al--suddenly need to be equated to Armstrong Williams? I find the question itself extremely offensive. I also find David Kirkpatrick's line of questioning very much out of line.

At this point, I'd bring up what I brought up to Hugh this afternoon when I called into his show: Did the New York Times get kickbacks from the book written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau that took a dirty swipe at the White house? did the New York Times bankroll the book? They did a big rollout for their book, did a fawning review of it, so did the New York Times get any money out of the deal? Better question, did they bankroll the book? See, it can cut both ways. For the record, I don't believe that they did pay them to write the book, nor do I think they received any sort of money in return for their investigative journalism.

Hugh's right. That question and that mindset is the equivalent of the old question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's lowbrow and completely unprofessional. David Kirkpatrick should be ashamed he even brought the question up, but he won't. And personally speaking, I don't think that his question was a deliberate swipe at Hugh. I think it goes more to the bias of the paper. It's obvious they don't like Republicans, or conservatives, in general. The interview he had with Hugh was obviously an attempt to dig up dirt that wasn't there to begin with.

This is why the New York Times is failing on every level, with nearly every major story they break. The supposition and bias inherent in their reporting shows through so badly that journalists like Mr. Kirkpatrick are reduced to the level of tabloid journalism; digging up dirt that doesn't exist just to push a story that's completely irrelevant.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (5) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John Edwards Talks Up A Non-Aggression Pact With Iran

Posted by on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:57:01 PM
Many of our regular readers know that when it comes to Iran, we emphasize the point that we are repeating history but on a much grander scale. We have stated that talking with them is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlains discussions with Hitler. Well, welcome back to 1934, ladies and gentlemen, and Neville Chamberlain reincarnated in John Edwards. Yes, the man known affectionately by such luminaries as Laura Ingraham and Allah @ Hot Air (who receives the Hat-Tip for this story) as "Silky Pony" wants to make a non-aggression pact with Iran:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a group of New Hampshire voters Saturday that he would consider pursuing a nonaggression pact between the United States and Iran.

Edwards' statement came in answer to a voter's question at a house party in Nashua on Saturday morning. Asked about it later in an interview with ABC News, Edwards confirmed that he views such a treaty — in which the United States would promise not to attack Iran — as "a possibility down the road." But he emphasized that the Iranian government would first have to change its behavior in several areas.

"I wouldn't give away anything until it became clear what the intent of Iran was, that they've given up any nuclear ambition, that they would no longer sponsor Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations," Edwards told ABC News, in an interview to be broadcast on "Nightline" Monday night. "So there would be huge jumps and these things would all have to be verifiable. We'd have to be certain that they were occurring in order to get to that stage. But I think we would consider all of our relations on the table."

Yes, and monkeys might fly out of my behind. Is Edwards really this naive? Does he really believe that Iran will change without some sort of intervention from the outside world? Frank Gaffney has stated repeatedly that the US should be working to beef up, train, and prepare the dissidents in Iran to help them overthrow the mullahs. And of those dissidents, does Edwards disavow they exist? They are the primary reason why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is having the problems internally, right now.

A non-aggression pact offer on the table sends the wrong message to the world. It sends the message the Iranian mullahocracy has been waiting to hear. It shows the US has no fortitude to deal with them directly. It sends the message around the world that when push comes to shove, and an enemy is threatening us and our allies, we would rather negotiate. Bad mistake, Mr. Edwards, and one that should and will cost you dearly in the primaries. We expect to see this quote dragged out by his Democrat opponents, and should he make it to the nomination (fat chance), his Republican opponent will hang him with his own words.

Say what you will about the GOP front-runners, but each one fo them recognize the number one issue of the 2008 election revolves around national security and the war on terror. With the above statement, John Edwards shows the nation he does not have the foggiest notion what this war is about, or who our enemies are.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

J-Pod Discusses The "Liberal Slayer"

Posted by on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:14:29 PM
 Hugh Hewitt reminds me of a column that Thomas bookmarked for me this morning from John Podhoretz. Mr. Podhoretz brings up some very driving points about the run of Rudy Giuliani fro president. In short, he is, as they both say, a "liberal slayer":

IT is nearly impossible for the chattering classes - on all sides of the political divide - to comprehend the heat being generated by Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid.

The fallback explanation is just to say "9/11" and be done with it. After all, how else can you explain a man with Giuliani's supposedly liberal social views possibly rise as high as he has - besting John McCain among Republicans by as many as 22 points in one poll?

Many on the right profess amazement at the lead he's opened up among Republican primary voters, considering his pro-choice views and sloppy personal life.

Meanwhile, writers on the left express disbelief at the notion that a pro-choice Republican candidate might be able to win the GOP nomination. According to the best Leftist analyst of American politics, Michael Tomasky, abortion is simply "too fundamental an issue for most Republican caucus goers and primary voters (even in California, with its likely Feb. 5 primary) to work around."

Indeed, it is a fundamental issue for America, however there are two problems with the profession of the pundits regarding his pro-choice stance:

#1--In the age of global terrorism, abortion matters little. If we fail to win this war, all the little issues will not amount ot a hill of beans. We will be too busy fighting our enemies on American soil to worry about abortion.

#2--Abortion is an issue that the courts must decide on. Until Roe, Casey, Doe v. Bolton, and a host of other cases are dealt with, it remains in the purview of the courts, and the federal government. Hence why Rudy has stated repeatedly that this is a matter best left to the States and the voters, provided it is overturned, and he is pushing for constructionist jurists for the federal bench. That would solve the problem.

#3--If you are a conservative and you believe in the three exemptions under the law, then whether you admit it or not, you are pro-choice just like Rudy.

There's a perfectly simple answer to the Rudy paradox. When Republican voters look at Rudy Giuliani, they know one key fact about him: They know he's no liberal.

They may not exactly know why yet, but they know it.

And they're right.

Rudy may call himself pro-choice. He may have signed legislation mandating benefits to gay couples. He may have been a supporter of gun control. He may even have endorsed Mario Cuomo for governor in 1994. These are all things he's going to have to explain and answer for in Republican debates and the like.

But more than any other candidate in the race, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal-slayer. When he rejects liberal orthodoxy, which he does often, he doesn't just oppose it. He goes to war with it - total, unconditional war.

He spent his political career chewing up liberal orthodoxy and spitting it out - and I think that somehow, in some way, voters in Oklahoma and Kansas get that about him even without knowing the specifics.

His success in turning New York around wasn't merely a matter of changing policies. He had to sustain those policies when they came under deliberate, systematic and unrelenting assault by the city's liberal elite.

The money quotes. He is ardently against the liberalism of today's modern Democrats. That is what a lot of conservative pundits (Ramesh Ponurru among them) forgets. He is feisty, he is combative, and as Thomas pointed out early this morning that sort of attitude appeals to conservatives fed up with the DC mindset of "business as usual."

Mr. Podhoretz hits the nail on the head. Conservatives who are supporting Rudy right now get it. They understand that we are at a crossroads in our history, and that we need leaders like Rudy right now. Dislike him for his social stances (as many of our regular readers have pointed out in e-mails and comments) but you cannot discount his leadership. He brought New York back from the brink of oblivion. And for those out there (such as the New York Magazine hatchet job) that cannot tolerate the man, tough. Deal with it. They can wonder why so many conservatives can support the man, but we know deep-down inside that he follows the same path that Ronald Reagan did. He is the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

We need his leadership in this nation, now more than ever. We know this. We have embraced it. We hope and pray that nothing happens to his campaign during this run.

Hugh also brings up how others are running over to John McCain's side. That is fine for us, but we know that his run is already doomed from the start. He can kiss and make up to the "religious right" he ticked off in 2000. He can state he will repeal Roe practically single-handidly (Lord knows HOW he will pull that promise off; executive orders cannot make Constitutional amendments), but in the end the conservative base knows where John McCain stands. It is not in our corner. Rudy is. And bravo to John Podhoretz for noticing that we may know something about the man that others do not seem to grasp.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Weapons Factory Found And Shut Down; Quds General In Custody

Posted by on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:17:23 AM
 Oops. Who's head is going to roll over this story?

(HT: John over at PowerLine)

U.S. officers said Monday they had discovered a factory for assembling sophisticated roadside bombs from Iranian-made components _ the first such facility uncovered in a religiously mixed province north of Baghdad.

The officers, who displayed weapons for reporters at a U.S. base in the capital, said the find provides more evidence that the Iranians are providing weapons used to kill Americans. They include EFPs _ explosively formed projectiles _ that fire a slug of molten metal capable of penetrating armored vehicles and have been blamed for killing more than 170 U.S. and coalition soldiers since 2004.

The display was the latest in a series presented by the U.S. military to bolster its allegation that Iranian weapons are being supplied to Shiite militias. Iran has denied the charge, and some private defense analysts say Iranian weaponry is widely available on international arms markets. U.S. ordnance experts maintain that the workmanship on component parts is uniquely Iranian and too high in quality to have been copied by Iraqi extremists without access to advanced machinery.

Military officials said the cache _ buried in two freezers and a water container, with some of the rockets covered by tarps _ was the largest of its kind to be found north of Baghdad.

"This is a significant amount," said Capt. Clayton Combs, the commander of the company that found the cache in the volatile Diyala province. "Before we have found one or two EFPs at the most and those are usually at the site of deployment. This is the first cache ... that has actually been found as far as a production facility."

As if that weren't bad enough, CNN reports that we have a couple of interesting individuals in custody in Iraq:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. troops in Iraq are holding a top leader of an Iranian special forces group believed to be supplying weapons to insurgents who are targeting and killing U.S. forces in Iraq, U.S. officials said Monday.

Brig. Gen. Mohsen Chirazi, said to be the third-ranking officer in the Iranian Quds Force, was arrested in late December during a raid at the home of a man connected to the leader of the top Shiite party in Iraq with deep ties to the Iranian government, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, according to U.S. officials.

The Quds Force is a paramilitary arm of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and has helped direct attacks on Iraqi and U.S. forces inside Iraq, President Bush, Defense Secretary Gates and other senior military leaders have said.

U.S. officials would not say where the general is being held in Iraq. The arrest was among the first in a series of raids and arrests by U.S. forces on Iranians in Iraq, who the United States blames for meddling in the security situation inside that country. --From CNN Pentagon Producer Mike Mount (Posted 12:55 p.m.)

A weapons plant and cache plus the Iranian general? Wow. But the surge isn't working, as we're told by the Left repeatedly. It must almost be the suicide kiss of death for them proclaiming one thing only to have the facts come out, and prove them wrong, again.

Seriously though, this is a significant find for us. It further proves Iran's involvement in this war. And picking up the general and his group was no easy task, to be sure. But now we've got something we can dangle in front of the world and go "See, they're lying about being there. I wonder what else they may be lying about, now?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall during those interrogations because the general might just start singing. And I'm sure Ahmadinejad isn't too happy about this. Whoever was in charge of that operation might want to stay out of sight, lest he lose his head.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taking On Another Giuliani Critic

Posted by on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:38:02 AM
 Insomnia really bites. But since I was up I decided to peruse some things I might have missed today. And lo and behold, I come across another NRO pundit that's not too happy Rudy's in the race. David Freddoso penned a particularly scathing piece back on Valentine's Day (there's some love for ya Rudy!) about how rude the former mayor of New York used to be.

But before they back the most liberal man in the field, conservatives should be aware that Rudy’s failure to toe the party line is only one of his liabilities, and it doesn’t necessarily make him electable.

If Giuliani’s stances on babies, guns, and gay marriage do not sink him in the Republican primaries, he will probably suffer in a general election campaign from the fact that there is so much evidence in the public record that he is a total jerk. Yes, that’s right. Most Americans love Rudy, but it’s not just because they don’t know where he stands on issues. It’s also because they know nothing of his pre-9/11 self, and the more they learn, the less attractive they will probably find him.

By September 10, 2001, New Yorkers were weary of their mayor and longed for an end to his administration, even as they enjoyed the dog-poop-less sidewalks, the safe subway platforms, the squeegee-free street corners and the low murder rate they all knew he had brought about. It understates the case to say that a massive terror attack saved Giuliani’s political career — it would be more accurate to say that nothing short of 9/11 could have saved it.

I have read numerous stories like this from former New Yorkers. I have heard these stories from friends of ours that used to live in New York. Know what I have to say to people like Mr. Freddoso? So what? Does this disqualify him from the presidency because h's a little rough around the edges for some people. No. In fact, in our opinion, it makes him well-suited for the job.

Rudy is an outsider to DC politics--a fact that appeals to a good deal of conservatives. We'd be sending someone who doesn't play the game of politics the fat-cats in DC have been playing for years. His gruff attitude is what we think might bne enough to stir up the cauldron of lifetime tenure that's collecting a paycheck in that town; a check, I might add, is supplied by the voters, and they've been none too happy with their officials over the last few years. We've seen what eight years of "compassion" has produced.

It's not a great record the president will have when he leaves (though he does have an economy growing at a steady rate, and it breaking records as it does climb; add the post 11 September response, and his presidency isn't all that bad), and it's filled with disappointments. From the UAE Port Deal, to Harriet Miers, to signing CFR, to signing the Kennedy education bill, to being unable to locate his veto pen except for one billand so on, the president has left many of his most loyal supporters looking forward to his departure. And they're looking for the next guy.

Unfornately for most, it's not likely to be Mitt Romney. Too much is coming out now regarding his flip-flops, and recent reminders of what his term in office produced. (The universal health care scheme and the across-the-board ban on assault weapons are two no-no's in our book.) It's not going to be St. John the Roe-slayer from Arizona. (Say what you want, but the base has been fooled too many times by him, and they're not ones to suffer fools long. Ask Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine.) Duncan Hunter's nice, but you need your name out there, and you need to locate the REST of your platform. The same goes for Tom Tancredo. Let's face it, voters don't like congressmen because they compromise. If we wanted another compromiser, we'd revoke the 22nd Amendment and elect Clinton a third time just so his looney wife will shut up already.

Rudy's got experience, charisma, a heroic reputation, and attitude. Maybe it's time DC saw some of that attitude. Maybe he can do what President Bush hadn't really accomplished in eight years.

Party unity. Party clarity. Doing what's RIGHT nbecause it IS right no matter how many people whine, moan, complain and seethe that you're wrong. Rudy showed that in New York. WE are ready to take that chance. And let's face facts right now on Rudy: He's got the numbers already that should keep both Hillary Clinton and John McCain up at night. The Left's punditry keeps citing these two with "better" credentials that Rudy, yet neither have the experience of leadership that Rudy has. He leads by example, and is very good at delegating matters to subordinates.

In closing, I'd just like to say that I respect Mr. Freddoso's opinion, but I think it's time for someone strong going into Washington, and doing what he can for the nation. There is no doubt that Rudy loves America. He has shown that on his early stump stops. And all we care about is if he can get the job done. We believe he can, and we believe he has the capacity to do something that seemingly only one other man has done in the last fifty years.

Unify the conservative base into a landslide referendum. President Ronald Wilson Reagan did that in 1980 and in 1984. '84 was a larger win than his original victory. But he did come to the people as a uniter. His popularity soared over his eight years in office. Rudy can do that. He has the tools and the talent. And if that gruffness of character helps, all the better.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Mirror-Mirror Moment For John McCain

Posted by on Monday, February 26, 2007 4:03:48 PM
 "Who's the biggest threat to McCain?" That is the question presented by Bryan @ Hot Air. Sen. McCain may think it is Mitt Romney, but according to the digging of David Brody, the romney people believe that their man is more of a threat to Sen. McCain than Rudy is. The key 'graphs are at the end of Mr. Brody's piece:

For the campaign staffs of Republican Presidential candidates determined to win in 2008, the Mitt Romney situation is interesting. They must be feeling a little like a kid in a candy shop. For McCain, Brownback, Giuliani and others they have their choice of how to go after Romney: 1994 Romney, 2002 Romney, Romney the Mormon, Romney with the polygamist family background. There's quite a bit to choose from. It seems like the game is on.

The Brody File has received a confidential email circulating within the network of Romney's supporters, not the Romney campaign itself but rather those who support Romney. I thought I'd share it with you. I don't put this up as fact just simply to give you an idea of what's being talked about among his supporters.

"Rumor has it that it's McCain's "opposition research" team that is pushing all this stuff to a more than willing MSM. They love their guy McCain, and they hate anyone with conservative values. The good news is, with each passing week they become more marginalized as people turn more to the blogosphere for more accurate reporting. I think McCain views Mitt as the bigger threat at this point, so he'll keep his Giuliani powder dry for another day."

Let the record reflect that The Brody File is not saying this about McCain but Romney's supporters truly believe this. As to what evidence they have, that hasn't been shared...yet. Let's put this in context. For sure, John McCain is determined not to get "swiftboated" again. In 2000, "W" ran attack ads against McCain that helped doom him in the GOP Primaries. McCain has clearly learned his lesson. If you get beat by the best, go get them yourself. He has done that. Read this from the New York Times:

Senator John McCain, intent on succeeding where his freewheeling presidential campaign of 2000 failed, is assembling a team of political bruisers for 2008. And it includes advisers who once sought to skewer him and whose work he has criticized as stepping over the line in the past. In 2000, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the advertisements run against him by George W. Bush then the governor of Texas, distorted his record. But he has hired three members of the team that made those commercials — Mark McKinnon, Russell Schriefer and Stuart Stevens — to work on his presidential campaign.

In 2004, Mr. McCain said the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisement asserting that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts had not properly earned his medals from the Vietnam War was “dishonest and dishonorable.” Nonetheless, he has hired the firm that made the spots, Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, which worked on his 2000 campaign, to work for him again this year.

To the untrained eye, Sen. McCain looks as though he is preparing for a very long, very intense campaign. To those of us who watch this sort of activity for a living (or at least part of a living), he is gearing up for a serious, mud-slinging- filled campaign. He disliked being the target of the attack ads in 2000, yet he has hired the same guys who threw that mud at him. He was opposed to the Swift Boat Vets exercising their free speech rights in attacking John Kerry, and yet he has hired the firm that put together their ads.

If anyone is a threat to John McCain, it is himself. He is running for the presidential nomination, which deep down inside--in places he will not discuss with others--he feel he is entitled to the nomination. This is a bitter, personal campaign for him; feeling slighted in 2000 for losing the nomination, and not by anyone's hand but his own. (Voters do not like seeing a potential Commander-in-Chief lose his cool the way he did.)But rather than run on the issues, and question his Republican opponents about how they would be doing things, he is gearing up for the silly-season--that part of the campaign where a candidate will do whatever it takes to win, even casting aside their scruples and decency.

Do not misunderstand the above statement. Politics is a bloodsport, and you should only run if you think you can win, and you pull out all the stops to do so. But people are sick of the same old attacks. The mudslinging in campaigns nowadays are embarrassing. In some instances (such as the Hillary-Obama blow-up from last week) it seems like we are watching a replay of the Hatfields and the McCoys, just without the shooting. Mitt Romney is indeed a threat to Sen. McCain. The question is how much of a threat is he right now? Sen. McCain seems to be going after a man who is trying to stay out of the corner from all the media intensity. Of course, Sen. McCain did say his base was the media, and while that may seem to be a joke to him, it is glaringly apparent that Sen. McCain is reaping the benefits of the MSM attack machine. Who needs Oppo-Research when the media is doing it for you?

And I think the reason why Sen. McCain is not taking on Rudy right now is because in comaprison, his numbers are in the johnny-flusher compared to the former mayor. Additionally, Rudy is appealing to conservatives of every stripe; even the solid ones who question his social issues, but have said they support him regardless. That has got to chap the hide of John McCain. What will hurt him more than he knows is that the base has little faith in him. We have been burned by him so many times I doubt Sen. McCain could make enough amends to bring them back. Thomas and I live in Arizona which is Sen. McCain's home state. We know of NO ONE who is supporting him for president. The Republicans/conservatives we talk to daily, communicate through e-mails, and especially the bloggers in Arizona are not supporting him. They stand with us in believing that Sen. McCain would be a poor choice for the 2008 nomination.

And despite what his handlers are telling him, he has no chance against Hillary. Let us face cold hard facts, ladies and gentlemen, barring a serious gaffe on her part, Hillary will get the nomination. (The smarter move for the Democrats would be to give Gov. Bill Richardson the nomination. As governor, he has had to make decisions, as opposed to Hillary.) But we are not giving too many kudos to smart Democrats right now. The last one we did stand up and applaud was Joe Lieberman. Should this race be a choice between Hillary and John McCain, she will be sworn in come 2009. The base will simply not support John McCain.

If John McCain wants to know who his worst enemy is in this race, he had better take a good look in the mirror. The answer will stare him in the face.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudy To Attend CPAC; Joined By Romney, Gingrich, and Huckabee

Posted by on Monday, February 26, 2007 2:52:02 PM
 Captain Ed brings good news today: Not only will be be attending CPAC this year, but Rudy Giuliani will be there, as well. The Politico announced it yesterday:

I reported a piece last month about how Rudy and McCain were skipping some conservative conferences. One of the events I mentioned that they had not yet RSVP'd to is the Grandaddy Of Them All -- the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. Turns out Rudy will attend CPAC. He'll speak to the confab Friday.

Captain Ed adds this, too, which makes us very happy:

If this is Giuliani's coming-out party, he's not alone. Mike Huckabee has been added to the CPAC agenda, a good event for the Arkansas governor. Newt Gingrich has signed up for the closing speech to the conservatives gathered there. Jim Gilmore, the former Governor of Virginia and a Presidential candidate who has not garnered much attention, will also deliver a speech. So far, no word on whether John McCain or Mitt Romney will become last-minute additions to the event, but their representatives will definitely be there.

This is a smart move for Giuliani. He needs to make his debut with conservative groups soon, before a meme of avoidance starts to gain traction. If my earlier experience with Giuliani gives any indication, he'll shine there as he does anywhere he speaks live. Conservatives there will ask tough questions, and I'm interested to see if he decides to engage in a dialogue at CPAC rather than just a speech.

(According to Captain Ed's update, Mitt Romney will be attending the CPAC event.)

Indeed. We agree that Rudy should field some questions from those he is asking to vote for him. It would go a long ways if this is his "coming-out" party as Captain Ed speculates it might be. The e-mails this morning were a little less on the visceral side with regard to our open endorsement and backing of Rudy. Our critics are either sheathing their knives, or are doing what we did about a month ago which is to read up on him, and learn about where he stands.

One particular e-mailer over the weekend demanded to know why we believed that Rudy was a "conservative" rather than another RINO. They cited his stance on abortion, gay rights, and gun control (the typical talking points of those who dislike him) as not having changed, and that he is merely paying lip service to the masses. We do not see that in Mayor Giuliani. What we see in him is a conservative (albeit with some liberal tendancies) whose conversion to a more staunch stance on conservative values may have likely come in the attacks on 9/11.

No one can discount the changes that people underwent on that day. We know of several people who had life-altering conversions from those attacks. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame is a self-described former liberal who was "mugged by reality" after September 11th. And he is as much an enemy of liberals now as Zell Miller was, and as Joe Lieberman is shaping up to be.

As we noted over the weekend, many people go through an ideological conversion in their lives. We believe Rudy did have that happen as he saw his city coming under attack. Will all of his views change? Probably not, but if he is open and honest about those views, more conservatives might see him in the same light we do: He is the right man, in the right place, at the right time for this nation right now.We are not holding our collective breath that John McCain will change his stripes anytime soon (and even if he claimed he did, the base still would not believe him), and we are unsure if Mitt Romney can make his way through the primaries, and survive to win the nomination. And no oiffense to those out there supporting what Thomas calls the "also-rans," but they do not really have much of a chance in the primaries. In fact, Michael Barone's piece yesterday basically states that without a serious mistake from Rudy, he will likely be the nominee, and if he does square off against Hillary, he would win in a rout.

The fact that Rudy is attending CPAC is a big deal. The nomination is his to lose, and he is showing people he is taking this run seriously. He is not acting like Sen. Clinton, who believes the nomination is already hers and the Democrats are simply going through the motions. He understands that if he truly believes he can make the difference, he must give 200% in this race because others are waiting in the wings. And if he is as worried about this nation's future, our efforts in the war, and the best way to protect this nation, he is going to have to work at proving that to the electorate. CPAC is the perfect jumping-off point for such a statement.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…1516Next »