David Limbaugh wants Fred to Step Up

Rush Limbaugh's brother talks about why he thinks Fred Thompson is the best conservative in the GOP field.

It's time to step up, Fred. Conservatives need a leader about whom we have no major reservations. The only one looming out there about you is your failure, so far, to persuade voters you want the job. All of the GOP candidates are vastly superior to all of the Democrat candidates, but here's the way I see the field now. Rudy is a strong leader and very good on national security and the war. But he is a social-issues liberal, whose pledge to appoint originalist judges is encouraging — but not completely convincing. John McCain is a war hero and a patriot. He has been strong on Iraq but disappointing on Guantanamo, tough interrogation techniques, and other war-related issues. He is not a supply-sider and is abysmally bad — obviously — on campaign finance reform and thus free speech. My problems with Huckabee concern his political agenda. Huckabee is probably the strongest social-issues conservative, and since his views are driven by his strong faith, I don't fear he'll change for expediency or other reasons. But it does bother me that he appears to believe, erroneously, in my opinion, that his faith requires him to endorse an unacceptably expansive role for government. Mitt Romney is a man I've warmed to as the campaign has unfolded. I began with great skepticism because of his major, far-too-recent flips on major issues. Certain aspects of his record — even after his conversion — cast doubt on his commitment to the unborn and traditional marriage. He also strikes me as a bit too coiffed, too robotic and too much of a politician. But I do see Romney as a very likeable man who is saying almost all of the right things, pun intended, and who, if he is the man he holds himself to be, will make a great president. Now about Fred. I must confess that Fred is the only one I don't have major reservations about — apart from his electability. Yes, I worry that he supported McCain-Feingold and that he might not be a strong supply-sider. But on most issues, he seems reliably conservative and appears to have a solid and strong character. I do believe that with Fred, we know what we are getting. I find his lack of "fire in the belly" refreshing. He strikes me as one of the few presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan whose primary motivation is not personal aggrandizement but rather serving and leading the nation in very troubled and dangerous times. I see him as almost being drafted into this project, and his refusal to drool publicly over the prospect of becoming the most powerful man in the world is positively delightful. That said, he needs to make a more convincing case to the voters, which will require a greater display of enthusiasm that he views these as both perilous and promising times and that he is the best man, overall, to navigate the ship of state through these times. So, Fred, please, as distasteful as it may be to you, it's time to step up and prove you want it. Time is short. David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com. [more here]

News from Iowa's Romper Room Playground/Huck Supporters

As many of y'all know, there is stupid little boy playground tactics going on between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. As many of ya know, I used to be a Huckabee supporter. Part of what moved me away from the Huckabee support is some of the supporters who came out of the woodwork, since when I began supporting Mike Huckabee. While I never intended to dis on Huckabee when I turned to Thompson, I will try not to dis on him but give links to articles about Huck's supporters regarding the pseudo-attacks on Romney. I have to thank Sloane Reality for some of these links. While this is not the same format and subject of his post, check out his post here.
Here are some of the stories that show what his supporters are up to that show why Mike Huckabee's supporters turned me off from him, and links.

• Romney to Huckabee Supporter: Pizza?

• By Michael Luo
• Mitt Romney stopped for pizza in Independence, Iowa. (Photo: Beatrice de Gea for The New York Times)
• INDEPENDENCE, Iowa—The Romney-Huckabee spat is starting to take on an aspect of the bizarre, even if it is great political theater.

Bizarre, I sure would say.

• Mitt Romney stopped this afternoon at a pizza joint here to grab a slice for the road before heading on to his fifth campaign event of the day in Waterloo.
• His campaign organized a brief news conference with members of the traveling press corps following Mr. Romney in a bus so he could comment on Mike Huckabee’s news conference and switcheroo decision not to air an ad attacking Mr. Romney but to still show it to reporters.

• But after Mr. Romney delivered a statement, a former Arkansas state legislator, Jim Bob Duggar, and a Huckabee supporter materialized to confront Mr. Romney about the coverage of abortions under Massachusetts’ universal health care plan.

• Huckabee supporters have been trailing Mr. Romney at his events over the past week, lurking in the crowd and offering up comments to reporters after events, saying they only want to clarify aspects of Mr. Huckabee’s record that they say Mr. Romney has been distorting.

Umm, can anyone say creepy, bordering on stalking?

• Outside the Mitt Mobile here, he delivered a short statement:
• “You know in reaction to the press conference Governor Huckabee had today I think that I’d note that I’m running a serious campaign, that there are serious issues that face the country at this time. I want to bring change to Washington, that’s what my campaign is about. The press conference which Governor Huckabee had today I think is confusing to the people of Iowa. On the one hand he wants to run a positive campaign and on the other hand he shows a negative campaign ad and hopes that people promote it and provide it to the public through the earned media. And I think that’s a very confusing and puzzling message. With that, who wants a slice of pizza?”

• At this point, Mr. Duggar, dressed in a brown leather jacket, stepped out from the cluster of reporters and pressed Mr. Romney about the “$50 co-pay for abortions” in his health-care plan in Massachusetts.

• Aggravated Romney aides demanded to know from Mr. Duggar if he was a member of the media. When several reporters began to cluster around him, Eric Fehrnstrom, Mr. Romney’s traveling press secretary, offered him a slice of pizza. [more here]
  

Let's get back to the subject of this article, Mr. Duggar. This is the first time I have ever really followed any election. I may be some dumb broad from Michigan who doesn't know a whole lot about the protocols of campaigns, but I am safe to assume that this is not protocol. Maybe it could be excused if Mr. Duggar were just some average Joe. But let's remember, he is a former state legislator from Arkansas. He really should know better.
I am not defending Mitty. That is what's killing me. As a newly founded Thompson supporter, I am going to be neutral and view this from both sides. I have to side with Romney on this.

And here is another gem regarding Mike Huckabee supporters. Y'all remember about the "Trust Huckabee" push polling? They're up to it again. From the Politico.

• Pro-Huck group sends out calls hitting Mitt on abortion
• The third-party group backing Mike Huckabee rang the phones of Iowans again Saturday night with an automated call attacking his rivals.
• Trust Huckabee Executive Director Patrick Davis confirmed the calls were made and let me listen to one.
  

• The ID questions at the start and finish mean one of two things. Either, the group wants the Iowans who get the call to believe that this is some sort of semi-legitimate poll and not just an attack. Or Trust Huckabee is actually sifting through their list to determine who to ring again with GOTV calls later in the week.
  

Read here about the dialog mock call.

Now i have gotten out about some of the Romney/Huckabee fight. Here is some just about Huckabee supporters.

• EXPOSED! Mike Huckabee with Bill Gothard Last Week in Houston

• 
  
• by The Dean of Cincinnati | December 23, 2007 at 06:13 pm | 367 views | 1 comment
• Upload
  Be the first to add photos and video to this story
• Original photo here; hosted photo here.
  
  As recently reported by The Cincinnati Beacon, presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has close ties to fringe evangelist/tycoon Bill Gothard, who runs the little-known Chicago-area Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) and a string of affiliated businesses. It's been widely reported that Gothard's organizations advocate strict authoritarianism and blind obedience. Allegations of child abuse such as locking kids for extended periods in "prayer closets" and other misconduct have led to investigations.
• According to a recent In These Times cover story, "The Cult of Character," Gothard oversees an evangelical empire "which brings in an estimated profit of at least $63 million annually." For example, see these photos of "IBLP's beautiful Guadalajara Training Center property" which looks like a 5-star resort. Among the many hats Gothard wears, he's "Chancellor" of a non-accredited school and founder of the "Medical Training Institute of America" which recommends such unconventional treatments as calling "elders of the church for prayer before receiving medical treatment for a serious illness" and annointing with oils.

• Meanwhile, Gothard himself remains relatively unknown outside his gilded realm. He rarely speaks to the press and photos of him in mainstream publications are hard to find. So this photo from just last week of Gothard with Mike Huckabee at what is identified as a private campaign luncheon in Houston is noteworthy. The photo comes from "Huckabee in Houston" by Robert Staddon on the Steddon family blog. (The Steddons are apparently devoted Gothard followers. Son Robert Staddon says he previously travelled to Mexico with Gothard as his "assistant.") [more here]

And I thought Joseph Smith was odd.

Some of you may be saying, "but these people are supporters, it's not Mike Huckabee himself." True, but look at it this way. Supporters can be the front for the candidate. Who you associate with shows a glimpse of who you are. When I lived down state, I had a roommate who was into partying and her dad always told her to "find a better class of losers while she was growing up." This is the same advice I have for Mike Huckabee. Well, anyways check out Sloane Reality's blog and he has more links to other items.

Some Damn Good Points

Okee-dokee, I am doing better than I was this morning. Just had to release my thoughts. So, here is what I found in The Wall Street Journal, via Fred 08. The writer of the article talks about why he thinks Fred Thompson has positive characteristics needed in the office of POTUS. I will highlight some of the sticking points to me.

• What We Want in a President
• Ruthlessness is important when it comes to foreign enemies. Charity is essential for domestic opponents.
• BY LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
• Wednesday, January 2, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST
• In the next six weeks Americans are going to pick the two finalists in the long job search for the most important CEO position on the planet. As someone who has served in three White Houses and been a Federal Reserve governor during a fourth, I have become a firm believer that the character traits someone brings to the job are more important than the issue papers or debate sound bites that get so much attention in the primaries.
• Consider two examples. In December, Joe Trippi, a strategist for John Edwards, noted that polls showed a quarter of Barack Obama's own supporters did not think he would be qualified to be president. This says little about Mr. Obama, but it does say a lot about the process. These voters are not choosing someone to lead the country; they are trying to send a message about their own personal frustrations, or perhaps about another candidate.
• Or consider the comments of a friend of mine and active fund-raiser about Fred Thompson, who is my choice. My friend agreed that Mr. Thompson was smart and well informed and had good judgment. But he felt that Republicans should definitely not nominate him because he was temperamentally unsuited to the campaign trail. Mr. Thompson probably would rather discuss the nuances of issues than shake hands or write thank-you notes to donors, two skills very important to the running. Polls now suggest my friend may be right. If so, all it means is that the process of selecting a president has little to do with the skills needed for the job.

• By its very nature, the presidency involves a lot of on-the-job training. Some of our presidents have had to come up to speed quite quickly.
• For example, John F. Kennedy faced the Bay of Pigs fiasco after just a few weeks on the job. No one would argue that he handled it well. Some serious historians have noted the links between that performance and our involvement in Vietnam (having "lost" in Cuba, he was determined not to let it happen again), not to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis just 18 months later. Kennedy is remembered fondly for bringing style, grace and humor to the White House--wedged between the boring Eisenhower and his graceless successors, Johnson and Nixon. But he was still learning on the job at a time when nuclear annihilation was a real possibility. Still more amazingly, with 14 years in Congress, Kennedy had far more national political experience than many now seeking the job.

Perhaps Eisenhower was boring, but he was a damn good president. Maybe boring is a good quality in a president.
Kennedy was a Senator. At first I did fall for the Governors make a better president. But think about it. What if Kennedy had been a governor? He would have had even less foreign policy experience. His handling of Bay of Pigs could have been worse.

• As president, there is a lot to learn both factually and about the process of governing. Beginning on day one, he or she will have to confront a bureaucracy and a media establishment that has its own agenda, to hire expert advisers and administrators on a whole host of foreign and domestic policy issues, and to structure the whole operation in a way that carries out the will of the people. Our job as voters should be to select someone who will (1) know what he or she doesn't know, (2) get up to speed quickly, and (3) avoid making serious mistakes in the meantime.

Let's look at number one. Hanging out in Iowa and New Hampshire being everyone's buddy is all nice, but for real he (or in this case of '08 God forbid she) won't be your buddy after they are in the White House. I want my president to be smarter than me, along with street smarts. Hey, I can watch all this and say so and so doesn't know what is going on, and neither do I. But what the difference is, is that I am not running for president. They better damn well better know what I don't know.
On number two, you may be saying "but you support Thompson. He hasn't been performing the circus tricks that the rest of them has since the beginning of '07. It has nothing to do with how long someone does something. It is how well they do something. In the case of a disaster no amount of preparation can really help fully. With Fred Thompson getting into this race later than the rest is showing that he can work well under pressure. Working well under pressure is what I am looking for in a president. Yeah, yeah, he aint' in the top spots in the precious-wecious Iowa polls. Whatever, the American people need to decide who the real conservative is, not let New Hampshowa decide for them.
On number 3, the most crucial, Fred Thompson is the only candidate not to stick his foot in his mouth.

• A process driven by 30-second commercials prepared by the candidates themselves, and so-called debates that ask candidates to explain in 60 seconds how they would bring about world peace or national prosperity, does not help. Nor does media coverage that focuses on whose commercials are moving polling points and who performed well in the last inane debate.
• But we voters can still do a respectable job in the CEO selection process. Obviously ideology and our visceral reactions to the candidates matter, since they are also part of job performance. There are, however, three other questions about a candidate's character that are likely to shed some light on whether that candidate will do well in the on-the-job training school of the Oval Office. These questions have nothing to do with party or ideology.

• First, has the candidate faced a crisis or overcome a major setback in his or her life? A president's first crisis will teach two important lessons. The first is that bad things happen, in fact they happen on a regular basis. The second is that the real power of the office to affect, let alone control, events is far less than imagined. If the occupant of the Oval Office has faced this double whammy--encountering a tragedy involving events over which he or she has had little control, yet finding a way to persevere--the new president is far more likely to succeed.

Do hear that, Mr. Mitty "Smiley-Smiley everything-is-sunshine-lollipops-and-rainbows" Romney?

• Harry Truman, who made some of the toughest decisions of any president, overcame business failure. Teddy Roosevelt lost his first wife after childbirth. On the other hand, someone who got straight A's, never got turned down for a date, was never fired from a job or defeated in an election, is going to have a very rude awakening. The average voter can research this personal history quite easily.

Again, ... Mr. Romney? I have heard so often from his supporters that "everything he touches turns to gold." Remember what happened to Rumplesticksten's protege?

• Second, has the candidate had a variety of life experiences? The presidency is a job for a generalist. You never know what direction a crisis will come from: foreign threats, economic calamity, civil unrest. It might even be a biological pandemic that involves all three at the same time.

• Third, can the candidate tell the difference between a foreign enemy and a political opponent? A certain degree of ruthlessness is a necessary attribute for any successful CEO or president. But our liberty, which is ultimately our nation's greatest resource, requires that a president restrain this trait when acting domestically.
• We should seek an individual who is ruthless about protecting us against others, but acts with charity toward all and malice toward none at home: a tall order. But this trait comes out on the campaign trail, and in the past job performances of the candidates. We should opt for candidates who are ruthless in debating real public policy issues but steer away from attacking the personal traits of their opponents.

• Johnson and Nixon would never have passed the last two tests, and in Nixon's case, the line about not having "Nixon to kick around any more" was a sign he couldn't handle setbacks well. By contrast, Reagan had a variety of life experiences, and mastered the difference between domestic opponents and foreign enemies marvelously. He was also gracious in his defeat in 1976. Franklin Roosevelt's polio undoubtedly helped make him a success as president; and although ruthless, he also knew how to have a bipartisan cabinet and war effort. [more here]
  

I probably like Nixon more so than the average American. Most of that has to do with his desire to bring the issue bringing welfare reform to the forefront, though no one listened to him. I must admit that his sensitivity was what brought him down. Look at the candidates. Who are the one's whining, "He's picking on me... But he started it first," yet not stating why he shouldn't be picked on.

Political Spine

Found this from Stop the ACLU, who excerpted from Beldarblog.

• On every issue I care deeply about, Fred Thompson is a genuine, thoughtful conservative - without any major exceptions or doubtful areas that I have to forgive or ignore. And in the simplest possible words: I trust him because he's demonstrated that he has a real political spine.
• Fred's my "Goldilocks candidate": On national defense and foreign policy generally, on taxes (and, in particular, income tax reform), on spending, on judicial appointments, on immigration, on increasing the size and capacities of the military, and on a host of other issues, he's "Just Right." And not only do his present views and positions match my own, but they've been consistent views throughout his career, so I don't have to worry that he'll be easily talked out of them through some rationalization in the name of "expediency."
• Ironically, Thompson's political spine has been most evident in some of the very same episodes that his detractors will try to spin as grounds for conservative alarm. As a senator, Thompson cast lonely, politically unpopular votes grounded on a genuine understanding of and reverence for federalism, for example, that his political opponents have characterized as being "anti-tort reform." I could write for pages about all that, but let me boil it down to a sentence: Fred Thompson has far more in common with John Roberts (for whose SCOTUS confirmation he served as sherpa) than with John Edwards, and if you can't tell the difference, you ought not be voting in the GOP primaries anyway. [more here]
  

Fred Thompson inThe News

• Thompson touts conservative record

• With the Iowa Caucuses coming up, Thompson said he can be the strong leader the country needs.
• “On Thursday night, you are voting for leadership in a time our country is going to need strong leadership,” he said.
• He later said with a low approval rating in Congress that “nobody has any confidence or faith anymore in the government.”
• Thompson said that illegal immigration is much more than those coming into the country to work, he said the borders need to be secured to also prevent terrorism.
• “At its heart this illegal immigration is a national security issue,” he said.
• He was asked about his plans for the future of social security and said fixing it a little now would prevent having to fix a bigger problem later.
• He said if social security should end “it is going to have a catastrophic effect on our economy.”
• Thompson has a history of conservative voting in the Senate and was asked if he would continue that way as president or give in to Democrats in Washington. He replied to look at his record and see what he has done in the past to predict what he’ll do in the future.
• He addressed the war in Iraq and said that after a rough start that “we are on the right track” and “good things are happening.” [more here]

• 3 Different Candidates, 3 Distinct Faces of the G.O.P.

• DES MOINES — As Mitt Romney, Fred S. Thompson and Mike Huckabee hit points all over Iowa in a closing flurry before Thursday’s caucuses, it can seem as if they are campaigning in three entirely different worlds.
• Mr. Romney, the white-collar Republican in a Ward Cleaver sweater, is promoted as a corporate master, “to business as Elvis was to music,” said Bob Beauprez, a former member of Congress from Colorado, who introduced Mr. Romney at an event on Monday. Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, rattles off his platform with power-point crispness, a man in a hurry.
• Not so with Mr. Thompson, who cuts the more classic ideal of small-town, Middle America Republicanism, strolling through tiny Allison, Iowa. “I always love to meet a man representing law and order,” Mr. Thompson said greeting Jason Johnson, who was wearing a Butler County Sheriff’s department uniform.
• Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, speaks with the sure cadences of a man trained on pulpits. He deploys a flow and rhyme reminiscent of the Rev. Jesse Jackson (“We have excess regulation, excess litigation”), boasts of his hardscrabble upbringing (“one generation removed from dirt floors and outdoor toilets”) and tells jokes like a certifiable Christian comedian. His economic populism has more in common with John Edwards, a Democrat, than with Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson. He draws “amens” from his audiences, who praise him in biblical terms.

• Mr. Thompson presents himself as every bit the “law and order” Republican. People he meets constantly mention his role as a prosecutor on the so-named television series, and Mr. Thompson himself mentions the show in his speeches, urging people to “watch the reruns” because then he gets a little more in “that little check I get.”
• He mutters, bounces up and down on his toes, making himself even taller than 6 feet, 5 inches. His invocations of Mr. Reagan reflect a kind of audition for the Hollywood role of avuncular, common-sense Republican embodied by the late president in the 1980s. Like Mr. Reagan, Mr. Thompson carries himself with a practiced sheepishness, a man who wants the role but does not need it.
• “You’re taller than you seem on TV,” Ellie Senne of Allison told him on his visit to the Main Street Cafe.
• “I was even taller before all those politicians beat me down,” Mr. Thompson assured her.

• Mr. Thompson met few people on his quickie tour of downtown Allison, but made up for it by saying a lot of things twice. “Fond memories, fond memories,” he said of his time in the Senate. “Bless you, bless you,” he tells a man in a feed store who declares himself a “Law and Order” fan. “Good to see you, good to see you,” Mr. Thompson, stepping of his blue-and-mustard-colored bus, said to someone familiar.
• He drew a nice crowd at his next stop, in Tama, another cafe, this one packed at lunchtime on New Year’s Eve. It is cold out, “so cold that back in Washington the politicians have their hands in their own pockets,” Mr. Thompson said. This is the kind of gentle crack that Mr. Reagan used to relish, as does Mr. Thompson. He kept pounding his left fist into his meaty right palm, making a steady “thlopp.”
• Mr. Thompson once filled in for the radio host Paul Harvey, he said, “which was like pinch-hitting for Babe Ruth.” He preaches pleasantness and common sense and a brand of Republicanism that he says has been lost.
• “My folks came off the farm with an eighth-grade education and started their family and taught me how to be a nice person,” Mr. Thompson said.
• “I like his demeanor,” said Jody Maxted of Marshalltown, who like many Thompson supporters compared him to “the kinds of Republicans you don’t see as much anymore.” [more here]
  

I hate Iowa

Yes, I have fallen off the deep end. Thanks for asking. I am watching FOX News and they're making a big hullabaloo about the Iowa Caucuses, where only about 10% of Iowans will even be caucusing. Yet these candidates have been spending most of all 2007 in Iowa. I just heard that on average the candidates have spent $200 per vote in Iowa.
If you want to know all about what's going on in Iowa I leave you some of these gems, from MSNBC.

• There were signs that Democratic voters are more energized than Republicans.
• Democrat Joe Biden, who ranks in the low single digits in polls, attracted 500 people to a noontime event at a Des Moines brewery — a bigger crowd than any Republican candidate usually gets.

• ...Huckabee made good on a promise to clean up his act, the day after he held a news conference to say he would not run a critical ad against Romney — but then showed it to a room full of reporters and cameramen.

• With two days left in the campaign, Romney continued his ads against Huckabee. He also assailed Huckabee's defense of his own failure to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran last month.
• "President Bush didn't read it for four years; I don't know why I should read it in four hours," Huckabee said in an interview published Monday in the Mason City Globe Gazette.
• Romney seized on the comment: "I'm not sure whether Governor Huckabee meant the attack as a joke, but this is not a time to be mocking our president, and it was I think in bad taste."

I am not a Romney supporter, but I must say that at least one of these guys has balls.

• A multimillionaire, Romney also indicated that he had funneled more of his personal fortune into his campaign, but wouldn't say how much. He had contributed $17 million through September.

Read all the crap here.

Here's more crap, from MSNBC First Read, about the upcoming Iowa race.

Lost in Translation

The title of this post can have multiple meanings. I can't believe it has been a while since I wrote up a new post. Well, I didn't leave. As many of you know I am trying to learn Czech language. I have not always kept up with it like I should. I figured if I got a profil on a Czech social networking site I could attain Czech pen pals. I like mluvit. I always try to return emails, calls and messages ASAP. Thus I figured that if I had people to read their messages and psat back to I would need to keep up my studies, so that I would know what they said and I would vim what to say back. Boy, did I get myself into something. I have recieved and sent many messages. I have not had time to get back to my blog. Not that I don't like receiving messages, it has just taken me longer to read and write than I thought it would.
Obviously my native language is English. In English I can read and write subconsciously. In Czech I have to stop and think about what others are saying and what I want to say back. It is hard to explain, ale the gramatika and sentence structure is different than English and me being the OCD person that I am I try to be as correct as possible. I am probably wrong more than half the time, ale I try.
Right now Ja think this is easier than following politky. I have been following all of what has been going on in Iowa. Nothing really that velky. There seems to be a dogfight between two unnamed candidates. One is airing negative attack ads. The other is complaining about it. Yeah, these are qualities I want in a a leader, NE! The negative attack ads are slimy and exagerated. But the attacker is not saying how he is different or what he would do different. The complainer is not saying what these negative ads are getting wrong. The number three guy is staying out of all this and getting things done. If you want to see what I am talking about, click on his picture to the right and find out where he stands on the issues. I hope to be back with some decent posts soon. Until then, Na Shledanou!
I want to leave y'all with these thoughts. If you move to Iowa will become automatically smarter about politics? Why aren't there more women running for president? If there was, Iowans would be too busy cleaning the lipstick off their butts after the caucuses.