Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Why Fred?

Post below lifted from BeldarBlog. See the original for links

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.

Even my biggest reservation about Thompson actually reflects well on his political spine: If simply getting elected and staying atop the polls were what Fred Thompson were all about, he'd be a much better candidate, but ultimately a much worse president. For better or worse, he's running his campaign the way he believes it should be run - meaning he wasn't stampeded into an early start, and there are definite limits to the indignities that he'll willingly suffer for the sake of retail campaigning. His abrupt refusal to participate in the recent "show of hands on global warming" in the televised Iowa debate, for example, was the act of a self-secure grown-up with a serious sense of statesmanship. Fred may be a good old boy, and indeed he's charming as heck, but he's just not a panderer.

Thompson has come a long way from a very humble start, so it's wrong to say that he's unambitious. But he does lack the overweening, compulsive degree of personal ambition that's characteristic of many presidential candidates in both parties. Too much ambition is a bad thing, and Hillary Clinton, in fact, is an example of pathological ambition - a trait she entirely shares with her husband (while utterly lacking his charm). But during the late summer and fall, prompted at least in part by Fred's critics among the pundit elites, I nevertheless wondered if Thompson had "enough" ambition. And indeed, if this were like 2000, in which a single, obvious GOP front-runner was cruising to the nomination with massive funding, and without serious missteps or questions about his candidacy, then the amount of fire in Fred's belly might be inadequate for him to secure the nomination.

But historically, Thompson has been a strong closer, and he's gotten sharper over the course of the fall. The GOP race - as evidenced by the remarkable Huckabee surge (which I am convinced will be followed with a Howard Dean-like collapse) - could not possibly be more wide open. I'm satisfied that Fred has plenty enough ambition to win the nomination in these particular circumstances. And at that point - when he's past the humiliating cattle-call debates and onto a national stage from which tedious retail politics become less key - I'm convinced that Thompson will rise ever more enthusiastically to the challenge, and that he can be at least as enthusiastic and effective a campaigner as Ronald Reagan was in 1976, 1980, and 1984.


Some most interesting statistics -- Muslim Populations in European Cities

Marseilles - 25 percent (200,000 of 800,000)
Malmo - ~25 percent (67,000 of 270,000)
Amsterdam - 24 percent (180,000 of 750,000)
Stockholm - 20 percent (>155,000 of 771,038)
Brussels - ~20 percent (some say 33 percent)
Moscow - 16 percent-20 percent (2 million of 10-12 milllion)
London - 17 percent (1.3 million of 7.5 million)
Luton - 14.6 percent (26,963)
Birmingham 14.3 percent (139,771)
The Hague - 14.2 percent ( 67,896 of 475,580)
Utrecht - 13.2 percent (38,300 of 289,000)
Rotterdam - 13 percent (80,000 of 600,000)
Copenhagen - 12.6 percent (63,000 of 500,000)
Leicester - 11 percent (>30,000 of 280,000)
Aarhus - ~10 percent
Zaan district (Netherlands) - 8.8 percent
Paris - 7.38 percent (155,000 of 2.1 million)
Antwerp- 6.7 percent (>30,000 of >450,000)
Hamburg - 6.4 percent (>110,000 of 1.73 million)
Berlin - 5.9 percent (~200,000 of 3.40 million)


You can't even escape them in Russia, it seems.



See here for the birth of Christ as it would have been reported by the NYT

Thompson thumps Dem candidates: "A more fired-up Fred Thompson said yesterday he needs to finish second in Iowa's caucuses this week, and he went on the attack, accusing Democratic leaders of having let their party be hijacked by liberal interest groups. Campaigning heavily here over the past two weeks, Mr. Thompson has refined his message and yesterday released a 15-minute Web video laying out his qualifications and telling voters they need to pick a Republican nominee who is willing to call out Democratic leaders for abandoning their principles. "They're all NEA,, ACLU, Michael Moore Democrats," Mr. Thompson charges in the video, which is on his campaign Web site. "They've allowed these radicals to take control of the party and dictate their course."

Haditha case continuing to fall apart: "The US Marine accused of leading the killing of as many as 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in the worst alleged atrocity by American forces during the war in Iraq will not face murder charges, it emerged today. Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, 27, will instead face lesser counts of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice, the US Marines confirmed. A statement issued from Camp Pendleton, California, said: “The charges referred against SSgt Wuterich are voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice." Lt Gen Samuel Helland, the commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central, “dismissed the charges of unpremeditated murder, soliciting another to commit an offense and false official statement,” the statement said."


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".


No comments: