FRED WINS BY DEFAULT

Republican Presidential candidates gathered in St. Petersburg, Florida, Wednesday evening for a debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube. The previous Democrat incarnation of this debate was a monstrous joke that included a question on global warming from an animated snowman. For me, that alone discredited the entire forum. The snowman was absent this time, but the slant from CNN was not (more about that later). Once again, Fred Thompson distinguished himself as the best candidate of the field. His opponents have slowly but surely eliminated themselves for one reason or another, and this debate provided each with the opportunity to show us all once again why Fred is the man. The Republican Party as a whole must decide whether it will remain a party of conservative values, or moderate those views for perceived political advantage. Republicans win when they follow bedrock conservative values, and Fred Thompson is the best man to represent and express those values.
>
The venue itself does not exactly lend itself to intelligent debate, and CNN showed their usual bias in the choice of questions. The Clinton News Network did its best to prop up distortions and myths about conservative issues. Starting with a question about black on black crime clearly outside the scope of the federal government, a string of ridiculous little clips left no doubt about CNN's slip color. Next was a Muslim woman from (of all places) Alabama asking how America can "repair its image in the Muslim world." Throw in a little confederate flag, Bible, and abortion, and the question list looks like a DNC document. The crowning bit of liberal media poison came in the form of BG Keith Kerr asking about gays in the military. While everyone respects BG Kerr's 43 years of military service, he did not become openly gay until he retired, so there's clearly some crusading being done by the general. Then moderator Anderson Cooper allowed BG Kerr to deliver a speech from the audience in response to the candidate answers CNN had to know he would not like. BG Kerr got way too much time on an issue that seems microscopic to other issues facing our military. The last part of the debate was wasted not on finalizing statements, but instead on Mars exploration and a Yankees / Red Sox debate between Romney and Guliani that nearly made me ill. None of the debates for either party so far have addressed deadly serious issues in a detailed manner, and this one was certainly no exception. Including the YouTube element drives intelligent discourse toward entertainment, and that is not a good thing for Presidential politics. Animated snowman did have an understudy, though: a poorly animated, saggy-faced Dick Cheney asking about allocation of executive power to the VP. Fred got a chuckle from the live audience when he responded by saying he at first thought the cartoon Cheney was supposed to be him. Still, these debates are simply beneath the dignity of the office.
>
Let me issue specific disqualifications to Fred's opponents. Rudy is the easiest to start with because he's simply not a conservative. Being in favor of gay rights, for gun control, and pro-abortion is not conservative, so support for his candidacy is puzzling and troubling. Nominating Guliani would be a tragic departure from the values the party has espoused for over thirty years and would lead to defeat in the general election. His flimsy defense of New York's sanctuary city policy is normally topped with blaming the federal government. There is some element of truth to the accusation that Rudy is riding 9/11: he used the phrase six times Wednesday evening. Sorry, Rudy, but for the reasons listed and more, I can't vote for you.
>
Romney seems like a nice enough guy, but his recent conservative conversion is disturbing. He seemed flustered during an early confrontation when Guliani accused him of employing illegals at his "sanctuary mansion." His complete lack of military experience is not alone a disqualifier, but it's a thumb on an already heavy scale. Something about the guy gives me the willies. And he looks like Count Chocula, so Mitt is out.
>
While I greatly respect John McCain's service in Vietnam and five years spent as a prisoner of war, he has too often stood in opposition to conservative causes. His support of campaign finance laws and amnesty for illegal aliens are pokes with a sharp stick to the conservative eye not soon forgotten or forgiven. McCain is right on when it comes to the Iraq front and America absolutely not using torture, but that's not enough. I am indeed concerned about his age and health. I respect John McCain, but I cannot give my vote to someone who has so often offended me in the past.
>
Mike Huckabee is all the rage with the media, but I don't get it. He may be right on most of the issues, but the charisma to win the general eleection just is not there. He got in the best joke of the night by suggesting Hillary should be on the first rocket to Mars, but his propensity to slip into preacher mode is unsettling. The President is not a member of the clergy, so I don't want his speaking style to sound like he is. Again, nice guy, be he is not electable.
>
California Representative Duncan Hunter is a good man. He's right on just about all the issues, especially immigration. The problem is that he has zero name recognition nationally. More about Hunter later.
>
Representative Tom Tancredo is a single issue candidate. He's right on immigration, but it isn't enough to carry a general election campaign. His presence at least adds the immigration issue to each debate, and maybe that's his mission.
>
I will not give the other debate participant, a certain elderly House member from Texas, the privilege of printing his name. Suffice to say this fossil supports a policy of extreme isolationism long ago discredited. The man is a jackass and has no place in the debates or the modern geopolitical world.
>
Now to Fred. He is absolutely one-hundred percent dead right on all the issues. His speaking style and demeanor are ideal for the office. It's his ability to express conservative ideals in a plain-spoken manner that makes him the best Republican candidate for the general election. All of the other candidates have major flaws, with the exception of Duncan Hunter. That's why Fred should choose Hunter as VP. He fills the one void in Fred's resume, and that's military experience. Thompson/Hunter is a powerful combination to face the Democrats next November. Let's just hope the party is smart enough to stay committed to it's ideals. If it does, Fred Thompson will be the nominee, and he will win by articulating conservative values for a stronger America.
>
JINGOCON

THE DEMS HIT VEGAS

CNN held a Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas Thursday evening with all seven clowns attending. All of these debates of either party have been useless so far. Too many candidates that have no chance of winning and largely irrelevant questions are the norm. Wolf Blitzer and company didn't disappoint on that front. Each candidate provided their own examples of dangerous and misguided policies to endanger our republic.
>
Front-runner Billary Clinton danced through the minefield and avoided the mistakes of her last performance. She accused her opponents of "slinging mud". Imagine that, in a political campaign. She shares the same flawed view of Iraq as her fellow contenders. Her most befuddling answer of the evening somehow made a connection between the dissipation of the federal budget surplus (so graciously left by Slick Willie) and spending on the Iraq front. Does she not consider war as a result of unprovoked attacks on America legitimate spending? Billary has developed a standard weave: play the victim when attacked and present a facade of inevitability. So far her opponents are allowing her to do it successfully.
>
Senator Hussein "Emptysuit" Obama took every chance to press Billary on the issues, mostly without result except pathetic boos from the crowd, as if to doing so is a violation of the rules of chivalry. He made a puzzling connection of his own, linking Iraq spending to (get this) Social Security. He drew a few more boos for comparing Billary's tactics to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guliani, fightin' words in a Democrap debate. Hussein actually had the audacity to invoke the tradition of bipartisan unanimity on foreign policy. Odd, since he and his party have spent the last six years doing all they can to make a mockery of those words. Senator Emptysuit should educate the rest of his defeatist party about that idea.
>
Little Lord Fauntleroy John Edwards has locked on to the phrase "Bush, Cheney, and the neocons", and he used it like a mantra. Exactly who are "the neocons"? Whoever they are, they are responsible for the bulk of evil present in the world. After a gentleman named "Khalid Khan" stood up to complain about "profiling" at airports, Senator Fauntleroy went on a rant about "restoring respect" that spelled out how to lose the war. Edwards is another liberal dreamer who thinks he can make things better by being nice to people, a naive and dangerous notion. He should have told Mr. Khan that we were in fact NOT attacked by Finnish Baptists on 9/11, we were attacked by nineteen ARAB MUSLIM men.
>
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the most experienced executive of the bunch, has gone way too far in pandering to the far left of his party. He made the most shocking declaration by declaring human rights more important than national security, evoking flashes of Peanut Man Carter. Nothing could be more important to an American President than our national security. It is the definition of the job. Governor Richardson should look into the Presidential oath of office. He did, however, manage to work "Haliburton" into his evening, always a hit with the peaceniks. Nice try, Bill, but pandering alone won't get it done.
>
Senator Chris Dodd clearly demonstrated liberal thinking on judicial appointments. He claims he would have absolutely no "litmus tests". He also claims his appointments would all support Roe v. Wade. Well, Senator, that would be litmus test. Dodd also tried a little pandering himself by speaking Spanish in response to a question from the audience. Big whoop.
>
Senator Joe Biden was his usual curmudgeonly self. Biden apparently believes he can gain ground by repeatedly pointing out his experience. Of course, it's been wholly legislative and completely liberal. He even claimed he spoke to Musharraf about the situation in Pakistan before Bush did, a dubious statement at best. If he did, he is practicing diplomacy as a private citizen regardless of his Senate role. Senator Biden also sees a constitutional right to "privacy" in Section 5 of the 14th Ammendment, a bizzare translation of the text.
>
Crazy Dennis Kucinich provided his customary buffet of looney left drivel. He continued his one man crusade to impeach Bush and Cheney. He insisted the troop surge in Iraq is "fueling" the insurgency, but provided no evidence or rationale. That's because there isn't any. Kucinich's most dangerous idea was his complete rejection of preemption. That means an America under his administration would NOT respond to imminent attack. File that along with his ten thousand other insane notions.
>
A special SHUT UP HIPPY goes to the alleged Iraq war vet who stood up with his mommy to question the candidates about Iran. "Bring the troops home" was his catch phrase. Assuming he really is what he claims to be, he should be well aware that this war has a huge propaganda element to which he made a significant contribution. Way to help out your comrades still on the ground. For selfishly forgettting your buddies in time of war, SHUT UP HIPPY.
>
The Dems are making mountains out of the minor differences between them. They all support massive tax hikes to fund a major expansion in the size and scope of government. They all see government as the solution to every problem. They all claim they will "end the war", as if Al Qaida will just pack up and go home to become solid citizens if we withdraw. They all support varying degrees of amnesty for illegal aliens. They all support an American foreign policy based on weakness and vaccilation, and that's the most dangerous of all. None of them should be trusted with leading our nation.
>
JINGOCON

09 NOV 07

PAKISTANI NUKES: Somewhat lost in all the wreckless push toward forcing President Musharraf to call off his state of emergency and hold elections is the matter of Paki nukes and the missiles that deliver them. President Bush should be very careful about demanding Musharraf "take off his uniform". The thought of governmental chaos in Pakistan resulting in a radical Islamic takeover is horrifying. Those weapons would be used, given to Al Qaida, or both. The primary focus of the United States should be the security of all Paki nuclear materials. While publicly preaching democracy is all well and good, what we don't need is for that to result in loose nukes. Perhaps American interests are better served by the status quo, although there is some argument to be made concerning Musharraf's effectiveness in fighting terrorist forces. Former PM Bhutto is viewed as a stronger ally, but forcing a dangerous election to install her is irresponsible. The U.S. should take whatever steps are necessary to guarantee the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons without regard to altruistic fantasies. Failure to do so could result in the death of millions.

>

PLAYING POLITICS (AGAIN): House Democrats, having previously failed to override the President's veto on a defeatist Iraq funding measure, are apparently going to waste more time and try again. The CINC has requested $196B in funding for the war over the next fiscal year. The legislation now proposed provides only $50B and requires American forces to begin withdrawal. Not only is the effort a potential propaganda victory for Al Qaida, it comes just as significant progress is being made on the ground in Iraq. The continual effort by Dems to go beyond their Constitutional authority and legislate war policy through funding is absurd. Either provide the money or not. That is their singular role, but they attempt to dance around the edges while bashing Bush and abetting terrorist propagandists everywhere. The simple fact is that the Democrap leadership promised to end the war, and that is a promise they do not have the authority to fulfill. They know full well any funding measure with strings attached to it will be immediately and rightly vetoed, and that they do not have the votes in the Senate to override. Any time spent on bills known to be veto bait is completely wasted political grandstanding. Congress repeatedly fails to provide regular annual funding legislation in a timely manner, instead playing games with the lives of our troops.

>

AG CONFIRMED: Attorney General nominee Michal Mukasey was confirmed by the Senate late Thursday. The nomination looked to be in possible jeopardy over waterboarding, but resistance faded after President Bush let it be known it was either Mukasey or no one. The entire debate over interrogation tactics is excruciating, because there should be no debate. Waterboarding is a technique involving simulated drowning. It was used often during the Spanish Inquisition and during the murderous reign of Pol Pot in Cambodia. It is torture, and Congress should seek to define it as such, as well as enacting a clear enumeration of forbidden practices. There should be no vaguery on this subject. The use of torture is beneath a great nation like the United States and should not be tolerated. And don't start feeding me some garbage about an imaginary "ticking time bomb" scenario forwarded to legitimize cruelty. Using torture at any time makes us no better than our savage enemy. It is impossible for us to maintain the high moral ground while subjecting prisoners to simulated death. It all couldn't be more clearly unacceptable. We're supposed to be the good guys, and we ought to act like it.

>

ISRAELI WARNING: On Wednesday MG Yossi Baidatz of Israeli intelligence warned that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009. Helpfully confirming that projection the very same day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Iran now has over 3,000 centrifuges spinning away, presumably at Natanz. Barring miraculous diplomatic progress in the next six months, America will be forced to take action and strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The clock is ticking, and it's nuke powered.

>

MASTERS OF UNDERSTATEMENT: Reports issued by international bodies often demonstrate their generally tenuous grasp in reality. Just such a report is the one issued by the World Economic Forum on Thursday. It claims Muslim women are "struggling to compete for jobs, win equal pay and hold political office, falling behind the rest of the world in eliminating discrimination." That may be because they are held as virtual slaves, forced into arranged marriages, routinely beaten and frequently have their genitals mutilated. Get a clue.

>

MORE CHINESE POISON (AGAIN): Now we hear of toy beads from China which just happen to contain the date rape drug GHB. Two American children who ingested the beads are in unresponsive comas. It is once again clear that the continuing flood of poisoned Chinese toys is intentional. How else to explain the presence of a date rape drug? The United States government is failing miserably in its basic duty to protect our citizens from poisoning by foreign powers. ALL trade with China should cease until they stop attempting to murder our kids. The death or injury of American children by foreign goods is the direct responsibility of those in our government who pathetically refuse to protect our interests, largely for economic reasons.

>

JINGOCON