Fred's Instead

“Throughout this campaign, Fred Thompson brought a laudable focus to the challenges confronting our country and the solutions necessary to meet them. He stood for strong conservative ideas and believed strongly in the need to keep our conservative coalition together.” -- Mitt Romney, January 23, 2008

So now nobody is talking about true conservative issues. Even the one libertarian is way off message with his isolationist and conspiracy BS. Maddening. The thing is, there are still big differences among the Republican candidates, and the press ignores it. Yet on the Democrat side, there are no discernible differences in the candidates positions, and the candidates are portrayed as very different. I find that ironic. No differences, except for differences only racists and sexists can discern; and so now that's some sort of "defining issue" for this election.

It's amazing to watch. Clinton is more "Clinton" than she is woman. Obama is more Democrat than he is black. When all the superficial stuff blows over, this is why he has a good shot at winning the nomination. But, there isn't much to be gained with Obama in her place. He's still going to push for his brand of socialism, and as long as we are going to have a socialist running the country, as far as the electorate is concerned, it might as well be Obama.

Wizer One-Liner #15

With Huckabee emerging as the next Bill Clinton, and Obama echoing the Reagan Lovefest we hear from the Republican Candidates, I have to wonder if there are still two major parties.

Scoring Update

It's funny that no candidate has said much of anything remarkable in the last 30 days, what with there being a caucus and an election. I will have to deduct Hillary a point for promising to divvy up 110 billion of your money to her friends. Barry and John wish they'd said it first. Also, if Huckabee was a conservative, as he claims, he wouldn't be supporting national health care, higher taxes, and open borders. He should just start his own party (I like "The Populist Party").

Fred gets back to even with his Iranian Speed Boat comments.

Mitt Shares His Truth

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.' Mitt Romney Address: "Faith in America"


I think most of us are tired of the war on religion. The fact that Mitt Romney was called upon to explain his own religion should, and probably does, rankle a good number of us. Personally, I thought JFK put the matter to bed in 1960. Yet, here are Romney's detractors telling him he has to justify having a different religion. And this from the same people who want to diminish the meaning of religion.

So Mitt Romney, calling their bluff, gets out there and says something 90% of us believe: That there is a higher authority than government, and none of us have the right to usurp His role. The beauty of that is that now that Romney has said this, everybody else either has to say "me, too" or attempt to refute it. I'd like to see somebody try the latter.

George W. Bush was a man of faith, too. He was no theologian, but he, too, understood the difference between providence and Providence. Turns out that his simple, resolute faith was a significant difference maker in the election. If the areligious minority out there wants to paint Mitt Romney with that color of GWB, I think they have made a big tactical error. Going a little further; this event could very well cause religion to be the defining issue for the election. In that case, I'm betting on God.

Edwards signs in.

Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual's wages for purposes of collecting "back premiums with interest and collection costs." --ABC News: Political Radar

For a while there, I was afraid we were never going to see the color of Edwards' stripe. He's probably no different from the average Dem candidate in this respect; however by actually coming out and saying he wants another piece of our paychecks, well, it is remarkable for that alone.

It has been about controlling our lives for so long, they are no longer sensitive or shy about exposing their ultimate and final target... Your wallet!

Obama makes a point

"We can spend billion after billion on education in this country. We can develop a program for every problem imaginable and we can fund those programs with every last dime we have. But there is no program and no policy that can substitute for a parent who is involved in their child's education from day one," he said.
Obama said he would accredit college programs, remove poorly performing teachers from classrooms and increase time spent on math and science instruction. He said mentoring programs are key to keeping good teachers involved and improving struggling ones.

Barry O. has a point, even if it is buried in the context of a very Democrat-like 18 Billion dollar spending bill. Actually, a Democrat telling the truth about his spending plans is kind of different by itself. Anyway, the accountability angle wins him a point.

Huckabee whiffs

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."

Dear Mike: The law of this land requires that these issues be left to the states. Regardless of how you feel about slavery or abortion, you would first have to change how laws are made. Or is government to become whatever you want it to be? That's precisely how we got into this mess. Mike, we were hoping you would make some progress here. Instead, you lose a point.

Debate Double Feature

Politico's Roger Simon reports:

Though often accused of not being clear on what she would do to save the Social Security system, Clinton was very clear during the debate about one thing: She was against Obama’s plan to increase Social Security taxes on some people making more than $97,000 a year. “I do not want to fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors,” she said.
“If you lift the cap completely, that is a $1 trillion tax increase. I don't think we need to do that.” A visibly upset Obama responded: “Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000 a year. So six percent is not the middle class. It is the upper class!”

Score one for Hillary, and take one away from Barry.

Dodd, McCain, Clinton +1
Obama, Thompson -1

Globaloney Comes Full Circle

According to a recent report, we're ostensibly not offsetting enough carbon molecules.

First the "scientists" tell us that emissions are not pure enough. So engineers invent scrubbers, now emissions can be pure. Then the "scientists" say the pure emissions (carbon dioxide) are the problem, so the politicians invent carbon offsets. Everybody plants trees. The "scientists" tell us it isn't working.

I see where this is going. I say we tell the "scientists" to take a long hike off a short pier.

Fred Fumbles

"I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a [federal] law" that "would take young, young girls . . . and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail." -- Fred Thompson, NBC's Meet the Press, Sunday 11/4/2007

Letting liberals frame the issues is the surest sign of a weak candidate. This issue is too important to let outlying/spurious/inflammatory arguments see the light of day. This issue of Roe v. Wade is about many important things, especially about States rights, and the over-reach of the judiciary, and how laws are made in this country. To even suggest that it is about "putting little girls in jail" is an argument only an irrational leftist would would be expected to advance. Fred, I have to deduct a point. Thanks for playing, and do try to keep up.

(Dodd 1; McCain 1; Thompson -1).