About Me

Name:GenXDad
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

On Fred!

Posted by GenXDad on Friday, June 29, 2007 8:17:47 PM
This is the first of a three-part series on the "big three" Republican candidates.  Today I'll be talking about the Fred! phenomenon.



Fred Tompson has probably the most impressive non-campaign of any candidate I've ever seen.  The man has gone from nowhere to being first in a recent Rasmussen poll, and he isn't even an official candidate.

The Deal With Fred!
At first blush, Thompson appears to be a "none of the above" candidate who is gaining support because the conservative base is frustrated with the other major candidates.  However, his candidacy appears to be more than a vent for conservative frustration, but a surprisingly energetic effort.  Supporters of Thompson are calling themselves "Fred Heads" and calling him the second coming of Ronald Reagan, a man who can articulate the conservative cause in a way none have been able to since, well, Reagan.  But who is Fred, and what does he stand for?

Who is Fred Thompson?
According to his Wikipedia article, is described as follows:

Frederick Dalton "Fred" Thompson (born August 19, 1942) is an American lawyer, lobbyist, character actor and former Republican Senator from Tennessee (now residing in McLean, Virginia).[1]

He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, researching national security and intelligence.[2] Thompson is also a public speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureau[3] and is a special program host and senior analyst for ABC News Radio. He publishes a daily blog and podcast on the ABC Radio web site.[4]

As an actor, Thompson has performed in film and on television. He has frequently portrayed governmental figures;[5] in the 1993 film adaptation of Born Yesterday, Thompson played the character of a United States senator prior to his election to the Senate in real-life.[6] In the final months of his U.S. Senate term in 2002, Thompson joined the cast of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing Arthur Branch. On May 30, 2007, he asked to be released from the show, potentially in preparation for a presidential bid.[7]

On June 1, 2007 Thompson formed a "testing the waters" committee regarding his possible 2008 campaign for President.

Okay, that's the basics.  His history, in short:

Campaign manager for Howard Baker, 1972;
Co-Chief Counsel for Senate Watergate Committee;
He took the case of Marie Ragghianti, a Tennessee Parole Board chairperson fired under suspicious circumstances, and in the process exposed a cash-for-parole system that eventually toppled the Tennessee governor;
Elected to the Senate in 1994, reelected in 1996, retired in 2003;
Married in 1959, had three children, two of whom are still alive, divorced in 1985, apparently on good terms, married again in 2002, had two more children, one in 2003 and another in 2006.

And the one thing in his resume that according to his supporters may be the biggest, most important, most exciting part of Fred's history:

(drumroll please)

He's an actor.

Apparently, according to folklore, the reason that Reagan won in 1980 was not because he was governor of the largest state in the country for eight years, or that he ran for President in 1976, but that he was an actor who smooth-talked the country into voting for him.

Oh, wait, that the Democrats' story about Reagan... we'll get to that later.

Fred!  On the Issues!
Why are conservatives so excited about Thompson?  Because he's a real conservative, as opposed to those other guys who aren't conservative enough.  Or so the conventional wisdom goes, because people don't really know where he stands on the issues.

This article tries to tie together some of his positions. 
He has said federalism is his "lodestar". "[It] provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: "Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?"

He supports tax cuts, saying they bring growth.

He supports global trade.

On abortion:  Thompson describes himself as pro-life, but says the legality of abortion should be determined at the state level, in accordance with his federalist viewpoint. Until the year 2000, he indicated that he was pro-choice and also supported some restrictions on abortion.

Gays: Voted yes on the federal Defense of Marriage Act

Guns: Get this, he's surprisingly liberal on gun issues!  See below:

According to Gun Owners of America (GOA), as a senator Thompson voted pro-gun 19 times and anti-gun 14 times.[6] Three of the votes counted as anti-gun were for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act which GOA refers to as the "McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act" noting that "In many cases, it becomes illegal to even mention a politician's name in on-air advertising the month before an election." On June 25, 2007 the United States Supreme Court ruled that this provision was an unconstitutional violation of one's right to Free Speech.

Additionally, Thompson voted for the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban which can disarm gun owners without compensation for offenses as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This ban generally lasts a lifetime, can be imposed without a trial by jury effectively denying the individual his constitutional Fifth Amendment right to have Due Process and is retroactive.[6]

Thompson voted against the Smith "Anti-Brady" Amendment which would have prohibited the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners

On Iraq and the war on terror, Thompson as stood by Bush. He voted to authorize use of force and has not backed down.  He supported the Patriot Act.  He has said Iran may need to be dealt with militarily.

Obviously, his positions are a little sketchy.  There is more on him - his own writings on Townhall.  You can read all of his recent writings.  Here are Fred's deep thoughts on the major issues of the day:

Fred supports Federalism
Fred likes cell phones for security purposes (profound, huh?)
Fred opposes the rewriting of history.  Take that, Holocaust deniers!
Fred doesn't think NFL teams should draft players with character issues.  Fred Thompson - saving the NFL one poorly-written article at a time.
Fred questions the Cuban health care system.  Take THAT, Fidel Castro!
Fred opposes gender oppression by Islamic extremists.  Thank GOD!  Somebody is FINALLY speaking out against gender oppression.
Fred supports the Marines.  Hoo-RAH!
Fred agrees with Tenent that Saddam posed a threat.  Maybe that's why he voted for the use of force, no?
Fred is happy the conservative won in France.  A conservative is happy that another conservative won?  Get. Out. Of. Here.
Fred supports the Second Ammendment.  Sometimes.
Fred supports a strong President (you'll need to set aside a good thirty seconds for this one!)
Fred supports traditional edcuation at the universities.  Take THAT, you lovers of illiteracy!
Fred has a problem with Palesinian terrorists.  I'm reminded of a story a mom told me.  One of her children said he was from Earth, and the other said "Really?  Me, too!"  It's kind of cute when they're three.  Not so much when they're in their sixties.
Fred opposes the "Fairness Doctrine."  A talk radio host defending talk radio...?
Fred opposes Comprehensive Immigration Reform (or this bill, anyhow)
Fred opposes human trafficking.  Oh, cumon, Fred!  you sure you don't want to resurrect slavery in America?
Fred thinks America is a swell place to live.  Fred Thompson lives in America??? Me, TOO!!!
Fred is concerned that Palestinians are firing rockets into Israel.  Fred Thompson is from Earth?  Me, TOO!!
Fred thinks we should use radio and other media to advocate for freedom in other countries.  *cough* Radio Free America *cough*
Fred thinks vigilance is a good thing.  OMG, Fred, you should SO join my Neighborhood Watch.
Fred thinks Scooter Libby was treated unfairly.  But what about Paris Hilton???
Fred opposes Iran's taking of hostages.  Jimmy Carter took this position as well.  In 1979.  You're an itty witty bit late to the party, Fred, but thanks for showing up.
Fred doesn't like Robert Mugabe and the UN.  Take THAT, tinpot African dictators!
Fred supports the VA's efforts the recruit more nurses (his LOWEST-RATED article!)
Fred doesn't like Castro and Hugo Chavez (and he points out that Cuba supports Chavez, and vice-versa - how educational!)
Fred doesn't like it when universities ban expressions of speech.  Thake THAT, university administrators!
Fred doesn't like Harry Reid.  A bold position given Reid's 15% approval rating.
Fred opposes Congressional efforts to get rid of union secret balloting
Fred doesn't like CAIR.  Wow!  *I* don't like CAIR, either! Fred and I have SO much in common.
Fred supports keeping the Bush tax cuts.  Good thing he voted for them them.
Fred opposes geonicide in Darfur, and doesn't like the UN's approach to the situation.  Fred Thompson is against slavery and geonicide?!?  He's too good to be true!

Lest you think I'm being unfairly condescending, I invite you to read the articles yourself.  You can see there isn't a bold position or profound thought in the whole bunch.  It's great that he's talking to people and taking the time to write adolescent articles, but what does this tell you about Thompson?  Nothing, unless you were dying to know what he thought of the Marines.  (Psssst... ALL of the candidates like the Marines.  Even Dennis Kicinich.)

So why aren't Thompson's opponents writing these sort of articles?  Because they can write at or above the 8th grade level, which would go right over the head of Townhall giants like Kevin McCullough. Thompson, on the other hand, has chosen to write articles that are two IQ points above mentally retarded, which pleases McCullough to no end.  Whether this dumbing-down is intentional on Fred's part, one can only surmise.

Why Fred Should Be the Nominee
Thompson is the down-the-middle conservative.  He is the one candidate in the Republican field who can keep the Bush Coalition together.  With his ability to keep the conservatives on board, he could generate enough energy to squeak out a narrow victory, along the lines of 2004.

If - and it's a HUGE "if" - Thompson shows energy and enthusiasm, he can take the fight to the Democrats, project his leadership qualities in debates and big speeches, and win in a very close election.  He has the personality and look of a President, and he's right in the center of Republican sentiment on the issues.

He'll unite the anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-war on terror, anti-gay positions.  If you believe that the Karl Rove strategy is the only one that can win, Fred is the man.  He is articulate and charming, and he will give us what conservatives have been longing for since Reagan - a conservative who can win a debate.

Why Fred Should Not Be the Nominee
The flip side of the Rove Strategy is that Fred offers no opportunity for outreach.  His positions put him in good graces with conservatives and die-hard Republicans, who make up 35-40% of the electorate.  He doesn't offer anything to encourage those who didn't vote for Bush in 2004 to come over to his side, so the margin of error is very, very small.

Thompson doesn't bring anything new to the table.  His positions are the same GOP positions of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.  It's solid and stable, but also stale.  He comes off as an old man with old ideas, an old dog who won't learn new tricks.  Is that where the electorate is in 2008?

The bigger concerns, though, center around his energy and background.  Fred Thompson looks tired and uninspired.  In major speeches, he's looked like a guy who needs a snack and a nap.  He has a reputation of being a lazy campaigner and legislator.  He spent eight years in the Senate and has nothing to show for it.  With Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama chomping at the bit, how is a tired, lazy Thompson going to compare.

His lobbying past is an albatross.  People like to gloss it over, but if there isn't a picture of Fred Thompson with Abramaoff somewhere out there, I'll eat my hat.  It's a different ball game than it was when he was in the Senate, and his lobbying days are not going to sit well with voters.

My biggest problem with Thompson is his decision to abdicate his Senate responsibilities in the middle of a war.  I hate that "chickenhawk" lablel, but it's going to stick.  When the going got rough, Fred bailed on us.  Now he wants to be President?  It looks bad.  His big weakness happens to be in the area of the GOP's biggest strength - leadership and national security.  That's a veeeeeerrrrrrrry bad combination.

Bottom Line: A Fred Thompson Nomination  = Hillary Clinton Presidency
Fred Thompson is the quintessential September 10th Republican - September 10th 1980.  He is old, outdated and uninspired.  Picture Bob Dole without the experience, the war heroism, the energy or the intelligence and you have Fred Thompson, a watered-down version of a mediocre Republican

Let me make it clear - there isn't a Republican candidate out there who could put the party in "permanent minority status."  I get sick of the doomsayers and their baseless conclusions, so let's look at facts.  Whether we win or lose in 2008, the Democrats are still going to be the Democrats.  Notice how quickly they tanked since taking over Congress?  They'll do the same in the White House.

So, no, Fred Thompson will not lead the party into permanent minority status, but he will lose, and probably very badly.  Idiologically, he's a little too conservative, which is okay, but he's also unimaginative, so he's selling the same warmed-over plate of goods that Bob Dole was selling in 1996.  To say Thompson is the Bob Dole of 2008 is unfair to Bob Dole.  Dole was a war hero, a sharp wit and an energetic campaigner.  Thompson is none of those things.  Thompson is Bob Dole light.

Thompson will start with somewhere between 35 and 40%.  That's the conservative base, which he'll nail down.  He'll also draw in another 5% of "anti Hillary" voters who will be motivated by their hatred of Clinton.  So he gets 40-45% going in, but where's he going to get the rest?  The problem is, for Thompson to win, he has to get a huge majority of the "security voters," as Bush did in 2004.  The fact that he has a light resume, coupled with his leaving the Senate in the middle of the war only to return a few years later asking for the top job, will turn off security voters.  He could top out at 45%, a landslide defeat.  Maybe he could get it up to 47-48%, if the Dems really step in the mess, but that's optimistic.

With Thompson, the best we can hope for is a close election.  We can say goodbye to Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico, which means we can say goodbye to the White House right off the bat.  If it gets bad, and it probably will, say goodbye to Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and maybe Arkansas.  It could get even worse.

This won't spell doom for the Republicans, because the Democrats will most certainly remind people why they shouldn't be in power, plus the realities of the GWOT are going to put any Democratic President in an impossible situation.  So we'll bounce back nicely in 2010 and might be in great shape for years to come.

But this isn't any old election.  We're fighting a war.  These people want to kill you, your children and grandchildren.  A Democrat in the White House means more US civilian deaths, there's no other way to put it.  Are you willing to sacrifice somebody else's child for the sake of Republican electoral success?  How about yours? 

As Fred Thompson would say, "that's something you might want to think about."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shocking News: Terrorists Released from GITMO Committing More Terror!

Posted by GenXDad on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:37:42 PM
Make no mistake about it, the ACLU types who are howling against GITMO are cheering for the terrorists.  They want these guys released so they can commit more acts of terror and undermine the United States.  They're obviously smart enough to read.

Yet another story of a former GITMO inmate engaging in - surprise - more terror.  This one's from Russia.  The guy was released in 2004, and finally met his karmic fate after helping to kill a bunch more innocent people.

And the ACLU wants these guys released, why???

Every day, in every way, those darned "neocons" are being proved more and more right.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LA Story: La City Attorney Under Investigation

Posted by GenXDad on Friday, June 22, 2007 6:12:06 PM
Now for a little local flavor, news is coming out about the shenanegans of LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo.

Most people in Los Angeles, much less the rest of the country, had no idea this guy was such a sleazebag.  I have access to some inside sources with the city and let's just say these current accusations are only the tip of the iceberg.

Delgadillo is under fire because his wife was caught driving a city vehicle without a license, getting into an accident, not having car insurance and sticking the city with the tab for the accident.

He's also accused of using paid staff for babysitting and running other errands.

Ahhhh, but like so many things in Los Angeles, the "backstory" is far more insteresting than the production we're watching.  Upon coming into office, Delgadillo was widely regarded as an incompetent attorney who was only using the post to make a name for himself.  During his term, he's proven these cretics right.

His management of the city attorney offices has been abysmal.  Cases that should be brought to trial are being thrown out by attorneys who don't want to do their job, while Rocky looks the other way.  Judges, police officers and City Hall observers, aside from the decent city attorneys who want to do their job, are increasingly frustrated with Delgadillo's lazy management style and lack of follow-through.

Delgadillo has dropped almost every major initiative brought forth by the Counci, and the few that he's incorporated, he's sought to steal as his own.  This is no surprise, self-serving politicians do this all the time.  But his complete refusal to work with anybody else, whether from law enforcement or elected leadership, has alienated him from just about everybody who matters in LA.

At this point, he's counting on his racial background to catapult himself into the Mayor's office, but even members of the Latino community are shaking their heads at Delgadillo's incompetence and selfich behavior.

Now the facts about his own disregard for the law are starting to surface.  Rest assured, there's more where this came from.  He's showing himself to be the worst city attorney LA has ever had.  Given the incompetence of Los Angeles, that's really saying something.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CAIR and Terror

Posted by GenXDad on Friday, June 22, 2007 5:01:36 PM
The links between CAIR and Islamic terror continue to be exposed.  This article reports that CAIR has been named an indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror case.  Some details of the connection:

"A former senior CAIR official is among five indicted figures in the major terror-funding case. It turns out he is related by marriage to a key suspect in the conspiracy -- a radical Muslim cleric and activist who authorities have linked to al-Qaida.

In fact, they say the cleric is closely connected to the spiritual adviser to the 9/11 hijackers.

Federal investigators have learned that imam Mohammed El-Mezain -- who goes on trial next month with one of CAIR's founding board members -- once lived in the same small Colorado apartment complex with another imam accused of preparing some of the hijackers for their "martyrdom" operation.

El-Mezain and imam Anwar Aulaqi later moved to San Diego, where Aulaqi held closed-door meetings with the al-Qaida hijackers. The two radical clerics also organized pilgrimages to Mecca together, including one made just months before the 9/11 attacks."

And this:

"There is more to the connection. El-Mezain is a cousin of Mousa Abu Marzook, the political leader of Hamas and a terrorist fugitive. Before Marzook fled the U.S., he lived in Falls Church and attended Dar al-Hijrah.

In early April 2001, after Aulaqi returned from the Saudi hajj trip, two young Saudi men showed up at his Falls Church mosque. One was Nawaf al-Hazmi, the second in command behind the "emir" or leader of the 9/11 operation, Mohamed Atta. The other was Hani Hanjour, the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon."

On CAIR's relationship with Hamas:

"CAIR denies charges that it supports terrorism, and claims federal prosecutors are conducting a witch hunt.

In 1994, however, CAIR was spun off from a known Hamas front called the Islamic Association for Palestine, which publishes Hamas communiques, distributes Hamas recruitment videos, and hosts conferences raising money for the Palestinian terrorist group, investigators say. CAIR co-founders
Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad were two of IAP's top officers in the early 1990s.

IAP was co-founded by Hamas political chief Marzook, an officially designated terrorist and fugitive from justice."

"In October 1993, eight months before CAIR was formed, the FBI covertly recorded Ahmad and other IAP officials professing their commitment to Hamas during a key meeting in Philadelphia with five Hamas leaders and three top executives of the Holy Land Foundation, including Elashi, according to federal court records citing an internal FBI report."

There's more.  Much more.  The links between CAIR and Islamic terrorism are more than coincidental.  It apprears the Feds are on their way to outing CAIR as a terrorist supporting organization, which should make the members of the news media who run to CAIR for the "Muslim perspective" look very foolish.  Then again, maybe the terrorists are the Muslims we should be going to for an accurate perspective on the Muslim faith.

It's getting harder and harder to find the "moderate Muslims" amongst the Wahabbists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Veepstakes - Palin and Steele Represent the GOP's Future

Posted by GenXDad on Friday, June 22, 2007 1:21:32 PM
Lorie Byrd writes and excellent article about a Steele candidacy. I've thrown my support behind Palin for VP, but I agree with Byrd's sentiments about the need for the GOP to break out of its mold of picking old white Christian men for the number two spot.

Before you start jumping all over me about "political correcness," let's consider that, of the VP selections chosen by GOP nominees since 1964, only one, George HW Bush, proved himself to be Presidential, and he was considered a disappointing President.  For the most part, the slections were for political reasons and the VP selections were mediocre at best.

So the argument that Palin and Steele are "unqualified" is bunk.  Both of them are ten times more Presidential than Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle, so spare me this nonsense about "tokenism."  We already have affirmative action in the GOP - affirmative action for unqualified and uninspiring white men.  Next to the losers that have been dragging down the GOP ticket for the past forty years, a dynamic and inspiring woman or minority VP candidate is a breath of fresh air.

The last thing we need is a runner-up VP nominee.  For the candidates who won't go on to win the nomination, there's a reason.  The voters took a good look and said "no thank you."  Giving them the second slot turns the Vice Presidency into the GOP booby prize and guarantees the VP won't expand the ticket beyond the scope of the GOP primary voters who voted for him.

We need to to better than this if we want to win.  And we also need to consider the future of the GOP.  Palin and Steele are fresh faces, energizing and articulate.  They will get people's attention.  The party of old white men suddenly looks a little different, sounds a little different, and is a little different.  Whether we win or lose in 2008, Palin or Steele will be remembered, and that becomes the future of the GOP.  Considering the dismal past of GOP vice presidents, that would be a welcome change indeed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FINALLY - A Muslim Attacks Islam

Posted by GenXDad on Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:47:16 PM
Irshad Manji speaks out against the insane reaction of Islamist thugs to the knighting of Salman Rushdie.  It's a great read.  His reaction to Rushdie's knighthood: 

"As a Muslim, you better believe I'm offended - by these absurd reactions.

I'm offended that it is not the first time honours from the West have met with vitriol and violence. In 1979, Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam became the first Muslim to win the Nobel Prize in science. He began his acceptance speech with a verse from the Koran.

Salam's country ought to have celebrated him. Instead, rioters tried to prevent him from re-entering the country. Parliament even declared him a non-Muslim because he belonged to a religious minority."

"I'm offended that every year, there are more women killed in Pakistan for allegedly violating their family's honour than there are detainees at Guantanamo Bay."

"I'm offended that in April, mullahs at an extreme mosque in Pakistan issued a fatwa against hugging.

The country's female tourism minister had embraced - or, depending on the account you follow, accepted a congratulatory pat from - her skydiving instructor after she successfully jumped in a French fundraiser for the victims of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Clerics announced her act of touching another man to be "a great sin" and demanded she be fired."

I'm particulary outraged at this, being a skydiver myself.  If they issue a fatwa against skydiving, I'll show these bastards what a jihad looks like.

My favorite part:

"Above all, I'm offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God's self-appointed ambassadors. We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent. "

And that highlights the reality.  We cannot, and must not, fight on behalf of moderate Muslims who will not stand up the extremists.  If Islam is to survive, those who don't profess killing innocents, mutiliting female genitals, "honor" killings, Islamic law, the destruction of Israel and the rest of the unacceptible nonsense being spewed forth by the millitant morons who are attacking us, will have to stand up and take ownership of their faith.

If this becomes an all-out battle between Islam and the west, Islam will lose.  It's up to people likeManji to save their faith from those who are sending the faith into a headlong path to suicide. 

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

Jimmy Carter's Journey into Nutterdom

Posted by GenXDad on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:05:19 PM
 Jimmy Carter Peanut RadioIt's hard to imagine this guy was ever President, but the worst
President of the modern era continues his effort to be remembered
as an even worse ex-President.  And in the case of Jimmy Carter,
That's really saying something.

In Ireland, Carter was busy blaming America for the problems in Gaza.
The terrorist organization Hamas took over Gaza, rounding up opponents and killing them, firing rockets into Israel and otherwise showing no respect for human life or common decency.

Jimmy Carter, in Ireland, thinks this is all our fault.

The refusal by the U.S., Israel and the EU to support Hamas, an armed terror group that just launched a coup d'etat and civil war in full view of the world, was nothing but a "criminal" act at the root of the trouble there, Carter asserted.

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.

The U.S. "undermined" the terrorist organization Hamas by refusing to give them money.  Apparently Carter thinks it's a bad thing for the U.S. to give money only to people who don't go around killing innocent civilians.  From the article:

The statement was so malevolent and illogical as to border on insane. Carter wasn't honest enough to say he was rooting for terrorists who started a terrifying new war in the region and trashed what little democratic rule the Palestinians had. Instead, he tut-tutted the West for being insufficiently sensitive to the fact that Hamas thugs were democratically elected in 2006 in an "orderly and fair" vote.

One only needs to look at Carter's statements over the past five years to see he is in fact rooting for the terrorists, as are an unfortunate number of the far-left.  But aside from being morally repugnant, his comments are also intellectually dishonest.  Hamas was not democratically elected.  Yes, they received a plurality of the vote, but that's not a majority.

Furthermore, rounding up your opposition at gunpoint isn't  an orderly and democratic act.  At that point, you forfeit any right to be considered democratic.

Carter fails to understand what's going on in these countries.  Hamas didn't act violently as a way to try and get US aid.  They're getting all the aid they need from Iran.  This was part of a continuing strategy by Iran to destabilize and radicalize the Middle East.  Iran is making a bod-faced attemt to elarge its circle of influence by creating a circle of mayhem.

That's why Iran is supporting warring factions in Iraq; that's why Iran is supporting the Taliban; and it's why Iran is supporting the lastest bloodbath in Palestine.  It's going to continue to worsen until the world steps in and kicks Iran back into the proverbial doghouse.  Whining about U.S. aid to Iran-funded terrorist organizations is sticking your head in the sand, something Carter and the left wing is getting very, very good at.  But American conservatives aren't exactly stepping up to the plate on this issue, either.  At some point, we're going to have to confront Iran head on and put an end to this world menace.

In the meantime, Ireland can keep Jimmy Carter.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Letting Go and Accepting God's Will

Posted by GenXDad on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 2:31:02 PM
Fathers Day is over, but I want to share the lesson I learned from reflecting on last weekend.

I’ll readily admit that I’m never going to win the Ned Flanders Award for church attendance. While I own a Bible, and I do read it, particularly the gospels, on a regular basis, it sits on the bookshelf along with other books, many written by people who don’t believe in the Bible, and some of whom might consider me a fool for believing it myself. While I believe in Christ, I’m very skeptical of some of the Christians out there, especially the ones who are certain they have cracked every code in the Bible, received divine guidance, and now have all the answers. The last guy who had all the answers could walk on water, while these guys who claim to have the answers look all wet to me. I once heard Hugh Hewitt tell a listener “don’t follow Christians, follow Christ,” and I’ve taken that philosophy to heart.

While I’m far from perfect, I believe God is in my life, because I’ve felt His presence and his hand. I don’t pretend to know his plan, but I work to prepare myself to accept his direction. I prepare myself in a lot of ways. I take time to evaluate my life, seek balance, find congruence in my life and live the life outside that lives in my heart. I am a strong proponent of self-improvement as a tool for being the kind of person you are inside, and I see absolutely no contradiction between using such things to make myself into a better man and believing in Christ.

This is where I take issue with the absolutists. I believe things like Neuro Linguistinc Programming, visualization, meditation and positive self-talk are tools God has given us to be the kind of people He wants us to be, not tools of the Devil. God gave us a brain for a reason, and he expects us to use it to its fullest, and that includes ridding bad habits and mental roadblocks. Like any tool, they can be used properly or improperly, and whether they’re used for good or evil depends not on the tool but the character of the person using the tool.

When I got divorced about four years ago, I did a lot of soul-searching. I realized that the marriage I was in was based on a lie, and it was time to come clean and live a congruent life. I didn’t really love the woman I married, and I settled on her out of insecurity. I owed it to myself, to her, our son and, yes, to God, to live an honest life and find the woman God wanted me to be with, not the one who made me comfortable in the moment.

So I set on a path of self-improvement and self-discovery. I had been so wrapped up in my insecurities and fears I didn’t even know what really made me happy in life. I took risks. Getting a divorce was a big risk. Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane was a big risk, too, and became an incredible hobby. (Praying while climbing to altitude no doubt brought me closer to God, too.) I dated many different women, and had the most wonderful relationships I’d ever had. I became closer to my son and strived to be a better and more involved father. I strengthened my relationship with my family, which had been strained, because my first wife didn’t like associating with my family. I also prayed a lot. I grew into the man I was supposed to be, and people who saw the “old me” remarked how different I carried myself and that I looked “truly happy.”

During all of this, I could have settled. I could have married one of those other women and been happier than I ever was in my first marriage. And I missed being married and having a complete family. Living in a one bedroom apartment gets to be a drag. I wanted my son to see his father in a positive, loving relationship with a woman. But I never settled. I knew that, while these women who were coming into my life were wonderful, beautiful people, they were not what God had planned for me. I felt I was on the right path, but not at the end of my journey.

Then I met my soul mate. I didn’t believe in the concept of a soul mate before, but as she and I grew together, I realized they do exist if we’re open to what God has planned for us, and she was mine. She wasn’t what I had in mind as my future wife. She was by far the most attractive woman I’d ever dated, but on paper, we didn’t seem compatible. I was the high school geek who couldn’t get a date, she was the popular cheerleader; I’m the white-collar manger who deals with numbers, she’s a cop; I’m the responsible planner, she’s a free spirit; I’m the single dad, she’d never been married; she was older than me. Even with all those differences, we had more in common than either of us had found in any past relationship.

So life changed. I went from the “serial dater” to the faithful boyfriend, to being more ready to tie the knot than I’d ever been before. She went from the independent free-spirit and “commitmentphobe” to calling herself “Mrs. GenxDad” before we’d gotten engaged. We both felt the hand of God on us, leading the way. Even while we fought through our differences and learned to accept each other for who we are and put aside our preconceived notions of the ideal partner, God was there, helping us to let go of our own plans and accept His.

We got engaged and started planning our life together, the adventurous couple. We’d travel, we’d go kayaking, we’d SCUBA dive, we’d be the “work hard, play harder” couple. We’d get married at the end of the year, when I’d built up enough vacation time.

Then life changed again. She discovered she was pregnant. It was a miracle, and we accepted this change in our lives as if we’d planned it ourselves. We know many people who are struggling to get pregnant, and they’d ask us what we did. We’d say we got pregnant the old fashioned way – by accident. But it wasn’t an accident. We knew this was also God’s plan, and we could feel His hand gently guiding us down the path He had for us.

My son is absolutely thrilled at the prospect of having a baby brother. We’ve adjusted to the whirlwind of changes – moving in together, getting married, adjusting to the “blended family,” and taking care of my wife through her generous serving of pregnancy-related discomforts.

Through this stressful and dramatic set of life changes, she and I have grown closer to each other and closer to God, and so far away from the plans we were making even at the beginning of this year, it’s like we’re different people. We look back on our lives last year and it seems like another lifetime ago when we met and fell in love while having adventures all over the world. Now I can’t wait to get home to take care of her.

It’s in these moments of reflection that I realize that all the things I was doing weren’t a waste of time, or the tool of the Devil, but part of the plan God has in store for me. I had to get myself ready to accept the changes He had planned. I had to rid myself of the self-deceit and fears holding me back. I had to learn to accept change, to embrace the unexpected change in direction of the road ahead, to learn to love the change, let go, learn the lesson and grow as a man. It’s through this process that I’ve come to understand the phrase “Let go, Let God.” I wish I could have learned to accept this reality earlier in my life, but there was a reason for that, too. I’m learning to accept my past without regret or bitterness by embracing the present and accepting the gift that I’ve been given.

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

Bubble Candidates and the People Who Love Them

Posted by GenXDad on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:23:42 PM
 Image Preview                         Wesley K. Clark                              Image Preview

What do these three candidates have in common?

People have a need to project their fantasies onto someone or something else.  It's a form of insecurity, but it's also very human.  The world is an imperfect place and there is little in the world we can change.  We think we have all the answers to solve the world's problems, if only the world would stop acting so stupid and just listen to us.

But the world doesn't listen.  We search for the perfect spouse, the perfect job, the perfect look, the perfect house, and the perfect candidate.  But every time we think we've found perfection, our spouse shows his or her human side, the new boss starts acting strange, we notice a few wrinkles and a little extra fat that wasn't there before, the plumbing starts leaking and our perfect candidate starts saying and doing things we don't agree with.  And we become disillusioned.

We project our need for the perfection lacking in ourselves and our own lives onto others, other human beings with their own imperfections, frailties and failings.  We idealize our spouse, and then become unfairly disappointed when they show themselves to be human, and the divorce rate continues to spiral thanks to unrealistic expectations and our inability to deal with human imperfection, especially our own.

We can't make our spouses into models of perfection, and we have terribly little control over national politics.  We see candidate A, who we agree with on most things, but who strikes us as too slick, and candidate B, who is strong and a solid leader but who we don't see eye to eye on some things.  We're disillusioned.  If only we had the name recognition and popularity of these other guys, we could run ourselves, and win in a landslide! 

Then there's candidate C.  We know nothing about him, except that he isn't candidate A or B.  He has a mannerism that seems just like an ideal candidate.  Others who have jumped on his bandwagon promise that he agrees with all of our positions, even the ones that contradict some of our other positions.  He's the proverbial blank screen at the movie theater, onto whom can project whatever we want.

And we do.  Ross Perot rose to the front of the pack not because he was slick, but because people could make him into the perfect candidate.  Then he opened his mouth and we discovered, to our disappointment, that he was human, and kind of a kooky human to boot.  Wesley Clark is an intelligent and capeable leader, but nobody knew a thing about him when he ran for President.  Yet some 40% of Democrats said they were ready to pull the lever for him, convinced that he, too, reflected every one of their thoughts, because he hadn't said anything to suggest he didn't.  Until he started saying things and proving he wasn't the ideal libera-moderate-conservative-maverick that his supporters dreamed he would be.

Now we have Fred!  I've given the guy a hard time in this blog, but let me be fair.  I don't really have a problem with Fred Thompson.  I don't know the guy.  I have a problem with his supporters who are getting overstimulated over a candidate they know next to nothing about.  I can't stand bandwagon sheep who jump from ship to ship without doing careful thinking, and that's all this current Fred Thompson phenomenon is. 

I thought Republicans were better than this.  Obviously, we're not.  We've got normally intelligent people waxing poetic over Thompson's use of the Internet.  I mean, a BLOG!  However did Fred come up with such an idea???  Hey, I've got a blog, and a MySpace page.  I've even got WiFi.  Maybe *I* should run for President.  Then we've got some dimwitted bloggers jumping on the bandwagon because, well, they can't really say.  The particular dimwit in question, Kevin McCullough (I don't hide at all my complete disrespect for this man, who I consider a complete disgrace to the party and to the conservative movement, which may be coloring my disregard for Fred! to some extent), says this:

"So what pushed me over the edge? Well, Fred has had some bang-up speeches and television appearances. He's written a weekly column for us here on TownHall bringing his common sense directly to us, and in doing so he's eliminated a lot of the filters by which messages can usually get mangled. He also speaks so that everybody in the room can understand - and funny enough according to the poll numbers - they do. I do look forward to seeing Fred in the debates and when he arrives, look for him to shoo away the attacks of the others with the ease that he puffed cigar smoke into the face of Michael Moore.

But if you really have to know what pushed me from Mitt to Fred: National Right To Life 100% rating... and the rest of what he says in this video to the NRLC that met in Washington last night"

This is classic projection.  And it's a perfect example of an insecure, intellectually lazy person jumping on a bandwagon to compensate for his own personal shortcomings.  McCulough's shortcomings are obvious to anybody who reads his blog.  The man is perhaps the dimmest bulb on Townhall.  Even when he's trying his very hardest to be smart, he can't put together a complete thought, and can barely construct a complete sentence. 

Furthermore, he's aware of his deficiencies.  He's a third-rate radio personality and a fourth-rate author.  Getting lapped by Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt has to be tough on a guy, and he can feel that glass ceiling on his head.  Anybody who calls himself a "musclehead" is painfully aware of his intellectual shortcomings and is desperately trying to compensate.

But enough psychobabble.  My point is, even his intellectual argument for Fred! is void of any fact or reason.  He likes Fred because Fred makes Kevin feel good about Kevin.  As far as the 100% pro-life rating for a man who was solidly pro-choice while in Congress, according to his own survey responses, this is another case of blind projection.  At least Giuliani and Romney supporters acknowledge their candidates' shortcomings.  People who project perfection on anybody are setting themselves up for painful disappointment, aside from setting themselves up to look like complete fools.

Of course, for many of the Fred-heads, looking foolish is nothing new.  That's part of the reason they're jumping on the bandwagon in the first place, they want to be one of the first to support a winner, so they can finally be right about something.  But don't lose heart, Fred-heads, after Fred shows his humanity and breaks your heart, there's always Michael Bloomberg to fall back on.  I hear he once said something disparaging about abortion and the checkout clerk at Trader Joe's says he's the real deal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Revival, Part 2 - The Veto Strategy

Posted by GenXDad on Monday, June 18, 2007 3:16:15 PM
President Bush, along with Congressional Republicans, is engaged in a three-part plan to revive his standing. 

The first part is to paint the Democrats squarely as the anti-war party, and then squelch every anti-war effort the Democrats put forth.  So far, so good.  If the surge works, Bush wins big, the Dems lose everything. 

The second part is to reclaim the fiscal conservative mantle, and that's what Bush is doing now.  Some of that happened during the battle over the war funding, when Democrats loaded the bill with pork, and Bush seized on this.  Then the Democrats shot themselves in the foot in a battle over Congressional earmarks.  As I've said before, Democrats just being Democrats is the best thing to ever happen to the GOP.

Now the fun is about to begin. The Prince of Darkness writes that Bush will veto nine of the twelve spending bills being passed by Congress.  This will go a long way towards restoring the fiscal conservative mantle, and represents a departure from the big-spending ways of the past six years.

And it's so easy.  All Bush has to do is sit back and wait for the Democrats to shove every stupid spending proposal they can think of into their spending bills, then veto it, highlighting the stupidest of the earmarks for good measure.  Whether the Democrats stubbornly fight for their pork, and risk being labeled the wasteful spenders that they are, or whether they fold like a paper boy on crack, the Dems lose.\

I thought it would take several of these vetoes for Congress' approval ratings to start sliding, but apparently the Democrats have already done more damage to themselves than Bush could ever do to them with his veto.  So the Dems won't slide any further, but Bush will demonstrate leadership and resolve by rejecting the work of an irresponsible and feckless Congress, so he'll score some much-needed points.

We'll see where everybody is standing in the fall, after the dust settles.  I'm betting Republicans will be holding their heads much, much higher.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That Didn't Take Long: America Hates the Democratic Congress

Posted by GenXDad on Monday, June 18, 2007 1:31:59 PM
Today's news looks bad for the Democrats.  Congress' approval rating is at a 10-year low, they're being labeled the "Do-Nothing Congress," and people are realizing that the Democrats of 2007 can't govern any better than the Democrats of 1994, who got tossed out on their ears.

It took only a few months for the public to realize just how lousy the Democrats are at governing.  Symbolic votes, pork spending, attempts to hide earmarks, corruption and making promises they knew they could never keep have caught up with the Dems, who are now even more unpopular than the Republicans when they got voted out.

Their justification is interesting.  "Democrats point to the nearly daily congressional oversight hearings they have held into how Bush does business, many dealing with the war."

So the do-nothing Congress is holding pointless oversight hearings into the Bush administration, and they can't understand why the public is angry with them.  Between the soul-search that's been going on with the GOP after the 2006 losses and the way the Democrats are screwing up, the 2006 loss may be the best thing that's happened to the Republican Party in a long while.

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

Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Abortion Flip-Flopping

Posted by GenXDad on Friday, June 15, 2007 4:14:09 PM
So when is flip-flopping on abortion okay?  Apparently, it's okay if it's done with a Southern drawl.

There's a great post that highlights one of the best-kept secrets of the Thompson campaign - he was pro-choice before he was pro-life. 

His response to Project Vote Smart shows that Fred Thompson, at one time, supported abortions for any reason in the first trimester, opposed mandatory spousal notification and felt that Congress should leave the issue to the states.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with that position.  I'm a pro-choice Republican who takes a Federalist approach to the issue - that the government shouldn't be legislating morality.  I'm endorsing the pro-choice Giulianai, and part of that support is because he's pro-choice. I'm not going to hold my nose and "vote for the team" this primary.  So if Thompson were in fact pro-choice, I might consider voting for him.

But he says he isn't, and I believe him.

Mitt Romney also says he's pro-life, and I believe him, too.  And I believe Giulianai will appoint strict constructionist judges.  Since the only way a President is going to do anything about abortion is through juicial appointments, they're all three pro-life for all practical purposes. 

So why is Romney getting pounded as a flip-flopper while Thompson is getting off scott-free?  Well, part of it might be because Fred isn't in the race yet, and part might have something to do with the fact that people don't know as much about Fred's flip floppery. 

But a lot of "conservatives" who are pumping up Fred are aware of this contradiction, and simply blow it off, while savaging Mitt for the same thing.  Why?  The obvious reason is they want Fred to win, and Romney is seen as a threat.  The less obvious reason is religious bigotry among the "Christian" conservatives.  There's no other reason why Mitt is being singled out on this, when there isn't a shred of difference between him and Thompson on this issue.  Right now, the people on the far right are acting like shills for the Democrats, and I'm getting sick of it.

Since I'm supporting Rudy, I guess I should just keep my mouth shut and enjoy the cat fight, which is helping Rudy.  But I want to see the party win, and that means calling B.S. when people attack our possible nominee in such a  disengenuous manner.

Personally, I think it's time for Romney to take the fight to McCain and the Fred Heads.  There isn't a shred of difference between the three of them on abortion.  (I disagree with all three of them equally on this one.)  There are on other issues, but bashing a candidate on an issue where he and a majority of the party agree is B.S., and does nothing to help us win the White House in 2008.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Of RINOs, Rockefeller Republicans, Goldwater and Reagan

Posted by GenXDad on Friday, June 15, 2007 3:28:49 PM
Another disturbing post about a candidate who could be another dreaded "Rockefeller Republican," this time, Mitt Romney.

I don't know where to begin as far as my problems with this post, but my first problem is that this post is reflective of the way a frighteningly large number of conservatives see the past and present.  If you can't see the past and present clearly, your future is doomed.

So let me try to inject some sanity into this issue;

1.  Barry Goldwater, and his positions, do not reflect true Republican values.  This continued worship among a small segment of the conservative movement for Goldwater is either amusing, annoying or troubling, depending on how seriously you view the "Goldwater Republicans."  But let me ask you, does somebody whose legacy from his Presidential campaign was his opposition to the Civil Rights Act qualify as a rightful heir to Abraham Lincoln?  And is a candidate who opposed the national parks system the natural heir to Teddy Roosevelt?  (Or were Lincoln and Roosevelt "RINOs" as well?)

Goldwater was a weak, shrill and utterly tone-deaf candidate who got rightfully creamed.  His lasting legacy was to drive black voters from the party for good.  Prior to the 1964 election, Republicans got 30% of the black vote.  After, we never got more than 10% of the black vote.

Oh, and Goldwater was also pro-choice and favored gay rights, including allowing gays in the millitary.  Is that the Republican Party of today?

2. Reagan was not a "Goldwater Republican."  One of the infuriating aspects of the paleocons is their tying of Goldwater, the most unpopular Republican since Hoover, with Reagan, one of the most popular Republicans ever.  The only thing they had in common is they both wanted Goldwater to win in 1964.  But Reagan was not a Goldwater Republican.  Reagan supported free and expanded trade; Reagan used the tax code to expand the economy, and supported an aggressive Federal Reserve policy; Reagan was a multinationalist who built alliances to defeat communism, and sought to expand America's influence around the globe; Reagan supported the Civil Rights Act, and expanded it to include the handicapped; Reagan supported a "liberal" immigration policy; Reagan was pro-life; Reagan was opposed to expanding gay rights; REAGAN WAS NO BARRY GOLDWATER, and thank God he wasn't.

3. Neither GHW Bush nor GW Bush are Rockefeller Republicans, and GW Bush might be even more conservative than Reagan.  Paleocons rail that GW Bush was a liberal Republican, presumably because of his agreement to raise taxes.  His tax hike was a bad decision.  The Republicans hadn't raised taxes since... Ronald Reagan.  And Reagan's tax hike was bigger.  GHW Bush also made some poor choices for SCOTUS appointment, like Souter, and a very solidly conservative appointment in Thomas.  While Souter turned out to be a disaster, Bush's goal was to appoint a strict constructionist.  Rockefeller Republicans would never think of appointing someone like Clarence Thomas.  Bush's bold response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait is hardly the feeble response one would expect from a Rockefeller Republican.  Unless you have no idea who Rockefeller is, which I think is the case with the huge majority of paleocons.

And calling GW Bush a liberal is laughable.  Bush cut taxes, one of the largest tax cuts ever.  Then, at the time in his Presidency when Reagan was giving us the largest tax hike in history, to offset most of his tax cut, Bush cut taxes again.  And again.  And again.  Whose the conservative on taxes?  Bush, by a landslide.

How about fighting terrorism?  There were calls in the 80s for Reagan to declare a "Global War on Terror."  Instead, Reagan pulled the Marines out of Beiruit after the first terrorist attack.  What did Bush do after we were attacked?  He invaded Afghanistan.  Then Iraq.  And when Iraq became umpopular?  He authorized a surge.  So who is more steadfast in the face of adversity?  Again, Bush.  It's not even close.

How about SCOTUS appointments?  Reagan did very well.  We got Scalia, Kennedy and O'Conner, a conservative and two center-right moderates.  Bush?  Roberts and Alito.  Two solid conservatives who, along with Kennedy, have given us our first conservative majority since perhaps the 1940s.  Winner?  Bush, although picking SCOTUS appointments is such a crapshoot, I'd give points for good intentions, so we'll call it a tie.

Wht about immigration?  Surely Bush sold us out with the amnesty!  Um... actually, that was Reagan.  in 1986, he made a bargain with the Democrats on immigration that amounted to amnesty.  He didn't change any of the rules with regard to bringing family members over, he didn't ask for a fence, or an ID card, or a priority list for legal immigrants.  So this awful liberal bill that Bush is supporting is, even with all its flaws, MORE CONSERVATIVE than the one Reagan proudly signed in 1986.

I'm not trying to denigrate Reagan with this comparison, but highlighting the fact that the current President is at least as conservative as Reagan ever was, if perhaps in different ways.  The world's a different place, so you'd expect different priorities.  Yes, Bush lacks Reagan's style and presence, but that doesn't make him less of a conservative, just less of a President.  I'll concede that - just put Reagan's 60% approval next to Bush's 30% and you see whose the better leader.  But being more popular doesn't make you  more conservative; in fact, it could be just the opposite.

So enough already with the Goldwater-Reagan-Rockefeller nonsense.  Judge the candidates on their own merits.  This is 2007.  Change your calendars accordingly.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It |