Is Conservatism Dead?...Get Real.

It has been brought to my attention recently that Conservatism is dead. The announcement of its demise followed the other shocking announcement of the death of the influence of talk radio (namely conservative talk radio) on the electoral process. It was still further noted that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin would all be selling apples on street corners before the election next November. Okay, I made that last part up. But it would fit snuggly into the box of wishful thinking gift-wrapped by the liberal main stream media for our consumption. However, the facts would suggest otherwise.

And just what are those facts? Isn’t it true that there are only two Republican candidates left standing and that both of them are moderates? Well, there are actually three if you count Ron Paul, who has made no announcement of suspending his campaign. But since he stands less than a snowball’s chance of winning, and since we cannot seem to take him seriously enough to classify him as either conservative, or moderate,…or even crackpot, we will for all intents and purposes ignore him hereafter.

Just how did we end up with two moderates left standing?

When the campaign started with ten candidates vying for the Republican nod, there were ten self-proclaimed conservatives. No moderates could be seen anywhere with the naked eye. All invoked the name of Reagan during debates and speeches. All claimed to be the most qualified AND all claimed to be the most conservative of the bunch. Some told the truth about their conservative credentials and some did not. In the end we got stuck with two of them who did not.

Part of the reason has to do with a change in primary scheduling, without changes in how the media reports on candidates. Usually there is plenty of time to get to know each candidate as they step into the spotlight. One by one the media investigates their backgrounds and exposes this and that to the voters as each candidate becomes popular. First Giuliani, then Romney, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, and finally McCain. But by the time people started to seriously look at McCain he was only one of three left standing, the other two being more conservative than him splitting the vote. To put it quite simply, those who were moderate lied to us bald-faced about what they stood for. And those of us who didn’t follow the process closely enough bought into the lies thinking they were voting for someone who filled the conservative bill.

The other reason had to have been the inability of Fred Thompson to inspire consistently and with enough energy the confidence required by the public to entrust in him the highest office.

Still another reason was due to election losses in the Senate of George Allen and Rick Santorum two years prior. The strength of an Allen-Santorum ticket would’ve made believers out of many of us. But for Congressman Foley and a war gone sour those two would’ve retained their offices, and one or both would be positioning themselves on the Republican ticket.

So conservatism itself is not dead. If it were, all the candidates would’ve claimed to be the most moderate, while invoking the names of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller.

(McCain button "borrowed" from Conservative Cat.)

McCain Mea Culpa?

Was McCain apologizing at the CPAC Convention yesterday for the Amnesty bill, and for all the other times he went dead set against conservative common sense? Was that really him saying he respected us for disagreeing with him on a host of issues???

Well, I'm not going to break down the entire speech he made yesterday with in-depth analysis. But I will at least admit it was a very good speech. McCain has a canny way of finding humor in things for which many of us wish to bawl him out. And in so doing he cleverly disarms us, at least temporarily, of our willingness to rip into him. He is a seasoned professional, no doubt.

He also gave us a long list of reasons why conservatives should join with him in barring the liberal leftist team of Hillary-Obama from the White House. Here is one list I ripped from Michelle Malkin's lovely blog:

[McCain voted to defund Planned Parenthood last year, Clinton didn’t and would likely expand Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding.

McCain voted to ban partial-birth abortion, Clinton didn’t and would likely reverse the partial-birth abortion ban.

McCain voted for Roberts and Alito and made the case for them in the media, Clinton didn’t.

McCain has never voted for a tax increase, Clinton will increase taxes.

McCain will continue the Bush tax cuts, Clinton will end them.

McCain will end pork-barrel spending, Clinton supports the endowment of projects like the Woodstock Museum with taxpayer funding.

McCain will not cut and run in Iraq, Clinton will work with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid to do just that.

McCain sponsored legislation to keep the Fairness Doctrine from rearing its head again, Clinton has not and has signaled moves to revive it.

McCain supports school choice, Clinton does not.

Clinton will mandate health insurance, McCain will not.

McCain voted to convict Bill Clinton on impeachment, Clinton was a witting accomplice in President Bill Clinton’s scandals.

McCain has an ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 82.3; Clinton has a rating of 9.

McCain has 0-percent rating from NARAL; Clinton has 100 percent.]

Not all of these were mentioned by McCain yesterday, but they do give an indication as to why we might be better off with McCain rather then anyone the Dems plan to offer up. But in spite of the list, I am not convinced that John McCain really wants to do what it will take to win over conservatives. And I can't really back off of all those nasty things I said about him in past postings, either.

Truth is...he could end up being one of the worst presidents this country has ever had...or one of the greatest. It may all depend upon the level of his emotional maturity, the strength of his self-control, and whether or not he continues to stab conservatives in the backside.

And whether or not I actively campaign (on this blog) for him after he wins the nomination will largely depend upon whom he chooses for his running mate. It should be someone younger, very smart, economics minded, and fiscally conservative. Perhaps someone like Newt Gingrich, who harkens back to the freshness of the Contract With America, but without all that Newt-baggage. He should come from an important swing state like Florida...or Ohio. The public should be familiar with his name already and feel comfortable with him in a position requiring public trust. Hmmm...I can only think of one name so far: John Kasich.

Romney Suspends Campaign

Though some might call it premature, Governor Mitt Romney declared his campaign for the White House over. Citing the importance of party unity to work against Democrats who would surrender in the war on terror, Mitt surprised many with his announcement during his speech at CPAC yesterday.

Many expect Gov. Romney to return to the campaign trail in 2012 in the event of a McCain loss this year, or perhaps 2016 if not. One can only wonder if a VP deal was secretly worked out.

Vote Romney!!!

For the past several weeks I have watched in worried fascination the rebirth of the McCain campaign from its death struggle, at a time when he ran out of funds and campaign staff, through several debates in which he won over the audience with humorously clever and powerful comments, to his victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

Never having thought much of Senator McCain for several reasons (see top ten reasons here), I have learned many other reasons to be nervous about a possible McPresidency. One of them is his inability to control his anger or at times temper his foul mouth. On the Senate floor obscenities could be heard from him (so I'm told) after McCain-Kennedy went down in flames. Those who hate President Bush's so-called "cowboy diplomacy" should know they may be exchanging it for McCain's "trailer park diplomacy."

Senator McCain as recently as last weekend (on Meet The Press) told a blatant lie about Mitt Romney, claiming that Gov. Romney supports time tables to bring our troops home before the job is done. The truth is that Romney only supported secret time tables as benchmarks or goals known only between the leaders of the US and Iraq, so our enemies would not have an advantage in knowing our departure date. This is reasonable for Romney or anyone else. But what McCain did proves he will say anything to be elected.

Governor Mitt Romney, whom I am currently supporting, has been criticized for "flip-flopping" on some key issues. And while I have some concerns about this, it is far better than someone like McCain or even Gov. Huckabee, both of whom have altered positions on Amnesty for illegal aliens, and Huckabee also for his position on Guantanemo Bay during the course of the campaign. To my knowledge Romney has held steady on every issue since the campaign started, which tells me he is likely to keep his promises after he's elected.

The role of Governor Huckabee seems to have veered from Presidential hopeful to campaign spoiler. This is odd considering the hoopla made by the Huckabee camp over Fred Thompson's attacks during the South Carolina debates, after which it was claimed by the Huckattackdogs that Fred was secretly spoiling in favor of McCain. Now it appears that the Arkansas Huckster, having no chance at winning the top seat, may be settling for the "warm bucket of spit" that is the office of VP, and hopes to get it by spoiling for the subject of his "man-crush," McCain. By the way, we are still waiting for Fred's McCain endorsement...

I know I'm all over the place in this posting; and that's the way my mind has been since Fred Thompson pulled out. But after serious consideration of Romney's temperament, his business acumen (hey, our dollar is lower than CANADA!!!), the fact he lives his values, and is clearly the best choice left standing thus far, I am officially throwing my support to former Governor Mitt Romney. After all, could you really feel comfortable with McCain carrying the nuke suitcase? Not me, nor does Ann Coulter. Though unlike Coulter, I would probably not go for Hillary over McCain.

Good luck tomorrow, Governor Romney!

Fred Thompson Candidacy Withdrawn...So Now What???

Freds statement:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.

posted by Fred

________________________


I am still convinced that, given enough time, the rest of the country would see what Rush Limbaugh, all the Fredheads, Michelle Malkin, and so many others have seen: Fred Thompson is the only true conservative candidate for President. If only you had downed the Red Bull sooner, Fred.

So whom do we look to now?

John McCain took a while to catch on, even having to borrow a few million at one point after losing most of his campaign staff. But he hit a few home runs in the debates, and people kind of forgot about the McCain-Kennedy shamnesty bill from last May. If/when they sober up McCain will slide again.

Frankly I do not trust him. Although he was a hero in the war, that does not necessarily translate into the world of politics. Some men lose that strength of character that made them heroes when they take office (or we find they never had it to begin with). Ulysses Grant was a great general during the Civil War, but had two very corrupt terms as President later. John Glenn proved his character as a member of the Mercury Seven in space, but later thwarted our own Fred Thompson during the China-gate hearings. And the afore mentioned Senator John McCain...have we forgotten about the Keating Five? The S&L bail-out resulted in a huge run-up in our national debt (a few trillion), and caused a deep recession that resulted in the departure of President George H. W. Bush in exchange for two terms of Bill Clinton.

Huckabee is great on abortion. He supports the Life Amendment, where even Fred would not. The problem with Huck is that he cannot run from the rest of his record. One cannot claim he did not have success as governor of Arkansas, but he governed not as a conservative but as a populist (and some would even say liberal).

Illegal immigration is a major issue these days and Huckabee has been weak on it, wanting to grant scholarships to high school grads here illegally...early in the Primary. Now he speaks as if he wishes to deport all 12 million illegals back to their countries. Sounds like a flip-flop to me, and so recent!

Though he comes off as a pious christian on the campaign trail, he appears to me to be as ambitious as Lucifer. But then many successful politicians often are. Still, back in the days when part of my career in finance included bill collection, I found pastors to be some of the biggest deadbeats around, in spite of their piety.

Former Governor Mitt Romney seems to be the logical choice from what is left. He knows more than anyone about dealing with the economy (which seems to be a growing issue these days) and he handles himself quite well in interviews and debates.

The problem with Mitt is his national electability. Poll after poll shows he cannot beat Hillary or Obama. Its not even close. For his religion the people of this country may sacrifice their pocketbooks.

Rudy Giuliani was my very first choice when he threw his hat in the ring last Spring...until I found out he donated his own money to pro-abortion Planned Parenthood and supported public funding of abortions. When I found that out I forgot all about his great record as Mayor of New York.

Actually my very VERY first choice was Tommy Thompson, the innovative problem solver who introduced us to welfare reform and school choice through his excellent conservative work in Wisconsin as governor. But his hearing aid kept going on the fritz and he shouted at everyone during the debates.

Why didn't we like Duncan Hunter more? Was it the hairdo?

Fred Must Stay In The Race!

Fred must stay in the race and participate in all debates at least until Super Tuesday. As I have previously stated, John McCain had to win at least three debates before his surge started. Unfortunately, Fred waited until the South Carolina debate to really come alive. I believe that if he were to keep up the energy and give people a chance to see that he is really the only true link to Ronald Reagan, his campaign would gain real traction.

If you agree with this, please click on the Fred button in my left column and either donate to the cause or at the very least send an email showing support. South Carolina was where is was supposed to happen and it fell short. The people in that state were fooled by John McCain into thinking the Arizona Senator had turned against his own Amnesty Bill. Lincoln was right: you can fool all the people some of the time. But he also said you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Fred should stay in. His conservative message will resonate, given time. After all, two of my friends from Illinois switched from Romney to Fred just before the SC primary.

Obama...Pretty Sickening

Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief and Editor At Large at Human Events.com, reminds us of a decision Presidential Candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama made about the Born Alive Infants Bill. He opposed it. In fact he was one of very few who opposed it.

I will reprint the entire article since it can be read for free at various websites. All due credit is given. The above cartoon I snagged from a similar article here.

Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

By Terence P. Jeffrey

CNSNews.com Editor in Chief

January 09, 2008

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

(end of article)

Sheeeesh! That really gives me the creeps. To think that Obama or Hillary might be our next President gives me no faith whatsoever in the intelligence or character of Democrat voters.

We are but one Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade, and our party acts unsatisfied with the current roster of candidates from which to choose? I would take even Ron Paul over any baby-killing Devilrats than have them regain power and set the pro-life cause back 20 years with Breyer-Ginsburg type appointments.

Mr. Jeffery makes his case very well. And we should never mince words or use euphemisms when describing the act of abortion. Infanticide or murder are the only other synonyms I can think of that are suitable substitutes.

Rush Limbaugh On Thursday Debate

I have never heard Rush Limbaugh get so excited about a presidential candidate so early in a primary. For a man who usually never takes sides until the winning Republican candidate is chosen, Rush seems to be showing his hand early in an effort to keep the only true conservative candidate (Fred Thompson) in the competitive mix.

After Thursdays wonderful debate performance, Senator Thompson has begun to surge in the Rasmussen national poll from 11% to 13% on Friday. There have been no polls taken for South Carolina since Wednesday, but I would expect Fred to have a bounce there. Although his numbers have gone down in SC in recent months, his favorability rating in that state has hung around 72%, the highest of the Republican candidates. And 66% of those already intending to vote for Fred claim to be certain of their choice, an indication of solid support.

Fred Thompson Gets An Important Endorsement

Human Events, a paper (and website) considered to be a favorite of Ronald Reagan, has this morning endorsed former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson for President. The editors, in spelling out their opinions of each of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, consider Fred Thompson to be the only consistently conservative candidate and therefore the only logical choice to support in the primary. Here is an excerpt:

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.

Here is another:

On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”

Frankly I could not agree more.

South Carolina is a make or break state for Fred. He is pulling out all the stops and giving it his all. Win or lose it will be a very interesting and sometimes entertaining race to the January 19th finish line. And then on to Florida, God willing.

GO FRED GO!!!

Fred puts Al Colmes in his place in an energetic interview after the debate on Hannity & Colmes. His energy is refreshing and reassuring. This is the Fred we who jumped on his bandwagon early know and admire. This man needs to be President. Let us make it happen.

All Hands Rise For Fred Thompson On Fox After Debate

It would appear that Fred Thompson has risen to the occasion on the debate tonight. He was personable, knowledgeable, and likable to most viewers. Fred came to win....and to most people on Fox News (post debate) he did just that. This should be a great shot in the arm for his campaign nationally as well as his chances to win South Carolina.

But we must remember that John McCain had to win at least three debates to get his surge going. Hopefully we have seen the end to that since being reminded of McCain's stand on Illegal Immigration. Is it too late for Fred? I certainly hope not. Fred Thompson is the only true consistent conservative in the race, and one of two...maybe three real leaders running.

One thing Fred could use at this time is your support. Please feel free to click on the contribution button in my left column and give whatever you feel comfortable giving. If all Fred supporters gave only $10 or $20 he would have between two and four million dollars, and well on his way to conquering Florida and states beyond.

Good work, Fred!

Illini Upset By USC...Very Very Upset!!!

I went to the trouble to write a post in November about The Fighting Illini football team upsetting number-one-ranked Ohio State because it was such a big deal. Illinois had never beaten a number one ranked team as a visiting opponent, and had not beaten any at Champaign, IL since the 1950s. But when I heard toward the end of December that Illinois, through some sort of odd chain of events, was going to the Rose Bowl...I kept quiet. For now they were shrouded in impending doom.

It wasn't enough that the Fighting Illini were the underdogs to a sixth-ranked USC team, or that USC was favored by a 15 point margin (the largest margin in any scheduled bowl game this season) that caused this dampening of my spirits. I guess it had more to do with the fact that since Illinois lost to Bear Bryant's Alabama team in the Liberty Bowl in 1982 (my freshman year), the Illini have won only one bowl game. I can hardly remember who they beat, except that our team was angry about playing another team so far below their own record or abilities. Among the several bowl losses was the January 1984 Rose Bowl (I witnessed in person) in which the Illini, ranked 3rd nationally at the time, fell hard 45-9 to an unranked UCLA team.

An argument could be made to ban the Fighting Illini football team from any and all post season play due to extreme incompetence. They have, after all, given up a total of 94 points in only their last two Rose Bowl appearances. That is quite a record, indeed!