This is a Shame for America

I fear the the future...
NEW YORK TIMES

January 23, 2008
Fred Thompson Drops Out of the Presidential Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MICHAEL POWELL
CORAL BEACH, Fla. — Fred D. Thompson, the former senator of Tennessee, dropped out of the Republican race for president today.
The decision came after Mr. Thompson’s third-place primary showing on Saturday in South Carolina, a state he had once hoped to win, instead underscored the weakness of his campaign.
“I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort,” he said in a statement. “Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”
Mr. Thompson’s advisers said he would not make an endorsement in the race.
Mr. Thompson, 65, rode in to the campaign powered by the high hopes of conservative Republicans who were disappointed with the field of candidates and hoped that Mr. Thompson — a television actor and former counsel to the Watergate committee — could rally conservatives behind him. But Mr. Thompson instead brought a phlegmatic style to the campaign trail, and his candidacy never took off.
His decision to drop out could potentially help Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, who has competed for many of the same voters. Some Republicans suggested that Mr. Huckabee came in second in South Carolina precisely because Mr. Thompson had siphoned off much of his support, permitting Senator John McCain of Arizona to win.
But Mr. Huckabee has moved to scale back his own campaign after his South Carolina showing, and has backed away from plans to campaign heavily in Florida.
Assuming Mr. Huckabee does not reconsider, Mr. Thompson’s withdrawal could therefore be a boon for Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who has aggressively sought to recruit Florida conservatives to his side.
Mr. Thompson had seemed to be a candidate from central casting, with his imposing height, his theatrical growl and a plain-spoken conservatism. Only last summer, he had many Republicans spinning dreams of Ronald Reagan resurrected.
“He has a presidential bearing,” Republican Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander said at the time.
He never achieved presidential traction, however. He ruminated for many weeks about whether to run. By the time he entered the race, much of the buzz had dissipated. His speaking style swung between folksy and laconic to the point of sleepy.
He played to loud applause at the National Rifle Association and picked up endorsement of anti-abortion groups. But rival candidates like Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani rushed to refashion themselves as conservatives, changing a number of long-held positions that were more socially moderate.
That caused Mr. Thompson no end of frustration, but he never found a way to persuade Republicans that his bona-fides entitled him to their vote. And he drew considerable criticism for his flagging, flickering energy — some of his walking tours lasted just 10 or 15 minutes, and he often took few questions.
He drew just 1 percent of the vote in New Hampshire (fewer than the number of write-in votes), and finished fifth in Michigan.
Of late, Mr. Thompson cast himself as a country boy who would bring truth to Washington (in fact, he resides across the Potomac River from the capital, in McLean, Va). And in South Carolina, he talked more and more of his Christian faith, attacking gay marriage and abortion. But there, too, he found himself boxed in, as Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, had laid a deeper claim to evangelical Christian voters.

Aaaargh!

Trying to write Chapter 5 of my book is killing me. Why is this so hard? I think I will skip it for now and move on to fixing Chapter 6 and 7.

Why do I like Fred Thompson for President?

I received comments that I published on a couple of earlier posts. The comments essentially want to know specifically why I like Fred Thompson for President.

I have never made any secret that I am for a smaller, less intrusive government. The current trend of the government (and of the voting populace, for that matter) is to look for people who will use government authority and taxpayer dollars to solve problems or issues that are not public in nature. People are looking to the government to solve the problem of higher gasoline prices, or higher prices of everything. Some people are looking to the government for some form of help to the automobile industry. Recently, the federal government has given tax dollars in the form of charitable contributions to people or groups that perform no government function.

Mitt Romney has made statements in his campaign that he would support government aid to an ailing automotive industry.

The government is too big. Its tentacles reach into too many areas of our private lives. We pay more taxes than we should. The government uses more money than it should.

McCain doesn't understand that the top 50% income earners in our society bear over 90% of the tax burden. He wants tax relief to the bottom 50% or less, but not to the top. That is socialistic thinking. He basically wants to divest earnings from those who have some success and give the money to those who earn less. That is wrong. The government should not be taking any more money than it needs to do government business, such as, building roads, paying employees, defending the nation, and other such legitimate government ends. Taking money from one citizen to give to another citizen to some charity is just a legalized form of theft. "Thou shalt not steal."

So far, based on what I hear from Thompson as he campaigns, his platform is essentially consistent with my thinking. Anyone will have trouble stopping the growth momentum of the federal government, especially with the Dem's in control of the House of Representatives.
He wants to fight the terrorists.
He wants to secure the borders.
So far, the government is taxing us into oblivion. I think he will work to stop that.
He wants to let private enterprise be private and not rely on government handouts. You know, the free enterprise economic system work. If a business can't adapt to the times, perhaps it needs to fail to make room for those with the foresight to put different means of transportation on the road.
I want to be free from government intrusion in my personal decisions. I don't want the government telling me what kind of a car to drive or where to set the temperature of my thermostat or even when and where I can smoke a cigar. I want to manage my own life.
I want to believe that my government, above all, is protecting me from foreign and domestic enemies. Fred Thompson seems to believe that, too.

I don't know if he can gain enough momentum to catch the others. Some commentators I have read seem to think he can. I hope so.

McCain scares me because he does not seem to understand economic truths. All of the Democrats scare me because I don't believe they understand the enemy enough to realize the need for strong military protection of our country. Giuliani (or however you spell the guy's name) should be running as a democrat because he talks like a socialist.

The Shut Up Zone: What a Concept

What a fabulous concept! I need one of those signs at work. This is good stuff. [This is from the comic strip "Non Sequitur", of which I am a huge fan. I love the character of Danae.]

Fred Thompson Endorsement

By KLH:
I am glad to see this. He is still my favorite Republican candidate. I am confused that Ann Coulter seems to be endorsing Romney. I am an "Ann Fan", but I can't go with her on that yet.

HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson
by Human Events (more by this author)
Posted 01/11/2008 ETUpdated 01/14/2008 ET
The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.Fundamental BeliefsWe 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. To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards, and their positions on the top ten issues for conservatives determined in our reader survey. Some come close to meeting those conservative standards, and others clearly do not.Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a war hero whose personal courage sustained many of the men imprisoned with him in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” We honor him, but he does not honor many conservative principles. His co-authorship of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation last summer ran directly against our principles of American sovereignty and national security. His position has not been ameliorated by his more recent explanations of border-security measures he might support. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his support for economy-strangling measures to control “global warming” and his anti-torture legislation (which didn’t make torture illegal, it already was: McCain’s law only made a clear law vague to the point of unenforceability) all cut against the conservative grain. And so did his McCain-Feingold campaign finance law with its stifling of political free speech. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a charming and agreeable gentleman. But his support for the economically disastrous “cap-and-trade” fix for global warming is as bad as Sen. McCain’s position on the issue. The so-called “fair tax” he supports is unworkable. His tax-and-spend policies do not comport with conservative principles, but they do align all too well with Huckabee’s populist rhetoric on the injustice of corporate CEO salaries. His stance on granting special benefits to the children of illegal aliens is also very troubling. On the war, Gov. Huckabee’s understanding of the issues does not impress us. For example, he wants to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move the detainees there into U.S. prisons, which -- as Sen. Thompson schooled him on in a recent debate -- would result in the grant of constitutional rights to terrorist detainees even though they are enemy combatants. Gov. Huckabee’s grasp of foreign policy does not make us comfortable. Rep. Ron Paul’s limited-government rhetoric is appealing to many conservatives, but his unyielding isolationism that might have been appropriate for another era is not realistic. He would withdraw from Iraq regardless of the consequences and then pull American forces out of every other country as well. He does not believe, as we do, that America must win the war against the terrorist-sponsoring nations. We find intolerable his repeated statements that we were attacked on 9/11 because we had a presence in the Middle East. That implies that we were, in whole or in part, to blame for the attacks. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did an admirable job bringing his city through the crisis of 9/11. Even before that terrible day, he did a commendable job cleaning up Gotham. But the mayor’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights social views are more liberal than conservative. And his foreign policy views are of considerable concern. His article in Foreign Affairs late last year seemed less conservative than neo-Wilsonian. Giuliani also said in the June 5, 2007, debate, “We need to look at nation-building as part of what we need to teach our military.” No, Mr. Mayor. We don’t.Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a closer call. We believe his relatively new pro-life position is a sincere one, but examining his record and listening to his campaign rhetoric indicate to us that he is more a problem-solver than a gut conservative. His “RomneyCare” legislation made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to impose an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the state to have health coverage or face significant penalties. And we have concerns about the big-government approach he took as governor, raising state “fees,” according to the Cato Institute, by $500 million and proposing two corporate tax increases totaling close to $400 million a year. Which brings us back to Sen. Fred Thompson. We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles. 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.”Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats. The question now is whether Sen. Thompson will do what he has not yet done: Take the advantages he is given by his intelligence, his principles, his political skills and this endorsement and make the best use of them. As the primaries and debates speed by, we would like to see Sen. Thompson continue to invigorate his campaign to carry him successfully through Tsunami Tuesday and to nomination at the Republican convention. Sen. Thompson, you suffer, like most conservatives, from the built-in problem of not being a professional politician. It’s precisely as Rush Limbaugh said of you: “The problem with Thompson is, and a little bit with me, is I’m a depth guy. I like depth. Television doesn’t reward depth. Television rewards zingers, one-liners, cutesyisms. Fred Thompson produced a brilliant 17-minute video that was on YouTube that explains everything about every issue that he cares about. It’s clear he’s thought deeply about a whole lot.” In the next week, you have the opportunity to connect with the conservatives in South Carolina who will be eager to hear your message. We were encouraged when you told Iowans, “I think I know how to talk to the American people about the [Democrats] and the danger their victory would pose to the principles we hold dear.” Now is the time you have to do it. Mayor Giuliani has offered a dozen proposals to American voters. We know, perhaps better than most, what yours are. For example, your stand on reforming the entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt our nation is courageous and workable. You need to spell those ideas out for everyone in the plainspoken terms that connect with your core conservative constituents. We’ve publicized a list of the 10 most important issues to conservatives, ranging from illegal immigration to tax reform. You need to speak out forcefully on each of them.We agree with Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of your December 30 video speech to Iowa voters. More speeches like that one and an ad campaign demonstrating the Reaganesque inspiring optimism we know you have could create a momentum in South Carolina that would carry far beyond its borders.Tell us how you -- rather than your opponents -- would be better able to beat either New York Sen. Hillary Clinton or Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the fall. You told the Iowans you were, but you need to tell us all now. Why you, and not Mitt or Mike or Rudy or John? Preview your fall campaign by attacking the centers of liberalism as you did in Iowa, and connect each one of them to the liberals you’ll be running against. As you said, the Democrats are all liberals. It may not matter which candidate you run against, because they’re all a bunch of MoveOn.org-CodePink-ACLU clones. We believe that politicians, like the rest of us, can make their own luck. In that regard, we wish you a productive and successful primary season.—The Editors of Human Events

Spain's Capitulation Has Gotten Them Nothing

In today's news:
14 held on suspicion of plot to attack Barcelona
MADRID, Spain – Police arrested 14 suspected Islamic militants in early raids Saturday, amid fears that the men were plotting a terrorist attack in Barcelona, the interior minister said. The suspects, 12 Pakistanis and two Indian nationals, were arrested less than two months before national elections in Spain. The country's last vote in March 2004 was held just after the Madrid train bombings – Europe's worst Islamic-linked terror attack.

[by KLH:
I remember the news starting about four years ago when the terrorist attack of 2004 occurred right before the elections in Spain. 192 people were killed and thousands were injured in a rush hour attack. The government initially blamed the wrong group for the attack. Evidence mounted that Al Quaeda (Islamic extremists) were responsible. As a result, the socialist party candidate won the election for Prime Minister. Subsequently, Spain pulled its troops from the war against terrorism in Iraq. This was what the Islamic terrorists wanted. The news indicated that the new Spanish government believed this move would cause Al Quaeda and other Islamic extremist groups to leave Spain terrorism free.
Apparently, they were wrong. They were lucky enough to catch a group preparing another pre-election attack.
We have to learn from this. We do not want to put milquetoasty democrats in office. We do not want to capitulate to the terrorists. Spain thought their surrender would protect them. They were wrong.
If any of you paid attention in history class, you would recall a British Prime Minister by the name of Nelville Chamberlain. He constantly turned a blind eye to Hitler's imperialistic activities in continential Europe. Great Britain was only saved by the election of Winston Churchill who had the guts for a fight.
These people will not go away until they destroy us or we destroy them! If you don't understand that about what is going on, you are naive and foolish.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and any of those other socialistic cowards will pull down our defenses and leave millions of Americans at great risk of injury or death. I personally don't understand women who are against fighting these people. Their society is so oppressive against women, I can't believe that any woman would be sympathetic to them.
See the stories below to recall what occurred in Spain four years ago.]

CNN News story from 2004
Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Posted: 6:47 PM EDT (2247 GMT)
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spanish government officials have pinned the blame on the Basque separatist group ETA for Thursday's blasts in Madrid that killed at least 192 people, but investigators were also exploring a lead with Arabic and Islamic links.
The brazen morning rush-hour terror strikes at city train stations also wounded at least 1,400.
The initial belief among officials was that ETA, designated a terror group by the United States and the European Union, was responsible.
But Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes said authorities were investigating a van found in the town of Alcala de Henares, outside Madrid, with at least seven detonators and an Arabic tape with Koranic teachings.
The tape contained no threats and is a type available commercially. The van was stolen last month.
The new line of investigation, sparked by a citizen's tip, raised the possibility of a link to Islamic militants.
A U.S. official cautioned it was "still too early to say" whether the bombings were the work of ETA or other terror groups, including al Qaeda.
Referring to a statement that claimed responsibility and was attributed to a group allegedly affiliated with al Qaeda that was received by a London-based Arabic-language newspaper, the U.S. official said "keep in mind we often see false claims of responsibility," and that even for attacks it did commit, "al Qaeda frequently takes no public credit."
Khalid al-Shami, political editor of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper in London, told CNN the letter was from Abu Hafs al-Masri, which he said was affiliated with al Qaeda.

From the Encyclopedia Britanica Online
Spain suffered its worst terrorist attack ever on the morning of March 11, 2004, when 13 bombs exploded on four packed commuter trains heading toward Atocha station in central Madrid, leaving more than 190 dead and more than 1,500 injured. Coming just three days before the general elections, the attack was bound to have major political consequences. The nature of these consequences, however, depended on the identity of the terrorists and the way that the conservative Popular Party (PP) government of Prime Minister José María Aznar handled the situation.
The following day an estimated 11 million Spaniards turned out to nationwide government-sponsored demonstrations. This display of national unity rapidly broke down, however, as the police investigation began to focus on the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. On March 13, as the first arrests of Islamist suspects were being made, the government continued to point the finger at ETA. That evening spontaneous, illegal protests took place in Madrid, Barcelona, and other cities as demonstrators chanted, “We want to know the truth before we vote.” With some 90% of Spaniards opposed to Aznar's support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Islamic connection inevitably put Iraq back on top of the political agenda, which thereby favoured the opposition Socialist Party (PSOE), which had strongly opposed the war.
The March 11 attack and the government's bungled response to it undoubtedly contributed to the Socialists' surprise electoral victory on March 14. The PSOE took 42.6% of the vote and 164 of the 350 seats in the Congress of Deputies, compared with the PP's 37.6% and 148 seats. The Socialists easily negotiated the support of various minority leftist and nationalist parties for the investiture of their young leader, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (see Biographies), as prime minister. Zapatero was formally sworn in by King Juan Carlos on April 17.
Police investigations and a subsequent parliamentary inquiry confirmed the al-Qaeda connection and identified possible intelligence and security failings prior to March. More suspects, mainly Moroccans and Algerians, were arrested in October, and plans were uncovered for additional attacks on other targets in Madrid.
The new government lost no time in carrying out one of its main electoral pledges, withdrawing the 1,300 Spanish troops stationed in Iraq. This and the Socialists' realignment with the “Old Europe” of France and Germany inevitably damaged relations with Washington. The breach appeared to widen in September when Zapatero gave a speech in Tunisia encouraging other countries to follow Spain's example. In October the U.S. ambassador's failure to attend the military parade and reception held to celebrate Spain's national holiday confirmed the strains in bilateral relations. The government put on a brave face after the reelection of U.S. Pres. George W. Bush on November 2, emphasizing Zapatero's desire for renewed cooperation between the two countries.

At the Movies

My daughter and I went to the movie this afternoon. She has been bugging me to take her to see "Cloverfield". All I knew was that it was some kind of a monster movie and it was PG13. It seemed safe enough.

We both thoroughly enjoyed the movie. A couple of scenes made us want to jump over our seats to hide. The whole thing is shot from the point of view of a guy with a video camera while Manhattan is being attacked. It gives it a sort of realism that made me feel like I was part of the group trying to get away.

I won't give away the ending, but I recommend it. It is worth the price of an afternoon matinee ticket. You will be entertained. It does what a horrifying monster movie is supposed to do: scare the bejeebers out of you. I'm glad I got a chance to see this one.