Could it be that Mitt Romney’s toughest opponent isn’t Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain? Might his toughest fight be with his own words? That’s what this CBS article suggests. It’s something that I’ve pointed to several times, including these posts. Here’s how Politico’s Jonathan Martin makes his case:

Hoping to stymie John McCain’s New Hampshire surge, Mitt Romney has turned to two issues almost certain to move GOP primary voters: tax cuts and immigration. On both counts, Romney noted in recent Granite State campaign appearances, McCain has been crosswise with the majority of his own party.

But, in responding to the charges, McCain’s campaign turned to off-the-shelf material sure to take some of the sting out of Romney’s attacks: Romney’s own words.

On these two hot topics and many others, past statements or positions by the former Massachusetts governor can be found that either completely contradict or at least dilute Romney’s present day attacks.

Martin’s being charitable with his description of Romney’s flip-flops. Lord knows I’ve used stronger language than that. It’s my firm conviction that Mitt Romney hasn’t met a position he hasn’t abandoned. As I noted here, Mitt’s flipped on almost every key issue that’s come before him. Notice the slipperyness of Gov. Romney’s spokesman here: (continue reading post »)

Most candidates try lowering expectations right before a debate or a presidential primary. Fred Thompson’s doing what he’s frequently done: Fred’s raising expectations for Iowa:

Republican Fred Thompson seems to be raising his expectations in Iowa, telling CNN Friday he would not be happy with a third place finish there.

“I would not be satisfied with third, quite frankly. I think we can do better than that…that’s why they play the game,” Thompson told CNN’s John Roberts. “The pollsters and the experts were wrong in Iowa in 1980, and they were wrong in 1988, and they were wrong in 1994, and the numbers show that a large number of folks in Iowa have not made up their mind.”

It’ll be interesting to hear when people made their final decision in Iowa. I suspect alot of them still haven’t made up their minds while others are abandoning the candidate they’d supposedly settled on. I’m betting that alot of Romney’s supporters are rethinking their choice, especially if they’ve heard ARTLA’s ad ridiculing Romney’s life flip-flops. (continue reading post »)

The Romney campaign set out to rebut the Concord Monitor’s unendorsement with this op-ed by Bruce Keough. It might’ve worked if not for this section:

Having been able to work closely with Gov. Romney, I have come to understand that Mitt Romney the presidential candidate is no different than Mitt Romney the father, husband, grandfather and businessman. He has not been changed by titles or public life. He is a man of integrity and courage, and a man of action who values quiet reflection and study. Mitt Romney analyzes data with great zeal. And he demands all the facts from his staff. He quickly can grasp the crux of any issue and chart the right course as he did with the fiscal crisis in Massachusetts.

I might believe that Gov. Romney hasn’t been “changed by titles or public life” if not for the verifiable things contained in Jim Rubens’ op-ed:

Consider the timing of Mitt Romney’s flips: are they evidence of late-blooming enlightenment or political calculation?

Illegal Immigration. In a November 30, 2005, interview with The Boston Globe, Romney called the elements of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill “reasonable proposals.” By March 2007, finger to the wind, Romney was roundly denouncing the same bill. (continue reading post »)

Based on this Time article, it appears as though Fred Thompson’s hardline immigration position, combined with Tom Tancredo’s dropping out of the race, is giving Sen. Thompson a significant boost:

Nearly a dozen of his potential supporters remained, however. They circled around Thompson’s state chairman, Rep. Steve King, the man who just might lift the struggling campaign to a halfway decent finish in the nation’s first caucus state. A popular state conservative, King was holding court, as he often does, on the issue of illegal immigration, which he speaks of as a crisis on par with the war in Iraq.

“The casualties in America are greater on average by far than they are in Iraq,” he announced, citing dubious back-of-the-envelope estimates about the number of American homicides committed by people without citizenship. About an hour earlier, King had told the audience that Thompson was the only candidate who knew how to deal with those who had crossed the border illegally. “Fred Thompson says, ‘You’ve got to send them back’,” King told the crowd of about 60, earning a hearty round of applause.

It’s obvious that people are trusting Fred Thompson to do what he says he’ll do, something that Mitt Romney can’t say with any honesty. Here’s the thing that really caught my interest: (continue reading post »)

Here’s the transcript of his interview with FNC’s Harris Faulkner:

HARRIS FAULKNER: Senator, your reaction, first, to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

THOMPSON: It is a tragedy, of course. It reminds us that things can happen in faraway places of the world that can affect the United States. I think this should be of great concern to us. It is almost a perfect storm in a very bad sense because two forces are operating against each other that are both desirable. One is democracy: they were making progress in that regard in that country. Former prime minister Bhutto was an important part of that process. But the other is stability. Pakistan is a nuclear country, and we cannot afford to let nukes fall into the hands of dangerous Muslim radicals. We are hoping those two things can be balanced out. We can see the continued progress toward a democratic society but also maintain stability in the country, which seems to be very much in doubt right now.

FAULKNER: I know you are running for the White House, so I don’t want to put you in a position to second guess the president. But I’m interested in your opinion. President Bush is due to talk with Pervez Musharraf shortly. What do you anticipate that conversation should be like?

THOMPSON: Those two things that I mention probably would be high on the agenda. What could be done to not impose martial law, to not crack down, but be mindful of the fact that there are radical elements in that country, and perhaps even within the government, that would like to see instability and chaos and see those weapons fall into the wrong hands. This is part of a bigger problem. We need to understand that this is not a criminal investigation any more - so we find the bad guys and bring them to justice - it’s a war.

This proves again the mindset of the radical elements that we are dealing with. We are seeing this all across Northern Africa and various places. We’re seeing it across the Middle East and in parts of Asia including Indonesia and other places. We have to come to terms with that and do the things necessary to prevail. One of the things we need to be talking about is what Musharraf can do, additionally, to crack down on the Taliban. I think they have been insufficient in that respect.

FAULKNER: Taliban also supporters of al Qaeda in that country. Pakistan has been an important ally in the war on terror, so have do you walk that line?

THOMPSON: You just walk it. No one said it has been easy and simple. Pakistan has never been easy or simple. I had a chance a few years ago to talk to Musharraf before things got quite as complex as they are now. But it has always been an important part of the world. They’re next door to India. They’ve had a crisis after crisis with regard to them. They’re next door to Afghanistan, and they’re important to us. They’ve been helpful to us. But we’ re going to have to walk that line between democracy on the one hand and stability on the other. But I think it’s possible.

Fred’s right that we won’t see a simple way forward with regards to Pakistan. I also think it’s going to take a steady hand walking this particular tightrope between desiring democracy without sacrificing stability.

In terms of the presidential election, this isn’t the time to elect someone that’ll need on the job training. It isn’t a time to elect a Democrat, either, because it’s likely that Bill Richardson would either be the Democratic nominee’s running mate or their Secretary of State. Here’s why we can’t afford Richardson as VP or SecState:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called on President Bush to pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to step aside in favor of a coalition government.

“Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government,” he said in a statement. “Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible,” added Richardson, who served as ambassador to the United Nations for a portion of the Clinton administration.

That’s an irresponsible, ill-conceived approach to the situation. Why would we want to force things at this point? What happens if the radicals win this election? That’s a distinct possibility.

As Sen. Thompson said, this is a delicate situation that must be handled with deftness. The last thing we need is to act with the subtlety of a sawed-off shotgun.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan, Musharraf, Bill Richardson, GWOT, Taliban

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The longer he stays in the game, the more Mitt Romney’s reputation suffers. This time, we get a full picture of Mitt Romney’s flip-flops, thanks to Jim Rubens’ op-ed in the New Hampshire Union Leader. Here’s the most important Romney flip-flop in Rubens’ op-ed:

Illegal Immigration. In a November 30, 2005, interview with The Boston Globe, Romney called the elements of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill “reasonable proposals.” By March 2007, finger to the wind, Romney was roundly denouncing the same bill.

Mitt Romney is now touting himself as tough on immigration, with plenty of help from Hugh Hewitt. This op-ed tells us that Mitt Romney’s tough-on-immigration image is just that: image. You can’t spin Rubens’ quote. It speaks for itself. This is yet another example of Mitt’s ‘flexibility’. (Some might say it’s an example of his untrustworthiness but who am I to speculate?)

I still haven’t had anyone point out an example of Romney sticking with a position for a full year. Expecting Romney to shift positions on the biggest issues of our generation is as natural as expecting Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain to stick to their principles.

I expected Hugh to ignore this just like Hugh ignored the earlier Union Leader substantive attack on Romney. As expected, Hugh didn’t disappoint in ignoring this damaging critique of Mitt. (continue reading post »)

That Nancy Pelosi plans on not getting anything done isn’t surprising. The fact that she apparently believes that she can get away with it is. This morning, David Broder wrote a stinging rebuke of Pelosi’s Speakership. Here’s an example of Broder’s rebuke:

An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.

But much of the year’s political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground, a potential weak point in the coming election.

Simply put, much of the House’s time was wasted on votes to end the Iraq War. When they weren’t wasting time doing that, they were wasting time on witch hunts of the Bush administration, knowing that their investigations wouldn’t lead to anything meaningful.

They wasted a day applauding Al Gore for his ‘visionary’ (I’d prefer calling it delusional or hyperbolic) work on manmade global warming. They postponed the first hearing because an ice storm crippled Washington. (continue reading post »)

One of the biggest reasons why I’m an unabashed Fred supporter is because Fred’s the only person capable of explaining why we need to take terrorism, and Iran, seriousl. Fred’s also the only candidate who (a) understands the entitlement crisis and (b) has a plan to reform entitlements. Fred’s also the man with the credibility and resolve to stop illegal immigration in its tracks.

Fred’s plan for topping Iran’s mullahs is to establish the equivalent of Reagan’s Radio Free Europe. Though RFE existed long before Reagan took office, it wasn’t the effective tool it should’ve been. Reagan hired people who were familiar with the culture, not just people who could speak the language. Reagan also did away with the ‘don’t offend somebody’ diplomats that didn’t preach the message of freedom.

Fred’s idea for toppling the mullahs is to preach a message of hope, optimism and freedom to the oppressed Iranian citizenry. The idea is to tell them that we’ll stand with them as they topple their mullahs.

Needless to say, Fred’s the only candidate who’s devised a detailed plan for Iran.

Another major item on Fred’s agenda is reforming Social Security and Medicare. During the Des Moines Register/Schoolmarm debate, Fred said that “We need to tell the Warren Buffetts that” we can’t afford to give them medicare benefits. Fred’s plan to fix Social Security is to tie COLAs to inflation, not wage increases.

Again, Fred’s the only candidate who’s thought things through enough to put a proposal together. (continue reading post »)

Today’s assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is a horrifying reminder that Islamic extremists want to impose their warped political views on Western civilization.

Bhutto’s assassination is proof that the extremists’ ideology knows no geographic boundaries. They seek to impose their will throughout the world, whether it’s New York City, London, Tel Aviv, Bali, Madrid or Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when she was shot in the neck by a gunman who then set off a bomb. At least 16 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.

President Pervez Musharraf condemned the killing and urged people to remain calm so that the “nefarious designs of terrorists can be defeated.”

This is proof that there’s only one way to deal with these extremists. For months, Pervez Musharraf necessarily walked a tightrope with the extremists. This assassination should be the end of that tightrope walk. It’s time for Musharraf to eliminate the extremists.

Technorati Tags: Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan, Assassination, Pervez Musharraf, Terrorists

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse is organizing a blogburst to help Fred Thompson raise money for a TV ad. As an unabashed Fred supporter, I proudly gave this afternoon.

I’m encouraging my readers to do the same because Fred Thompson is the gold standard of conservatism. Fred’s federalist views haven’t wavered since he read Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative.”

Still need more reasons to support Fred? Fred a 100% pro life voting record in the US Senate. He’s the man who successfully shepherded John Roberts through the confirmation process, though I’ll go out on a limb and predict he might’ve eaked it out anyway.

If you want more reasons to support Fred, you’re in luck because I’ve got a thousand more reasons. While chairing the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Fred co-authored a list of over 1,000 programs that either wasted taxpayers’ money, overlapped each other or both. Fred wants to finish the job as president.

Fred’s also put together a plan to reform entitlements, something that the other candidates didn’t bother doing.

Still need more reasons to support Fred? Ok. Get ready for a lengthy post. Fred wants to shut down the border. His way of dealing with illegal immigration is to say that “America needs tall fences and wide gates.” I wholeheartedly agree. That’s exactly what we need.

Still need more reasons to support Fred? How about his unwavering support for President Bush’s tax cuts? Unlike some candidates who shall remain nameless, Fred entusiastically supported them, not like someone who voted against them (McCain) or who wouldn’t publicly endorse them (Romney).

As he proved during the Des Moines Register debate, Fred Thompson is the leader who wouldn’t play the Schoolmarm’s silly handraising game. He essentially said that if a question was worth asking, then it was appropriate to let people give a real answer, not play the pander game. (After all, they called that event a debate.)

If you want the GOP to nominate a man who will give us someone to get excited about, then it’s imperative that we get behind Fred Thompson with our blogs and with our wallets.

If we want someone that connects with mainstreet Americans, then it’s imperative to support Fred Thompson through this blogburst and with our checkbooks.

Finally, there’s one simple question that must be asked: What kind of America do you want to see four years, eight years from now? The America I want to be living in is best created by having someone with Fred Thompson’s gravitas and common sense in the White House.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Entitlements, Immigration, Rick Moran, Blogburst, Campaign Contributions, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog