About Me

Name: ilja
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Masquerading Liberalism

Posted by ilja on Sunday, October 28, 2007 9:01:58 PM
With Halloween just around the corner and the primaries coming faster than ever before, I thought now would be a perfect time to discuss a phenomenon that I've been noticing lately in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. That phenomenon is how to successfully masquerade your liberalism.

Here is my top 10 list of how it is done. Please feel free to add your own.

#10. When asked about your liberal record, cite George Will

#9. When accused of being to the left of Hillary Clinton, laugh really loud and change the subject

#8. When asked about your support of sanctuary cities, claim that you only did what you had to do to encourage illegal immigrants to come forward with information about other illegal immigrants who have broken other laws besides their in ital crime of entering the country illegally and say it all without ever using the word "illegal"

#7. When asked about your history of gun control, say that you understand that what worked for New York won't work elsewhere but you alone are responsible for the crime going down in New York and some of your best friends are hunters

#6. When asked about your support of abortion, your support of partial-birth abortion, your stance against parental notification and your donations to Planned Parenthood, state that you are going to appoint strict constructionist Judges so all of that shouldn't matter besides there are more important things like the War on Terror

#5. When asked how can Social Conservatives vote for you when you are obviously not in their camp, mention the 80/20 factor that no one agrees with someone 100% of the time but you figure 80/20 is enough to earn their support (of course never mention that it's really 20/80 and don't worry, the media is not going to correct you)

#4. When asked about your statement about being a liberal when you ran for Mayor of NY, bring up Hillary Clinton and that you are the only candidate that can beat her in the general election since you can attract those in the middle

#3. When asked about your multiple marriages, your ex-wife finding out you were divorcing her on TV or the member of you campaign staff who has been accused of pedophilia, say that you never claimed to be perfect but remind them that you single-handedly cleaned up New York City while still doing the things you are being accused of

#2. When asked any questions about how you plan to handle Social Security, healthcare or any other details of how you plan to solve any domestic issues, remind them that you were the Mayor of the largest and greatest city of the world and as such you are qualified to handle anything single-handedly

And the #1 way to masquerade your liberalism:

When asked how you plan on handling any foreign issues, including but not limited to Iran, bring up September 11th and how your experience as America's Mayor on that day qualifies only you as the next President of the United States

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Divided Conservatism Will Not Stand

Posted by ilja on Sunday, October 21, 2007 3:39:39 PM
I don't know how many of you were listening, but talk-show host Laura Ingraham sent a message to us on the right this past Friday that I believe Conservatives of every stripe need to take to heart. She said that we need to find a Candidate that will satisfy Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and National Security Conservatives if we want a real shot at winning the Presidency.

But mainly, it seemed to me that she was talking to us Social Conservatives who are splitting our support among all the candidates except the one who is supposedly leading in the polls. She reminded us that we need a coalition of voters in order to have a chance of winning first the Republican Presidential nomination and then the actual Presidency with a Conservative candidate.

She admonished us for waiting to hear from the perfect candidate since obviously there is no such animal. She reminded us that we weren't going to get everything we want in one candidate.

Then she went on to admonish the actual candidates themselves for not going on the offensive against the one liberal candidate who is leading in the polls and yes she named names talking about Rudy Giuliani being the one liberal on our side of the aisle. She suggested that whichever of the Conservative candidates speaks out first with forcefulness and dares to call Rudy on the carpet for his liberal views would have a much better chance of gaining the support of those Conservatives who are still in limbo. She told them that they would need to fight for what they believe.

Here's an excerpt of what she said to the best of my transcribing abilities. In the first part, she is addressing the Republican candidates.

If you are going to stop Giuliani, if you want to stop Giuliani, maybe you don't but if you do, then you've got to come at him with everything you have and that means you've got [to] call him a liberal on the border, a liberal on spending, a liberal on immigration, a liberal on life, a liberal on marriage, a liberal on all these issues that frankly brought the Republican party together in 1980 . . .

If you are claiming to carry the conservative mantle, then you have got to on every front be hitting Giuliani and it's got to be hard enough that the media starts to pay attention to it, because the elites are lining up behind Giuliani one after the other . . .
In this next section, Laura starts to address us Conservatives.

The hand-wringing on the sidelines is really getting old . .oh well, Romney's not perfect . . . oh well, Thompson's not energetic enough . . . oh Huckleberry is this or that, . . . [if] you don't decide soon who you are going to support, or support Giuliani if you think he's your best shot too but you are going to be irrelevant, do people not get this, that they are going to never have their phone calls returned . . .
I could not agree more with her. I do believe that if we don't start getting it in gear, that we are going to be left out in the cold for decades to come.

Next, she goes back to addressing the candidates.

As an aside, please note that I left out portions of what she said mainly because I could not transcribe that much information but also because I am only addressing the united we stand, divided we fall portion of her message. While the parts you are reading may sound like she is totally bashing Giuliani, she did in fact address him in ways that were not always negative. She was mainly though speaking to us and to the other candidates.

Enough with the niceties, I'm beginning to think that everybody's just going through the motions here. Nobody wants to hit Giuliani . . . why are they afraid? I want a race here, I want the race for the people . . . I am campaigning for you.

Conservative principals are the winning principals they are not the losing principals . . . the person who I think is going to cut through all of this is going to drop the niceties and start going for the solar plexus, okay, you got to start going for the body blows, run, run, run . . . is nobody running for President out there?
Next Laura goes on to address us, once again. She is telling us to get it in gear.

Stand up for someone else, nobody's going to be perfect . . .

Nobody is going to be the answer to all of your prayers, nobody. So the question is who has the best chance to both carry forward the coalition, the Republican coalition, that means social conservatives, economic conservatives, & foreign policy hawk[s]?

Which candidate brings those people together the best? . . .

Which of these candidates can best bring together the Reagan coalition? . . .

You've got to get in this game and stop complaining that there's no real conservatives out there . . .
Amen sister!

Laura goes back to addressing the candidates below:

If you want to win this you've got to fight for it. . . If you think he's going to destroy the Republican Party then stand up and say it!

This party will never be the same, it will never be a majority party, this work that was laid, the foundation that was laid by Ronald Reagan over 30 years to bring these coalitions together is going to be destroyed period if this is what you do.
I personally think Laura is right on the money. I do believe that we are going to have to unite if we truly want someone who represents us in the White House. I also believe that we are going to have to decide on someone who not only more closely supports our main issues but who is also palatable to other Conservatives whose main concerns are different than our own.

As I'm sure most of you are aware, I believe that candidate is Fred Thompson. While he is not perfect, he is the only candidate that would be strong on Social, Fiscal and National Security issues. In addition, he would be a great candidate for the libertarians with his views on Federalism, though admittedly he is no Ron Paul.

And last but most certainly not least, he is the strongest candidate by far, who has a chance of winning the nomination, on illegal immigration. Sure he's no Tom Tancredo but who is besides him and Duncan Hunter and neither one of them have a shot at the nomination.

I think the time has come or at least it's pretty close where us Social Conservatives truly need to unite behind one candidate else we are no longer going to have a seat at the table. Period, dot, bingo.

As for those of you Conservatives who aren't concerned about the Social issues, do you remember the last time we had a candidate who was not palatable to Social Conservatives, who caved to the pro-choice Republicans and what happened to him?

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

The "Real" One-Issue Voters

Posted by ilja on Sunday, October 14, 2007 9:25:19 PM
We've all read those posts from people complaining about anyone who considers abortion to be too important an issue to compromise on when it comes to voting. Hardly a thread can go by pertaining to these particular voters where someone does not use the phrase "one-issue voters". Of course, these voters they are referencing will come in and explain why they are not one-issue voters but those posts seem to go in one ear and out the other.

I am not here to rehash that particular point especially since I know I won't convince anyone anyway who already holds this view. I am here to talk about the "real" one-issue voters.

While I am not here to rehash the former, I do need to point out parts of their argument in order to clarify the latter. The main reason that abortion foes give for not being a one-issue voter is that they consider a multitude of stances that a candidate holds before deciding for whom to vote. In other words, while many of them will not cross the abortion line and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, they will study other issues as well when making their decision. So while their choice of candidate must be anti-abortion, they must also be on the right side of the other major issues that these particular voters cares about.

On the other hand, the voters who I consider "real" one-issue voters don't seem to have a problem with their candidate of choice being on the opposite side of the other major issues that they claim to care about as long as he is perceived to be on the right side of the one issue on which they make their decision.

That issue is the War against Islamic Fascists.

Before you jump down my throat and give me the usual 'but none of the rest will matter if we don't defeat the Terrorists', give me a chance to explain.

I agree that we can NOT sit back and do nothing to aggressively defeat the Terrorists. I also agree that we need to go on both the offensive and the defensive when it comes to defeating Islamic Fascism. As a matter of fact, I will not vote for a candidate who believes the way to defeat the enemy and defend our homeland is through appeasement and amnesty.

Where I part with those whom I consider the "real" one-issue voters is that while as I've implied above, this issue is one of my most important issues, it is not my only important issue. Yet, I have noticed that nearly all of the candidates running for the Republican Presidential nomination are in agreement with us on this issue.

So why are these voters so quick to throw away their concerns on all the other issues while referencing this one issue that most of the candidates on the right agree?

I can't say for sure but I suspect it has to do with one of three motives. Either they have been so convinced by what they saw on video that their one candidate who is definitely not very conservative on the other major issues is superior above all the other candidates to such a degree on this one issue that the other candidates could not possibly do as good of a job as him. Or, the other issues never really mattered that much to them anyway and this is one way of supporting someone who is not strong on the other issues with the excuse that it won't matter what we do about the other issues if we are all dead. Or last but most defintely not least, they are really on the other side of these issues that they so easily dismiss.

The War against Islamic Fascism is likely going to last a long time, including past the next President's administration and even past many of our lifetimes. Are we suppose to not care about any of the other issues for decades to come or in some of our cases, the rest of our lives?

Elusively yours,
ilja
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All the Conservative Pundits' Horses

Posted by ilja on Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:10:54 PM

This is a Blog done by a good friend of mine whom I have learned quite a bit from since I started paying attention to politics just a few short years ago. I thought it was well-worth the read.


by Sturm Ruger
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Frederalist
Posted in it's entirety with permission

Used to be, you didn't need a scorecard to read a column written by a conservative pundit. But then along came Election 2008 two years early, and now you have to read 'em with a grain of salt. No, better make that a pound of salt.

Take Jennifer Rubin (please). She's regularly thrashed Fred Thompson for months in the American Spectator's AmSpec blog. And in a recent post on Race 4 2008, she explains that it's not just the NY Times that is bashing Thompson, but points to pundits David Frum, Robert Novak and George Will as conservatives who have been critical of the former Senator. What she fails to mention is that all three of those writers, plus Rubin herself, have their own horses in the race. More on that just a few paragraphs down.

Although Rubin is a regular at the conservative Spectator and is also published at Human Events, she wrote a piece for the liberal New York Observer titled Five Easy Arguments Against Fred Thompson.

That was not the first time Rubin has been helpful to the Democats in trying to take down Thompson. She has, in fact, been showing her anti-Frederalist bias since long before the big guy officially entered the presidential race. In an analysis for ABC News written last summer about Fred Thompson's testing-the-waters-campaign, she opined, "Thompson appears to have gone well beyond the limits imposed by federal law." Just a month later, former Democrat Party staff member Lane Hudson filed his FEC Complaint against Fred. Hudson, you may remember, is the liberal blogger who exposed the Mark Foley scandal. Never mind that Fred's testing-the-waters campaign had hired a former FEC chairman to advise them on precisely what it could and could not do under the law, quarterback Rubin felt the need to get something started, and the Democrats took the handoff and ran with it.

In another ABC article on Thompson from last spring, she harped on the "lazy" meme, saying that the charge translates into "speculation that maybe he will be a less committed and focused candidate, unwilling or unaware of the demands of the campaign." Gotta spread those DNC talking points, doncha know.

Indeed, one is led to ask, "Who's side is she on?" Rudy Giuliani's, actually. Rubin never has a harsh word for Hizzoner, and she sings his praises in forte voice. How about the trio she mentioned in the Race 4 2008 post? Novak has recently let it be known that he thinks Ron Paul would make a fine president; George Will is for any subcomponent of Rudy McRomney; and John Fund is backing Rudy. As a matter of fact, Fund has gone one step further and hired on with the Giulini campaign.

These four are not the only pundits who have jumped on various candidates' bandwagons early. Rich Lowry and Deroy Murdock at NRO are very Rudy-friendly. Townhall.com's Hugh Hewitt is shamelessly pro-Romney, and Michael Medved, also from Townhall, often expresses his great admiration for John McCain.

The problem is, not a one of these pundits will include a disclaimer in their columns informing the reader of which dog they have in the hunt, although Hewitt will at least tell you that he has written Romney's biography. You have to read a number of their columns before you realize that they have few unkind words to say about Candidate A and are almost always critical of Candidate B.

They should all take a lesson from John Hawkins, blogmeister of Right Wing News. Hawkins worked as a consultant to the Duncan Hunter campaign for a few months, and he took great pains to point out that fact with every post he made in which he expressed his opinion of a competing candidate. Hawkins even posted disclaimers about his former relationship with the Hunter campaign long after his relationship with Hunter's campaign was severed. Bloggers, in general, have been much more up front than their counterparts in the old media about which candidates they support in the presidential sweepstakes.

So the next time you read a piece in the conservative media telling you that Fred Thompson has surely blown it this time and that his campaign may not be long for this world, consider the source and consider which candidate that source would like to see as the GOP nominee at the next Republican presidential convention. Also consider that most voters, unlike us political junkies, never read a word of what the pundits write, and these are the people who have placed Fred Thompson solidly in second place in all the polls.

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

Sincerely Fred

Posted by ilja on Friday, October 12, 2007 7:43:03 PM

The great white hope, their Savior, the next Reagan, the actor, no fire in the belly, the staff turnovers, the uhs, the Guccis, the lobbying, more uhs, the too-late entrance, the ups and downs of his campaign, the constant predictions of this is it, the make it or break it debate, and yet he's still here. He's still at least second in most polls and even first in some. He has always been a top-tier candidate even prior to his official entrance into the race.


But why? Why is Fred still doing so well if he hasn't started a firestorm? He's old. He get's tired. He's lazy. He's no Reagan. So why is he the brunt of so many attacks? Why do they keep writing about him if they all think he doesn't have a chance? Why did the other top-tier candidates pretend he wasn't in the room until Romney threw his obviously pre-written line about "Law and Order" into the debate?


Have you been listening? Have you been paying attention?


Speech after speech, paper after paper, interview after interview, they all include the same common theme but hardly anyone talks about it.


He said it in his speech to the VFW National Convention when talking about our national security.

We must have a frank and continuous conversation about this with the American people because, above all, we must have the support and unity of the American people if we are to succeed.

To reverse this situation we must reassess our national priorities and face the truth about what it will take to defend this country.

While this quote is from his prepared remarks, I noticed a little blurb that re-enforces what I've noticed.

Note: Senator Thompson departs frequently from prepared texts

Did you hear what Fred said at the Americans for Prosperity Summit? While I couldn't find a transcript of his speech, I do have a link to a YouTube video of it and did my best to transcribe some of what he said.

We have to make our case to the American people.

We sensed there was something going on . . . we took our case to them. We talked about first principals. Strong federalism, based on the proposition that not all solutions are found in Washington, DC.

In this second You-tube link Fred talked about speaking what he really believed?

I think the American people are waiting on us. I think they are waiting for us to take that case to them, as to what is responsible, what is the responsible thing to do for our generation?.


I don't think people are as selfish and self-centered as they think they are.


I think if politicians would be willing to take a risk a little bit every once and awhile you'd be amazed at how well that turns out for you even politically


I carried . . . TN twice by 20 points each and I think the thing that was most valuable to me is always I knew I had term limits I had put on myself and I knew I was going back home one of these days soon anyway regardless of how my thoughts were received. Not out of a sense of brashness but a sense of freedom to speak what you believe to be the truth.

Talk about refreshing! No wonder so many are confused by his speeches. People aren't use to a politician giving a speech anymore that is what they really believe. The American people are going to be able to tell the difference. That's the one thing I keep hearing people say about him, that they believe him.


This is what I believe to be the secret to Fred Thompson's success. He is speaking what he really believes and not worrying about how his words are going to be received or misinterpreted.


Start listening to him when he speaks and see if you don't notice it. He nearly always says something about needing to have an honest and open discussion with the American people. He keeps saying what he thinks, what he believes.I noticed in that last video that I posted, he said "I think" in nearly every sentence in the closing portion of his speech.


Fred Thompson may not be your cup of tea and he definitely is not perfect but he does say what he believes and I pray he never stops.


Elusively yours,
ilja

Edited for typos

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »