Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Schmuckabee: Constitution a “living, breathing document”

That’s an argument you expect to hear from the left, not from a Republican presidential candidate.  Apparently, Huck doesn’t read his own web site, which says the following:

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.” 

Here’s the video of the flip-flop.  So which is it, Senator Kerry…er, Governor Schmuckabee?  Is it or is it not a “living, breathing document”?  Or are you going to use the Ron Paul defense, i.e. “Hey, I didn’t write that thing!”?

Fortunately, Fred Thompson understands how the Constitution really works:

This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.

Exactly right, Fred. Huck’s wrong on immigration, wrong on criminal justice, wrong on taxes (except for the Fair Tax), and wrong on the Constitution…ergo, he’s wrong for America.

January 18, 2008 Posted by | Fred Thompson, Huckabee, hypocrisy | 2 Comments

Hawkeye cauci quick takes

The Hildebeast came in third, behind Obama and the Silky Pony.  Anytime a Clinton loses, especially a Marxist b#tch like Shrillary, that’s a good thing.  But she’s like Freddy Kreuger…she never dies, so don’t go to sleep.

Schmuckabee won, Romney came in second, Thompson came in third, and McCain came in fourth.  Will the MSM now get off of McCain’s “surging momentum” jock?

Rudy was a blip on the radar screen, and looks to be that way in New Hampshire.  He’s going for broke in SC and FL.  I’ve only been following politics for about 15 years now, but can anyone tell me who has flamed in both IA and NH and lived to win the nomination?  Bush got killed in NH by Johnny Mac in 2000, but he had won IA before that and then SC right afterwards.

Doctor Kook Magnet (aka Ron Paul) came in fifth.  That’s what $20 million in a quarter buys you?  Master fundraiser Howard Dean raised crazy bucks in late ’03 for his ill-fated 2004 campaign, and he similarly flamed out.  Something about crazy people, money, and Iowa that just don’t mix.

January 4, 2008 Posted by | Fred Thompson, Hillary, Howard Dean, Huckabee, John Edwards, McCain, Obama, Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy | 1 Comment

“Tennessee Democrats Object To Thompson Fundraising… Uh, Just Because”

Jim Geraghty delivers the spanking.

This has to be the lamest political attack in… well, a few days, at least:

Nashville, TN- Fred Thompson uses his Tennessee beginnings as if they were a Hollywood setting, but today Fred Thompson will use the Volunteer State as his personal ATM and an excuse to withdraw from the Florida Values Voters debate.

“Tennessee is too important and too pivotal in the 2008 presidential election to be used as a backdrop or a checking account,” said Tennessee Democratic Party spokesman Wade Munday.

“These times are too perilous to have an actor parading around the state, portraying a presidential candidate, and avoiding serious debate for serious times,” Munday continued. “Fred Thompson has yet to offer a substantive response to our military friends and families in Iraq, but he’s willing to raise money using their sacrifices as a political soundbite.

“Aside from the financial withdrawals, Fred has withdrawn from debate after debate on account of some rather unimpressive campaign appearances. Now he uses Tennessee as an excuse to withdraw from a debate on values, because he has yet to memorize those lines.”

How dare Fred Thompson… raise money for a presidential campaign! He should be like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards, and never hold any fundraisers at all! Why doesn’t he act like Hillary and rely on nice men like Norman Hsu to give him money!


September 25, 2007 Posted by | Fred Thompson, hypocrisy | 6 Comments

"DNC Closes Blog Comments After Discovering Members Agree With Thompson"

Without lifting a finger, Fred Thompson ravaged the moonbatosphere. From Virginia Virtucon:

Free speech is NOT alive and well within the Democrat Party. The DNC had to close the comment section on their blog post regarding Fred Thompson. In an attempt to bash Thompson, the DNC posted The Fred Thompson “Dummies Guide to Diplomacy”. Check out some of these excerpts from comments from DNC blog visitors. Looks like the Reagan Democrats might feel right at home with Thompson –

If this is really the worst that the DNC can come up with then Fred Thompson may be a problem. Tough talk on the Russians and bad mouthing the French is not going to upset the average voter. Bad mouthing Mexican immigration could be down right popular. Unless we can find something a little more current than the S&L fiasco we may have to hope that he stays out of it to protect his kids from the press.

I may not like his position on other matters, but I agree with him that there needs to be a significantly tighter control on the southern border. The mexican workers themselves are not the problem; after all the mayority of them provide useful services. Its the uncontrolled reproduction of their family members that became US citizens and inmediately entitle their mothers to collect social benefits for the child as they see this as a right. They’ve learned very quickly that the social services of this country are fraught with the ineffectiveness of the morons that administer them. (Uh-oh…”quacking” from the left, too? – Ed.)

I dont see your point.
The Mexican upperclass elite do grow richer by riding the backs of the poor. That government does in effect export their own people in order to draw money from US to bolster their economy.

Have the French not jailed people for incorrect speech?

Is Russia not run by ex-KGB? Does not the entire world make jokes about Putin bumping off his enemies?

If you have something rotten to say about Thompson, something of substance and not based on the pure desire to trash a Republican – let’s hear it.

Did he say he hated kittens? That might be something to fuss about.

i agree with everything he said and if it offends these other countries so what! it true! and sometimes the truth hurts. would you rather have another liar for president? (Duh! Of course they would! They would LOVE to have Bubba back in the Oral…er, Oval…Ofice. – Ed.) i wouldn’t.

We can’t be contrary just because a Republican said it’s so, or because it may seem indelicate. The American people are sick and tired of indirect, overly calculated answers. On this issue Thompson is speaking the truth and if we are foolish enough to tap dance around Putin’s conduct, we will alienate voters.

No wonder the Dems felt the need to close comments on that post.

*** Snort! Chuckle! *** Nothing like some hot “blue-on-blue” action to get the morning going!

June 13, 2007 Posted by | Fred Thompson, moonbats | 1 Comment

George Will knocks Fred Thompson

According to Captain’s Quarters, a “swing and a miss”:

George Will attempts to pop the Fred Thompson boomlet in his latest Newsweek column. Unfortunately for Will, Fred Thompson is not the lightweight cipher he dismisses so casually, and the normally excellent Will winds up looking a little bit of a lightweight himself:

Some say he is the Republicans’ Rorschach test: They all see in him what they crave. Or he might be the Republicans’ dot-com bubble, the result of restless political investors seeking value that the untutored eye might not discern and that might be difficult to quantify but which the investors are sure must be there, somewhere, somehow.

One does not want to be unfair to Thompson, who may have hidden depths. But ask yourself this: If he did not look like a basset hound who had just read a sad story—say, “Old Yeller”—and if he did not talk like central casting’s idea of the god Sincerity, would anyone think he ought to be entrusted with the nation’s nuclear arsenal? He is an actor, and, as a Hollywood axiom says, the key to acting is sincerity—if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

This is, of course, all about another actor. Republicans have scrutinized the current crop of presidential candidates and succumbed to the psychosomatic disease Reagan Deprivation. It is, however, odd that many Republicans who advertise their admiration for Reagan are so ready to describe Thompson as Reaganesque because he … what?

First and foremost, Will has both Reagan and Thompson wrong in the same manner that people dismissed Reagan in his political career. Thompson has a long career as more than just an actor. Thompson’s acting career was accidental; his political career was much more deliberate. He made his name as a reforming activist lawyer, first with Watergate, and second in exposing corruption in the Tennessee governor’s office. And like Reagan but in a much shorter time frame, he has spent the last several months delivering speeches and papers on issues.

Thompson first came to national attention by working with Senator Howard Baker on the Watergate committee. It was Thompson who brought out the Oval Office taping system that captured all of Richard Nixon’s incriminating conversations. Thompson also asked the critical question: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

Afterwards, Thompson pursued a case of pardons-for-bribes corruption in Tennessee. He represented Marie Ragghianti, a whistleblower who uncovered the corruption. With Thompson’s help, a number of Tennessee state officials went to prison, and while Governor Ray Blanton managed to remain free, his political career was finished. The film Marie tells the story based on the Peter Maas book, and Thompson played himself. That started his improbable Hollywood career; he did not train to be an actor, but a lawyer and a clean-government activist.

Will’s description of Thompson manages to miss all that, as well as the eight years he served in the Senate. That isn’t an extraordinarily long time, but it’s the same amount of experience Ronald Reagan had as a public officeholder when he ran for President in 1976 and 1980, although Reagan’s experience was as an executive. Reagan had ten years on the lecture circuit talking politics before he won election as California’s governor, but Thompson has had plenty of real-life experience in politics before he became, in Will’s dismissive tone, “an actor”.

Thompson is a lot more than 99 percent charm. His speeches and writings have very clearly defined his driving philosophy as a federalist, and his track record as a reformer needs no apologetics to anyone except Will. He has to answer for his record on campaign-finance reform as well as the rest of his votes and actions, of course, but that’s what all candidates have to do when they run for President.

George Will mostly hits home runs with his columns, whether on politics or baseball. In this case, he whiffed.

I have no idea if I’d support Thompson or not, since he has yet to declare or debate or anything. But I’m not willing to trash the guy before I know anything about his views or votes or anything like that, especially since he does seem to have a distinguished political career (at least, as far as law enforcement goes…legislatively, I’m not so sure).

June 12, 2007 Posted by | Fred Thompson | Leave a comment

Left outraged that Fred Thompson finds his wife attractive

Hilarious and damning observations from Ace:

Deviating from the Bill/Hillary! model they favor.

Dr. Helen wants to know:

When I look at my husband with affection, am I leering?
I guess not since I’m a woman and can do no wrong except for being a right-leaning libertarian. However, if you’re a man, particularly a Republican man, who looks at his wife with affection, you are now accused of “leering”–especially if you are Fred Thompson.

This is yet another example of a woman who deep down believes that men have no right to leer at women, lest it be considered a sex offense. And she is not alone, there are many other women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment–not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman–not even in pictures–with desire in his heart. In their eagar quest to control men’s sexual rights, some “feminist” women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface.

Weird. Feminists continue insisting that it’s empowering to f### everything that moves, except your actual husband, who must be sexually punished as a state-sanctioned enforcer of The Oppressive Patriarchy.

Honestly, The Feminists Who Put Out (TM) are really ruining their “pro-sex street cred” by constantly nattering on about everyone’s base sexual impulses.

Why don’t you all just chill out, pop open a bottle of wine, and dig on the cool grooves of kd lang and leave the rest of us alone?

Ace should have given me the beverage warning before dropping a “STFU and jam to kd lang” reference. That was hilarious!


Am I to understand it’s wrong for Fred Thompson to leer at his wife, and yet the lefty feminists have no problem with Bill Clinton leering at 22-year-old Monica Lewinksy’s thong, nor turning her into a Human Humidor?


I guess Fred Thompson had better start diddling an intern, quick. It’s the only way to insulate himself from charges of lechery.

I’ve always considered feminists to be a bunch of humorless, hypocritical, disingenuous, unintelligent and hyper-emotional nags. Stories like this only confirm that notion.

June 8, 2007 Posted by | Bill Clinton, feminism, Fred Thompson, hypocrisy | 1 Comment