Politics

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Yep Newt is such a Christian that he dumped his first wife while she was recovering from cancer and then divorced his second wife to marry another women that he was having an affair with during the Clinton impeachment trial.

In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson’s claim. He said that, while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ about such a possibility."

Sometimes when someone tries to explain someone else’s comment they only dig themselves in deeper As if Dobson only referring to Evangelicals as Christians is a good clarification of his comment about Thompson.

Steve "Feddie" Dillard of the now defunct Southern Appeal blog had his email published in The American Spectator.

There are two reasons that so many people are clamoring for Fred Thompson to seek the GOP nomination: (1) he has a strong record on socially conservative issues; and (2) he has the "it" factor. Both of these qualities are needed to energize a demoralized GOP base and (thus) win the presidency, and none of the so-called front runners possess them. While John "Just call me Bob Dole because it’s my turn" McCain was once a strong voice for a "Culture of Life" in this country, he has been notably silent on such issues in recent years. He also supports embryonic-stem-cell research, which will cost him many votes among social conservatives (especially conservative Catholics). McCain is also dull as dishwater, and the perception among many conservatives is that he’s not all there. As for Rudy, I don’t care how many polls have him listed as the frontrunner, he’s going to lose in the South, and lose big. All Romney or Brownback have to do to sink Rudy’s quest for the Whitehouse is to run commercials highlighting his statements: (1) supporting public funding of abortion; (2) noting that he would pay to have his grandchild snuffed out if his daughter became pregnant and wanted an abortion; or (3) in support of gay rights (you can also expect the pictures of him in drag to feature prominently in such ads). Don’t get me wrong, many conservatives (including yours truly) greatly respect Rudy for the Churchillian leadership he displayed in the aftermath of 9/11, and for the tremendous job he did in cleaning up New York City; but the bottom line is that his values are simply not the same as the vast majority of those residing in must-win red states. Indeed, if Rudy somehow ends up winning the GOP nomination, you can rest assured that he will ultimately lose. People are kidding themselves if they think Rudy’s liberal social views will generate enough cross over or moderate votes to make up for the loss of social conservatives like me, who are as troubled by Rudy’s candidacy as much as they were with John Kerry’s (once again, this is especially true among conservative Catholics). So, this leaves Romney; and his problem is that he is a flip-flopper and a Mormon. Now, I personally could care less about the latter, but many religious conservatives do and will vote accordingly. And while Romney certainly has charisma, it pales in comparison to the presidential vibe that Thompson exudes when he walks into the room. Like I said, Thompson has that special something that Reagan had, and that is why so many conservatives are excited about the prospect of him running. And if Thompson does run, he will win. Can you imagine that shrill woman on the same stage with Thompson (in a debate)? He’ll make her look like the devil woman she is inside of five minutes. In this respect, my view is that Obama is the dem who benefits the most from a Thompson run. Right now, there is no need for the dems to nominate anyone with a personality to take on McCain/Giuliani/Romney, but Thompson, Thompson changes everything. In my view, Fred Thompson is the only chance conservatives have of maintaining the presidency. The sooner we realize this, the better.

I am not quite ready to jump on the Thompson bandwagon, but I generally agree with many of the points Feddie makes. I have heard a lot of support for a Thompson candidacy by callers on talk radio and I can certainly understand why. As much as I like Sen Sam Brownback without money he is not going anywhere and in this effort he is leagues behind the others in fundraising. Sen Thompson on the other hand would probably be an effective fundraiser and would certainly get a lot of media attention. He also has the bona fides as being a pro-life conservative in his voting record, though there is some question as to how deep his pro-life philosophy actually goes. Though one of the most attractive things about Sen. Thompson is his forthrightness. That he actually answers questions without hemming and hawing around and when he answers a question you actually know what his answer was. The sad thing is that such a quality stands out like a sore thumb when compared to other politicians. I just plain don’t like Gov. Rudy Guiliani and Sen. John McCain and while I sort of like some aspects of Gov. Romney, but I don’t trust him.

Recently Mitt Romney in his announcement for president said:

"I believe in God and I believe that every person in this great country, and every person on this grand planet, is a child of God,"

Well with Romney being a Mormon it seems to me it would have been much more accurate for him to say that he believes in Gods. For Mormon’s Jesus Christ joins a long line of gods who have preceded him in an infinite line of divine beings. That in fact faithful Mormon men can also become a god. So I think it is a little disingenuous to speak using normal monotheistic idea of God in a political speech when LDS theology holds to multiple gods, where God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all separate gods and that they are in addition to an unknown number of gods.

Though while I totally disagree with LDS theology, this does not mean that I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. I am just not that thrilled with this particular Mormon in that I do not feel very solid on his conservatism and his new-found pro-life beliefs. Fiscally conservative he probably is, socially conservative is another story.

Note: The Gods of the Mormon Church

From Brit Hume’s "grapevine " last night:

The minimum wage increase that took effect in Arizona last month has brought with it some unintended consequences — many teenagers are losing their jobs. The Arizona Republic reports some employers say payroll budgets have risen so much since the minimum wage went from $5.15 per hour to $6.75 — they have had to cut jobs and hours.

The owner of one Phoenix pizza restaurant says his payroll has shot up 13 percent and he’s had to lay off three teenagers and cut hours for others. Another shop owner said expenses rose by $2,000 a month.

A Federal Reserve study showed that for every ten percent increase in the minimum wage — there is a corresponding two to three percent decrease in employment.
[Via Veritas]

Well Democrats support a minimum wage and I guess zero is a minimum wage – just about as minimum as you can get.

From and NRO Article, Jester hat tip Jay Anderson.

“Murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes,” Rudy Giuliani once said. “But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.”

Good point, Rudy.

Now, what about a climate — not to mention a Republican presidential candidate — that not only tolerates, but allows unelected judges to legalize the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains?

What about a climate where same-sex couples are given the same legal status as married couples, whether the resulting arrangements are candidly called “same-sex marriages,” or are semantically papered-over with terms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?

Apply the Giuliani Continuum to fundamental issues such as marriage and the right to life, and where does it lead?

Not where conservatives want America to be.

Rudy Giuliani’s observation about the “continuum” running from graffiti to murder was quoted in a piece in the winter edition of City Journal by Steven Malanga. The title of Malanga’s piece neatly encapsulates his argument: “Yes, Rudy is a Conservative — and an electable one at that.”

I believe Malanga is wrong on both counts. Rudy is neither conservative, nor electable — at least, not as a Republican presidential candidate.

I certainly hope that is true. But for many so-called conservatives by using the magic words "National Security" you can get them to buy off on a lot. The Guliani apologists fresh off their jobs of putting wings on pigs are now trying to do a conservative makeover on Giuliani. Just as long as he says he will elect the type of judges that could overturn Roe v. Wade we are suppose to be calmed. As if having moral beliefs that put you firmly in the culture of death will have no bearing on the type of president he would be.

Now as for me – at least in the Primaries – I am firmly in the Sam Brownback camp. Brownback is this years Alan Keyes – someone I really like but has about zero chance of being elected. Next time around a firm Catholic candidate should just go ahead and change their name legally to Don Quixote. Though just having someone like Brownback in the race does at least keep social conservative issues within the debates.

I do wonder if there are many Firefly fans that also like Sen. Browback. I think Browncoats for Brownback would make an awesome group.

From an article by Matt C. Abbott.

My focus usually isn’t on the secular political scene, but this item begs for a bit of commentary.

Chicago’s liberal activist priest, Father Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina, an "African-American Catholic Church," is warning people not to "touch" U.S. Sen. (and possible 2008 presidential candidate) Barack Obama.

Pfleger, according to a Jan. 16, 2007 story on WBBM780.com, said the following:

"I think Barack Obama is in a class of his own. I think he is the best thing that has come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy.

"When anybody comes with that much hope, whether it’s a Bobby Kennedy or whether it’s a Martin Luther King Jr., they do become vulnerable. They become vulnerable because they tell the country and the world that we can be better and we don’t have to accept what is. And unfortunately, we live in a world where not everybody wants it to be different.

"Do not touch this man, for if you do, you will answer to us all."

So I guess Pfleger doesn’t want anyone to criticize Obama for anything, or else…

Pfleger apparently doesn’t care a wit that Obama has a 0 percent pro-life voting record.

But given Pfleger’s past support of other pro-abortion politicians, I’m not at all surprised. And Pfleger seems to relish the media attention, which he often receives when espousing some "politically correct" cause.

Pfleger has been doing what he’s doing for quite some time, and the archdiocese, well…I think they pretty much try to ignore him, for better or for worse.

Sad.

Especially strange is how the use of touch, at least for me, which invokes what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection. Though maybe this gives a clue as towards Fr. Pfleger hopes for Obama as some kind of secular messiah.

WASHINGTON – Sen. Sam Brownback, who is considering a White House bid in 2008, said Monday the Republican field has room for a "full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative" and pledged to make a final decision next month.

The Kansas senator said he was not discouraged from running by the Democrats’ strong gains in this month’s midterm elections, including majority control of the House and Senate.

"It does not make it less likely," he said in an interview. "I really believe that the basic conservative ideas and ideals were not repudiated. Our execution was."

A more daunting challenge for Brownback are the better known potential candidates. Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani have set up presidential exploratory committees. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., also are weighing bids.

"I think there’s room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field," Brownback said. "I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign."

Brownback, who was elected in 1996, is a forceful foe of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. He also has taken a prominent role in the fight against genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.

I only wish Sen. Brownback had been a Governor vice a Senator considering how few Senators make it to the White house. Though this Presidential election season looks like on the Democratic side it will be mostly senators. I do know that I can vote for Brownback in the primaries with zero holding -the-nose factor.

In addition to the war, which he called a key factor in the losses of fellow Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum and others, Specter said his party will have to become "a lot more progressive and a lot less ideological."

Specter commended Santorum for his candor, but said Pennsylvania’s junior senator paid the price at the polls.

"Rick took a lot of controversial positions," Specter said. "You saw the results yesterday."

I do wonder if Sen. Specter campaigned for Rick Santorum as much as he had done for him? Somehow I doubt it. I truly will miss Sen Santorum in the Senate and I doubt if Senator-Elect Casey is going to be all that pro-life.

I thought this quip to be rather funny over at The Corner.

In the Senate, he will impress few and function as a wholly owned subsidiary of Chuck Schumer, except when he is occasionally given dispensation to cast a pro-life or pro-gun vote. –John J. Miller

I quipped previously that if Missouri passed Amendment 2 that they should be called the Snow Me state. With the measure unfortunately passing by 50.3 percent you do have to wonder just how many with the intention of actually banning cloning voted in favor of it. It is a wonder though in the modern climate that it passed by so little of a margin. That the pro-cloners spent 30 to 1 in money with support continuing dropping in the polls. The modern medicine show rolls on from state to state guaranteeing miraculous cures and spouting lies. After the con scientists count their grant money and dream of one day patenting the results of embryonic stem-cell research. Since you can’t patent adult stem-cells ESCR looks much more lucrative – not in cures, but cash.

Disappointing also was the rejection of the South Dakota abortion ban. In a mostly pro-life state you have to wonder if Roe v. Wade is overturned how many states will actually ban abortion in all cases? What we will probably get is abortion restricted in most cases with what have become the normal (though still wrong) exceptions – though this is much preferable to what we have now.

I do hope that one day aborturaries and embryonic stem-cell research centers will be seen in the same way as concentration camps. That these places will be seen as places where horrible evils occurred.

I happily found myself this morning much more detached from the election results than I have previously been. I am still a political junkie, but the phrase "put no trust in princes" keeps echoing whenever I start to get to upset. Even Speaker Pelosi evokes more a smile than a grin for me – though maybe that is just the happy thoughts of punditry ahead. Watching elections is like reading the Book of Judges with all of the cycles of good judge/bad judge. Or like reading Kings I and II with the same cycles of mainly bad kings with few exceptions. I just have to remember the Book or Revelations to know that everything turns out good in the end. This does not remove the need of both prayer and action in the world, it just makes it easier when kept in mind.

I voted earlier today and used a touchscreen voting machine for the first time. Unfortunately it had no Voticons. One thing that is always annoying is voting for judges. All you usually have to go by is some short quip in a voting guide that basically tells you nothing. I lucked out this year between the choice of two judges since one of them made it very easy for me. In her short blurb she quoted Anthony Kennedy, which pretty much calls for a slam-dunk decision to vote for the other person.

Unfortunately my representative, Corrine Brown of Jacksonville, ran unopposed. I suppose nobody from my district was corrupt enough to replace her. She once referred to the Bush Administration as a "racist" "bunch of white men" and told a Cuban-American Representative that "you all look alike to me". She is good for comic relief though and she keeps some people employed just as long as they are ethics investigators.