The Daily Flipper

Read what the Republicans Wish You Wouldn't...

TOP HEADLINE: Big Man McCain Says He Didn’t Need Security in Iraq

U.S. Sen. John McCain said Monday he would have taken his tour of an Iraqi market last week even if he hadn't been accompanied by heavily armed U.S. soldiers.

The Republican presidential hopeful said he would have walked through the Bab al-Sharqi market in Baghdad without the military protection, but the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, had recommended the armed escort.

"I'm not notorious for being nervous about going anywhere," McCain said. "I'll gladly go almost anywhere in the world, under any circumstances, but I did respond and do what Gen. Petraeus asked me to do."

McCain’s Iraq Position Completely Out of Sync with American Public

"My dear friends," he said, "when a nation goes to war a million tragedies ensue. None are more painful than the loss and injury of our country's finest patriots. It's a terrible thing, war. But not the worst thing."

Politically, it might be.

Howard Schaitberger, the firefighters union president, said McCain is on the wrong side of a war his members are tired of.

In 2004, a poll of IAFF membership showed more than 70 percent support for the war in Iraq, according to Schaitberger.

By January of this year, 75 percent of the membership favored either immediate withdrawal, a timetable for withdrawal or redeployment in the region.

"It was a complete, almost literal 180(-degree turn) from where they were two and a half years ago," Schaitberger said. "It really is time to start bringing our troops home."

McCain’s Endless Pandering Has Proven Pointless

But even the best speeches and op-ed pieces cannot free McCain from the consequences of his choices. It turns out that no matter what he does to court, soothe and pamper the right, many in its ranks will never abide him. He spoke out too forcefully in 2000 for campaign finance reform and against "the demands of big-money special interests." He condemned the "self-appointed" leaders of conservative groups -- a rather influential constituency -- and singled out Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "the agents of intolerance." People in politics have long memories.

In deciding to make up with the president, McCain's chosen vehicle was Iraq, on which he genuinely views success in the same terms as the administration. He won over a share of Bush fundraisers (who have failed him up to now) and some Bush operatives, but significant parts of the Bush political family went over to Romney, joining at least a few of McCain's 2000 enthusiasts.

Remember How You Used to Be a Senator?

Yes, you're running for president. It steals your time. You spend days and nights and weekends away from the congressional home front, courting admirers in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina.

But what about voting, your chief chore in Washington?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), you've been the scarcest of the Senate sextuplet, the chamber's largest class of presidential candidates in 20 years. You've missed one out of every three votes since January, according to Congressional Observer Publications, a nonpartisan database service.

McCain Accepts Imus’ Apology

So pretend you're a top level staffer to one of the top 2008 presidential candidates. You're sitting in the war room this morning waiting for an intern to bring your Starbucks and jelly doughnuts into the room. You sit there and contemplate this question: Should my candidate go on the Don Imus radio show in the future? What do you do? John McCain has already decided. See below.

"He has apologized. He said that he is deeply sorry. I'm a great believer in redemption. Whether he needs to do more in order to satisfy the concerns of people like the members of that team, that's something that's between him and them. But I have made many mistakes in my life ... and I have apologized, and most people have accepted that apology."

The Great Conservative Hope Has Some Shortcomings of His Own

On Abortion: "Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." -- Fred Thompson, July 1994

It's amazing that all of a sudden we're seeing all these Social Conservatives rallying to Fred Thompson as the "Savior" of the GOP. The Social Cons have never fully trusted Rudy Giuliani. All it took was one small misstep by Giuliani the other day on abortion, for them to bail. Now the Blogosphere is loaded with "Run Fred, Run!" articles and posts.

Are the Social Cons ignorant of Thompson's background?

Fred Thompson has always been a solid Pro-Choice Republican.

Once a Flipper, Always a Flipper. . . Romney Flop on Hunting Just the Latest

This posturing became a particular problem for Mr. Romney in large part because it reinforced the existing narrative of the governor as a politician willing to change his ideological stripes to fit the political environment of the moment. Mr. Romney's views on subjects ranging from abortion to gay rights to gun control have changed -- "evolved and deepened," the candidate says -- as he has made the transition from running as a Republican in a bright-blue state to seeking the nomination in a process dominated by a conservative base.

"I don't line up with the NRA," said Romney in 1994. "I'm after the NRA's endorsement," says Romney in 2007.

Massachusetts Choice Activists Unclear on Where Romney Stands on Abortion

Melissa R. Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, said she was "a little surprised" Romney is being honored, given his shifted positions on abortion. "Mitt Romney hasn't been clear what he really stands for," she said.

Earlier this year, at a campaign stop in the critical primary state of South Carolina, Romney described himself as "firmly pro-life."

When he was campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported the 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize abortion, though he individually opposed the procedure.

"While I personally am not in favor of abortion, as governor I will protect the right of a woman to choose," Romney told reporters in March 2002.

In a questionnaire he completed in 2002 for Kogut's organization, Romney wrote that women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not his or the government's.

Giuliani Tangles Himself Up in his Own Abortion Stances

Twisting himself even further, Giuliani said denying a poor woman tax dollars to pay for an abortion would deprive her of a "constitutional right."

While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and a free press, it does not follow that the government should buy me a newspaper if I can't afford one. And as a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade, why would Giuliani name judges who oppose it? Would a pro-life candidate be credible if he promised to name only judges who read into the Constitution whatever he or she wished?

If Giuliani believes in a strict construction interpretation of the Constitution, he could not support abortion because a strict constructionist does not find language permitting it.

Giuliani says people who don't like his position do not have to vote for him. Many social conservatives who view abortion as a make-or-break issue are likely to follow his advice.

Gingrich’s Plan for Illegal Immigration: Send Them Gifts!

The U.S. government’s inefficient bureaucratic system was the main target of Gingrich’s frustration during his speech. By comparing the federal government to UPS – saying UPS has a system to track packages in real time online – he pointed out that the Federal Government cannot find between 11 and 13 million illegal workers.

“UPS can track packages going across the country, and the government cannot find immigrants who are sitting still. For less then $200 million we could send a package to each illegal immigrant, track it, and find them,” said a sarcastic Gingrich.

Conservative Columnist Blasts Rudy for Poor Campaign

As a presidential candidate, you seem to be winging it these days - giving off-the-cuff, ill-considered answers to delicate questions. If you keep winging it this way, you're going to fly off a cliff.

For example, the answer to your pro-choice difficulty with social conservatives on the matter of abortion isn't to blather about how much you "hate it" and then ruminate on whether the government should be responsible for helping pay for one. That's what you did last week, and you must never, ever do anything like it again - if, that is, you actually want to become president.

National Review Fact Checks Giuliani Campaign’s Abortion Claims

Like Bill Simon, we admire Professor New. Let’s quote him some more on abortion trends during Giuliani’s mayoral terms: “I cannot attribute this decline to any actual policy Giuliani implemented.” Note also that New York City’s abortion rate had a long way to fall: Even after its decline, it remained much higher than the national average. Should Mayor Giuliani get credit for that fact as well?

But at Least Rudy’s Not a Fool . . .

Then a young woman comes up to Giuliani and asks him to autograph the T-shirt she is wearing. Giuliani turns her around and signs the back of it. (He is no fool.)

Bill Frist Spotted at the National Zoo. . .

Bill Frist, wandering into the elephant house at the National Zoo Saturday morning with family; the former Senate majority leader braved the unseasonable cold in a black dress coat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000055.html

Don’t Let Him Near the Gorillas!

Comments (4) «

O.K. Michael.

You couldn't be suggesting that the GOP should switch their logo to that of a gorilla over the elephant? But it that does make sense of several different levels.

1

SandyH on April 10, 2007 at 05:24 PM

Gorillas? Don't let him near the small cats.

2

DPD on April 10, 2007 at 05:37 PM

The punch line of the Gorilla line didnt quite make it...

Try going HERE

3

meanmike on April 10, 2007 at 06:14 PM

Freedom of Speech Destroyed by the Civil Rights Movement?

Don Imus may owe 12 people an apology for uttering his "racially insensitive" comments when referring to the Rutgers basketball team, but those 12 people certainly do not include Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson Jr., both of whom continue to prove why candidates like Barack Obama or Herald Ford Jr. need to distance themselves as far as possible from the "mainstream" civil rights movement. For some reason, the Civil Rights movement has shifted from focusing on maintaining Civil Rights for all, to restricting First Amendment rights for whites only. The game of "gotcha" seems to be played by a few people who use their own celebrity not for the good of their own race, but for hyping nonsense in the frenzied 21st century mass media market.

Worry about voting machines, worry about availability of poll workers in minority areas, or voter registration amongst minorities, or gang violence, or gun control, or minority representation in institutions of higher learning - anything but this ridiculous charade Al Sharpton and the Rainbow Push Coalition call a "movement." If anything, it's a bowel movement.

My words don't come lightly; as a liberal in favor of fairness and equality by any means necessary, in favor of affirmative action, and in favor of prosecuting hate crimes to the fullest extent of the law, I am also forced to be mindful of our Bill of Rights, and that which our system of Government has gotten right.

As a first amendment absolutist I believe that in order to protect freedom of speech we must protect people like Don Imus - for if we begin to travel down a path that encourages speech that is only free to be uttered upon a stamp of approval by a select few, we will have indeed created a society in which the consequences of "minority status" will be far more detrimental to minorities than any white man uttering a racist diatribe. If the "N" word is so bad, Al Sharpton should demand apologies from people like Kanye West or Chris Rock, and every other black celebrity that utters such a disgusting word and perpetuates its continuity. But for some reason, it's O.K. for them to say it...and not me because of the color of my skin. Last week. Bill Maher mentioned how Michal Richards was destroyed for "saying the N Word" and Chris Rock replied, "no, he said nigger." The reply got huge laughs from the audience, not because Chris Rock was technically correcting Maher, but because of the double standard. Bill Maher ironically tried to remain “Politically Correct” by not saying the word, and Chris Rock went ahead and said it at no political cost to himself as he used the word to get laughs from the largely white audience. There has to be something wrong with this picture. Does Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson honestly think that if Don Imus is fired, the dreaded "N-Word" will simply go away?

As a parent, if my daughter ever uttered such a word in my presence I might have to break my rule of not beating my child - but I should only expect that black parents would do the same to their own children, and leaders within their community hold black adults just as accountable as they do whites. While I am no fool when it comes to understanding the history of the word and thus the differences between how both races have used the word (whites used it as a derrogatory term for blacks during the slave and Jim Crow Era while blacks have used the term often to establish a sense of familiarity and community), there is no excuse for the double standard. The selective persecution and hypocrisy must be eliminated before black leaders are to be taken seriously by whites, especially when they are often using the same words or comments other black celebrities have used frequently. I appreciate all the positive work people like Jesse and Al have done in the past, but I think the time has come for them to take a back seat and let new leaders with new faces (like Barack Obama) emerge and try to send a message of uniting the American people (regardless of race) rather than engaging in public media lynchings of whites who make asses of themselves by using a word or making a comment that goes over the top.

Perhaps the punishment given to Don Imus is appropriate, but the same punishments need to be given to everyone, everytime. The very term "Civil Rights" connotes one's own equality within a society, and selective persecution is wrong, just as it is wrong to silence any type of speech, regardless of how vile we may think it is.

4

Donkeypoll on April 10, 2007 at 09:12 PM

« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.