Hennessy's View

So Iowa–and America–can see this:

It’s worth it. Even Beth has put down the knitting needles to help raise money for Fred.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Mark Steyn might have said it best

Benazir Bhutto’s return to Pakistan had a mad recklessness about it which give today’s events a horrible inevitability.

Were any of us surprised to hear the news today? An Islamofascist slug shot to death Benazir Bhutto then blew up, either of his own volition or remotely by his sponsors. (We’ve learned to not believe that all terrorism executors are volunteers.)

Pakistan is home to Usama bin Laden, al Qaeda’s central command, and the what remains of the Taliban. It is the staging ground for countless murderous forays into Afghanistan, claiming scores of American and Afghani lives. It is the epicenter of the war on terror.

What happens next in Pakistan is critical to our success in defeating Islamofascism. Musharraf must call upon the United States to jointly occupy his country’s western regions, ferreting out and killing without mercy or hesitation anyone who resembles a terrorist. I mean that, so there’s no need for the lefties to write and tell me all all of the negative connotations of my policy: find them, kill them, bury them in pig skin. Even the NYT wants American involvement:

American policy must now be directed at building a strong democracy in Pakistan that has the respect and the support of its own citizens and the will and the means to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

After Benazir Bhutto – New York Times

More likely, emboldened by Bhutto’s murder, the terrorists will next attack Musharraf. In a country where 48 percent of the populace supports al Qaeda, Musharraf is seen as Western as Reagan. Unless he acts ruthlessly and immediately, his time and his life will soon pass.

What then? Then 60 nuclear missiles will belong to Usama bin Laden. Let your imagination fill in the blanks.

One way or another, America voting Democrat in 2008 will be seen as terrorism’s invitation to revisit mass murder on American soil.

Blogged with Flock

Tags: Bhutto, al qaeda, usama bin laden, musharraf, pakistan

Popularity: 1% [?]

Background

Fred Thompson, the rightward-most viable candidate for president, needs about a quarter of a million dollars for pre-caucus blitz in Iowa. The blogosphere has committed to putting him over the top.

Update

With 24 hours to go, Fred has raised $117,033 of $248,846 needed for the blitz. Money is pouring in at about $6,000 an hour.

What You Can Do

Donate at Fred08.com

Popularity: 1% [?]

Issues voters are idiots.

***Track the progress here:  Fred 08***

***YOU DID IT!  THE BLOG BURST REACHED ITS GOAL***

Maybe that’s too strong, but it’s true. Anyone who votes for a candidate because of his or her statements on current issues is a moron too intellectually lazy to consider the gravity of a vote for president. Moreover, “issues voters” are gullible and selfish egomaniacs too caught up in their own immediate wants to recognize a liar when he’s selling them snake oil.

Show me a man who says, “I want to hear Jones’s views on the issues,” and I’ll show you an overgrown, spoiled child who wants his mommy to wipe his posterior for him.

Frighteningly, what was once the intellectual oasis of American politics–the right–is now the issue voter capital of the world.

Candidate Jones knows that his victory depends on feeding cheery bullshit about “issues” to the people who want government to run their lives. So he tells them what they want to hear. If the audience is Southern Baptists, why he’s opposed to gay marriage, abortion, and saying “Happy Holidays.” If the audience is construction workers, he’s all for building a fence across the Mexican border patrolled by hair-triggered Black Water employees ready to kill anything that moves. If the audience is old, why doubling Social Security benefits becomes his primary motivation for running for office.

Except for Social Security, of course, most of these issues will be long forgotten by the time Jones takes the oath of office. Do you remember what George W. Bush campaigned on? What were his issues in 1999? What were Gore’s?

Exactly.

On September 11, 2001, the issues changed. And they will again by the autumn of 2009. So don’t vote on the issues of the moment.

Instead, try to figure out each candidate’s philosophical foundations. Why does Rudy Giuliani align with the left on abortion? Is he honest about his beliefs on the issue, or are they baggage from his issues-pandering when running for mayor of New York? Why did Huckabee expand the reach, power, and cost of government in Arkansas? Why does McCain, one of the boldest issue-panderers on the planet, shift views every time the wind blows?

Again, find the candidate’s philosophical core, and you’ll find your man.

Ronald Reagan’s philosophical core had a very thin veil. He believed that America was the greatest nation that ever existed, that her future was brighter than any past, that “It’s a Wonderful Life” was the most accurate portrayal of the American spirit ever filmed, and that everything we have results from the genius of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Reagan’s philosophy drove his views on issues. Because he honestly plead his philosophy to the voters for 20 years before his election, we know damn well what he would do in response to anything. When PATCO went on strike, crippling the airline industry, he fired them. When Cuba invaded Granada, he kicked their asses out. When Libya sponsored terrorists, he bombed Qaddafi’s house. When stagflation crippled the economy, he cut taxes. When federal regulations threatened to destroy manufacturing in America, he erased the regulations.

Reagan did what he believed Thomas Jefferson would have done. And we knew he would.

In the current race for the White House, only candidate in each party is so confident of his philosophical core that he can run on that alone. For each of these men, their philosophies drive their stand on issues–not the other way around. We can predict how these men will respond to crises and opportunities because we know, or should know, how they think.

For the Democrats, that man is Dennis Kucinich. I disagree with everything he stands for, so you can go look it up yourself. His philosophy is horseshit, and so are his views on issues. Consistent to the core.

Fred Thompson is the only Republican candidate who campaigns on his philosophical core, not on today’s fleeting issues.

Vote for Thompson.

Back when the conservative movement was an intellectual tidal wave overwhelming shortsighted self-interest, we on the right clung to William F. Buckley’s brilliant yet simple formula for choosing whom to support in elections: always support the rightward-most, viable candidate.

The rightward-most, viable candidate this season is Fred Thompson, and he needs your money. According to Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House:

What matters is that there is still a chance, still life in the campaign, and still a belief that the race can be won. Your support is absolutely crucial to propel the campaign forward, to build on the momentum generated by Thompson’s bus tour through Iowa by giving as much as you possibly can.

Today, those of us who put intellectual core above our own petty wants and desires are holding a Blog burst (h/t Captain Ed) to raise much needed funding for Fred in Iowa. According to Politico, Fred’s pulled his TV advertising in Iowa. I ask you to help with contribution and by linking to Fred’s donation pages from your site. Email your friends. Invest your Christmas cash in America’s future.

****UPDATE****
bRight and Early has a Blog Burst Score Card. We have about $160,000 to go.

Here’s Sean Hackbarth’s post on Friends of Fred

Fred08 Scoreboard

Popularity: 3% [?]