Fair and Balanced

A previous post attacked the apparent political hypocrisy of Congressman Joe Sestak, so turnabout is fair and balanced play. Here's Rudy Giuliani, a former SDNY prosecutor and mayor of New York, condemning Obama for bringing the Gitmo Five to the Big Apple...



But here's the mayor talking about the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui:

"At the same time, I was in awe of our system," the former mayor continued. "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

Can't get there from there. Rudy was challenged about this puzzling dichotomy on the No Longer Fake News Sunday with Chris Wallace, seen here on Obama-approved "Crooks and Liars". Admittedly, the sight of them using Fox News to bash a GOP enemy should warrant alarm from Olbermann or Maddow. More on crooks and liars in a minute.

Aside from the partisan snark, Rudy's answer sounded like a feeble attempt at covering up a consistency goofup. It's hard to strongly argue against bringing KSM to Manhattan using the 'act of war' and 'circus' arguments after saying the Moussaoui trial was a symbol of something good. He was an inspiration during 9/11 but as a national candidate Sarah Palin is more appealing right now.

Many of us down here backed the at times halting Fred Thompson, who seems to have very little on the record about Moussaoui. He did weigh in on the Boumediene Five case, that produced habeas rights for terrorists. But the legalese gets old for most normal people--the first minute of this rambling Red State Update on Zacarias probably sums it up better than any ole pointy head (language warning of course).

Now, not sure if Tom Maguire qualifies as a pointy head (even if he's a Yankee and Yankee fan) but he outdoes Jackie and Dunlap with this quip:

There is no contradiction here: military courts for attacks on the military, civilian courts for attacks on civilians.

OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?

Which speaks to the entire bizarre flip-flopiness of this whole thing. For instance, Obama was for military tribunals for KSM before he was against them, yet checking with the abovementioned Obama-approved Crooks and Liars--who just used Faux News to rip Guiliani--they don't seem to have much on Obama's equally puzzling inconsistency.

And to make matters more confusing, Major Garrett from the "Major Garrett is the only bastard at Fox News worth our Time" network will be interviewing our Pacific Prez tomorrow from Chiner for a whole 10 minutes. Hopefully he can point out that the Pentagon is indeed a military target and that both Nashiri and bin-Attash allegedly attended the 2000 Kuala Lumpur terror summit where 9/11 was planned. But considering the filibuster factor he'll probably only get about two and a half questions answered.

IT BEGINS 11/17/09

Conservatives are taking a beating for worrying that the Gitmo Five affair will end up being a cheap and tawdry propaganda platform to bash Bush, Cheney and the CIA. Here's a NY Times article about lawyer Lynne Stewart's conviction being upheld (for helping the Blind Sheikh kite messages back to his followers in Egypt in 1999), speaking on current events:

At the news conference, Ms. Stewart sharply criticized the decision, and said its timing, “coming as it does on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from offshore prison in Guantánamo,” carried a message for any lawyers who might be appointed to represent them.

Emphasis added for obvious reasons. It doesn't always take a bullhorn.

Who was that Man?

Fred Thompson just finished speaking, and he spoke well. Very well. A pin was heard to drop during his description of McCain's Hanoi Hilton stay. He was hard hitting, smooth, funny, and animated, ripping into Obama without once mentioning his name.

Where was that Fred when he was running for president!?

Anyway, bravo Fred. Much better than Bush's speech, which was literally mailed in.

Thompson on Boumediene

The ole country lawyer ain't happy:

People can disagree over whether Congress got it right, but at least members have to face the voters. What remedy do people have now if they don’t like the court’s decision? None. If that thought is not enough to cause concerned citizens to turn out on Election Day to elect a new president, then I don’t know what will be.

He touched on something concerning me as well--the possibility detainees might obtain access to the national security information used to detain them. If indeed correct the 5 SCOTUS judges who allowed this should be impeached.

Even if not, we live in a partisan world where circuit judges legislate from the bench based on personal convictions and passionate lawyers leak for the same reasons (think Lynne Stewart). The court has now taken the ability for persons charged with protecting the country to manage this process, or even for a Congress that had likely considered such issues when they crafted the current detainee bill, at last check seen smoldering in the corner.

Perhaps the most famous former federal prosecutor of the Southern District of New York office (besides his friend Patrick Fitzgerald) is Andrew McCarthy, who has a book on the shelves that goes into depth about the mistakes made by our country in pursuing terrorism leading up to 9/11. The title basically says it all--"Willful Blindness", in which he figuratively laughs at himself in retrospect to being on the front lines of the war against radical extremism in place of actual fighting men. He talks about protecting vital intelligence on page 55:

Much of the CIA's knowledge, particularly that drawn from its covert operations, is top-secret intelligence. When an Agency analyst gives the kind of briefing I needed on Afghanistan, it is certain to be based on at least some classified information, including intelligence from deep-cover operatives, from foreign countries, and from electronic surveillance the CIA was lucky enough to set up on just the right telephone or meeting place. Such intelligence is sometimes confined to a circle so tight its revelation would effectively blow the source.

To this layman it seems the government will be faced with multiple decisions on whether to charge detainees with things like dirty bomb plots or something much less based on the risk of blowing important sources/networks. We'll be trading the possibility of detaining an innocent man for a judge refusing to allow a terrorist to be kept off the streets--again, as long as Americans understand that, we're all fine, right?

Some in positions of power might see an immediate sentencing via death as a viable alternative but certainly we'll see our share of, to use government parlance, ass covering. As McCarthy says in the opening page of his book, "imagine the liability". Terrorists will understand--they've been adapting their strategies all along.

As to Fred, can't help but wonder if there's an "Attorney General Thompson" title in his future.

MORE 6/14/08

This isn't a judge that would be determining the fate of detainees, but you get the picture...

The way things are done?

Fred Thompson was on Hannity and Colmes last night and proceeded to ask the seminal question about Obama..."who is this guy?" Not a new question, but one still lacking a conclusive answer. Yet it's one of those questions McCain just can't ask.

Like many Fredheads I was wondering when he was going to pop to the surface and comment on the proceedings. He confirmed the obvious--he won't be VP (too old) but hinted at something not so obvious--his real role in the general. Are we seeing the emergence of a kind of human 527, the same bad cop who helped McCain knock out Romney and Huckabee in the primaries?

The act going as follows--Maverick keeps on playing Maverick while Freddie steps in every so often and plays Dirty Harry. And if asked by the media to comment on any of Fred's opinions McCain just disavows them. Could work. This keeps the moderates in play at the expense of the hard core righties, who only have the salty dog left to choose from anyway.

So long, Freddie

Not much to say except bummer.

No surprises, of course. This was at least as telegraphed as the Bhutto assassination. He pissed off Fox News on opening day and went downhill from there, playing defense by explaining why he "got in late" or why he wasn't "lazy". He allowed his opponents to define him. And that's no way to run a railroad.

As to the stalking horse theory, it's not so far-fetched. One could speculate that his entering the race late allowed a full evaluation of opponent strategies and how the polls were doing with the goal of draining money from other candidates and taking away key endorsements. The National Right to Life endorsement comes to mind, which otherwise might have gone to Huck prior to South Carolina. Weirdly, McCain rose from the askes about the time Fred entered while Rudy began to sink.

And Thompson is an actor and even plays one on TV. Still, the thought of him entering the race only to run interference is a bit much. I won't believe it unless he admits it.

Bottom line, where to now for Fredheads? Personally, I'm having great difficulty with that question. Time will tell. The vote will not be wasted, even if it's a vote against somebody else.

MORE 1/22/08

More fuel to the "Fox News was anti-Fred" meme. Speaking of fairy tales, that certainly sounds like a big one. I'm going with the poor organization due to not making enough early deals explanation. Well, and his inability to articulate like on Law and Order.

MORE 1/22/08

Go here for a literal plethora of Fred coverage. Just keep scrolling because AC (the famous one) is a very productive blogger. Unlike some of us.

Fred and the ringer

There's significant uncertainty in this due to the uncertainty of the allegation. So let that be a warning.

Here's the deal. We have charges that Frank Luntz's Fox focus group might have a ringer. I found myself wondering how these focus groups were assembled several months ago. They seem to have a lot of power.

Anyway, after watching the Fox New Hampshire debate Sunday night his focus group absolutely slam-hammered Fred Thompson. It was kind of shocking considering his performance. That was followed by a similar gesture of "love" from Fox pundit Fred Barnes, who said something to the effect, "the bad news is Thompson came in third in Iowa, which means he's staying in the race".

That's his opinion of course but it's rather head-scratchingly harsh coming from a fellow conservative, considering that Thompson is likely the most genuine and consistent conservative in the field. Not to say Barnes is part of a Fox effort to get rid of Thompson but it's no secret they've been cool towards Freddie ever since he blew off their debate to announce on the Leno show last September.

It very well may be that Barnes is just irritated by his slow mannerisms, looks or lack of ambition (or wait, is the ambition card still in play?). Whatever, did he really have to go for the throat? It's safe to say that Reagan's eleventh commandment has been shot all to hell.

Admittedly, Fred's long-term survival in a rock star media environment is tenuous despite his experiences in Hollywood. It's far too late for him to go out and get some realistic plugs or some of that botox. But that's the charm of Thompson--change for him means leadership not shape-shifting. It may be for naught.

Luntz's focus group supposedly came into the room undecided and came away as huge Romney fans. Possible, Romney did well, but after explaining that New Hampshire was focused on 'the issues' they proceeded to talk mostly about image and Mitt's ability to beat Obama. One guy honestly admitted that Thompson's thought process was good but his delivery was lacking. And that sort of epitomizes everything.

Presidential fire

Does Fred Thompson need some in the ole belly? Is it even necessary?

The fair and balanced media hoisted another misrepresentation against the big guy the other day. A few more of those coupled with a poor showing in Iowa and a loss in South Carolina and we can say a toasty fare-the-well to Fred 08. The media surely smells that blood.

Here's his reply:

If a candidate succumbs to this he will be reduced to nothing more than a sound bite machine. As for me I am going to continue to say exactly what is in my heart and is on my mind and give straight and honest answers to those who ask straight and honest questions.

Incidentally, the audience in Burlington broke into applause in the middle of my answer. The reporter wouldn’t know that because she wasn’t even there.

That's why I like Fred. And I like the way he's handled himself so far. I still think he's the most well-rounded conservative candidate. But it's no surprise he's not doing well.

Before his announcement he allowed himself to be built into a near rock star, so naturally people expected a rock star when he finally arrived. What they got was a laid-back southern gentleman running an "it's not about me" campaign. That doesn't compare well with Mitt, Rudy, Hillary or Obama, but as he says, neither would Washington or Teddy Roosevelt. Still, rock stars are what people have come to expect anymore. Thank Bill Clinton for changing that paradigm (who's basically running again).

Thompson's plan to use the alternative media to make quick end-runs around the blood sport crowd was clever but it doesn't appear to be reaching the people who change the polls. Even this morning CNN.com had the "not interested" headline in its top stories page, only to later add a question mark on the end. At last check CNN.com was still part of the internets. It's a sure guess more people visit them than they do blogs or Fred08.com.

Not only that, but many people today still get their news from sound bites amassed from hither and yon, whether it be radio, TV or friendly conversation. That's not intended to be a slam on individuals, just a statement of fact. Aside from political junkies and bloggers, there's only so much news that an average person can cram into a work day along with other commitments, including entertainment/relaxation. That means a large number of people only get one side of the story, and it ain't necessarily his side.

But what about presidential ambition? My jury is still out. On one hand I agree with Fred that too much ambition is a bad thing. Besides, once in the Oval Office ambition doesn't count for squat, it's coolness under fire and leadership that are needed. We should be closely watching the candidates for such qualities. But that doesn't mean ambition can be dismissed.

The POTUS is the most demanding job on the planet. There are no real days off. People blame the president for nearly everything--magnified in spades by the Katrina disaster and as we've seen, even a terrorist attack. It's not easy being the Decider or the Commander Guy. My feeling is it takes a man of at least some faith--it's a pretty massive burden to bear alone. Perhaps that little intangible partially explains Huckabee's viability. At the same time Huck possesses a near missionary level of ambition to reach the top. Is that good?

Which is precisely what Fred was trying to say. In comparison he might be the most sane candidate of all based on that alone. But the American people are not idiots. We know how easy it might be for someone without driving ambition to at some point open their eyes and say, "what the hell did I do"? Nobody dares reach that decision point with everything facing America in the next decade. In other words, Freddie would be well-served by showing more fire from here out, however he chooses to do it.

FIRE. BELLY. 12/31/07

Fred lays it out (via Hot Air/Fred08). He's making an appeal to common sense, leadership for the good of America rather than for power-seeking, and the future sans a nanny state (that comes in part through a depleted military). And at the end he appeals to the Almighty, as only Fred can. It was necessary based on Huck and Mitt's perceptions so it was a tad on the pandering side, but at the same time well done and very much like you'd expect from Fred.

He's no Reagan. He's no Clinton. He's not even as charismatic as Huckabee. But he's not lying about his background, about the other candidates, about the Democrats, or about the future.

Thing is, will this video be seen by more than 1 percent of the voters?

Hey, what's going on here?

Call it my skeptical nature but it appears the distancing from all things Bush has begun. Our junior Senator Bob Corker recently threw his audience for a loop with this:

"I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House,"

Corker seems like a sincere guy so it's hard to tell what his motive here was, but it's something he didn't have to say. There's always the possibility this was a device of sorts to test the waters. In 2000 Al Gore was advised not to run on Clinton's record and surely the same has been discussed within the GOP regarding Bush. Corker is a backer of ex-Senator Thompson's bid for president.

Speaking of the big guy, he was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this morning and the sparks were really flying. To Fred's credit there were some at Fox who were less than enthused with his coming-out party on Leno concurrent with their presidential debate, so maybe he's got a point.

Or maybe he's just trying to paint himself as an independent, fearful of being too closely tied to a perceived right wing network. There's always the remote possibility he was trying to stir up some headlines for a campaign that has fallen flat (partially a product of his own initial strategy). Truth be told, I think it was honest frustration. As he tried to remind Wallace, he's the only major candidate to put forth serious policy proposals, only to have most of them ignored.

Whatever the case this exchange does seem to illustrate one facet of Fred's personality that might hurt him down the line--he really doesn't take criticism very well. We'll have to wait and see if the other candidates try to poke a sharp stick at that potential soft underbelly.

Fred

The buzz today is obviously Fred Thompson's official entry into the debate fray followed pretty closely by MSNBC's obnoxious host "Christopher" Matthews.

First of all, Russert should fire Matthews from any future debates without delay. He is quite the joke even if in control most of the time. It's the out of control times.

Second, it's obvious Fred continues to scare the left and perhaps even some in the media. ABC News picked today to pose another hit piece disguised as a scoop, a story that came out months ago about Thompson's involvement in Watergate. The lede? Nixon's comment that Fred was "dumb as hell" (but friendly). How convenient, just in time to mix with the left's hopeful impression of him.

Thing is, why use Nixon as some kind of paragon of intelligence? It would seem his dumbness was pretty much unsurpassed in recent times, which should work in Thompson's favor.

More later.

LATER 10/09/07

Impressions from left to right..

• Paul - Even if he's 100 percent correct, he comes across as an angry nut.
• Huckabee - No big lines this time. He needs big lines.
• McCain - Did well. He improved himself. It may be too late.
  
• Romney - Also did well, although the comment about using lawyers before a strategic attack on Iran's nukes was not real swift. He still comes across as a manufactured prezbot.
• Thompson - A few decent quips and he made sense but no dazzle, which he's gotta have with his age and demeanor. All in all, based on the hype, a letdown.
• Giuliani - He has the enthusiasm but didn't really hit a homer. And he said "Chiner".
• Brownback - He might have won all things considered due to his relaxed state. Probably realizes it's over.
• Hunter - Military, military, military. He's a good guy with only one dimension so far.
• Tancredo - Speaking of one dimension. If he could deliver a line without stumbling he might be pretty funny.

Matthews.. in totality he was on his best behavior except for that one ridiculous comment to Fred.

Lazy Fred comes out swinging

As mentioned in a previous post, the silence from Republicans over the Norman Hsu fund raising meltdown has been rather curious. No more:

"You have to look at this with a great deal of skepticism that - having been through this sort of thing in '96 - that nobody thought to say, 'Hey, you know, we better take another look at this before we take all this money,' " he said.

"And the fact that nobody did - or if they did, they decided to just put their finger in front of their lips and say shhh and try to sneak off into the distance - tells you a great deal about the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign is the Bill Clinton campaign redux."

Guess they were all waiting for the alpha male to step up--sorry, the lazy, womanizing, lobbying, Watergatin, cradle robbing alpha male.

But this is a good thing. The Thompson guy couched it as a bad judgment call, cleverly bringing Charlie Trie and Chinagate into the mix by doing so. The primary season is designed to help voters see how the candidates react to adversity, so every so often they need to have their airspaces violated. This was one. We'll see how Fred handles the inevitable charges of racism.

Meanwhile, the LA Times continues to pursue the story and is developing some kind of pyramid scheme angle, where investors were literally forced to give money--only to Democrats--in order to maintain their initial outlays.

Possible, but why would a convicted scam artist come back to America, enter the very same state he was wanted, then start another ponzi scheme, this time using politicians, including one of the best known in the country? Hey, maybe he was actually a Rove operative!

Thompson time

Today is his big day, starting with a snubbing of Fox and their GOP debate to appear on Leno followed by an internet video officially announcing his entry, all of which should kick off perhaps the most vicious mud season we've ever seen in presidential politics. Actually, the mud slinging got off to an early start from an unlikely source today (via Hot Air):

The original Fredheads are no longer angry or frustrated; most have been fired already or given up. The remaining originals say they will quit soon.

The latest person let go by the campaign was Jim Mills, a long-time Capitol Hill producer for FOX News, who was told on Friday. A little over a month earlier, Mills was personally recruited and hired as spokesman by Fred and Jeri Thompson at their dinner table.

Mills was given the news by Bill Lacy, Thompson's new campaign manager, who ran Thompson's 1994 Senate race and was later an ad consultant for Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign before being fired himself.

As an early supporter of Fred it's hard to admit it but yes, some of the frost is off the pumpkin due mainly to all the fits and starts and that gaffe involving his lobbying for the pro-choice group. But things are just starting.

Surely Fox understands that Fred cannot announce on their network. The libs would run that into the ground ad infinitum. He's got to maintain some distance from the Foxes, Hannitys, and Rushes and focus on the mainstream centrist voters where the presidency will be won or lost. Most of those folks will be tuning in to Leno tonight to catch a few laughs or a celebrity, not a politician. The ground is fertile.

In driving to work this morning I heard someone from the Thompson team on Bill Bennett's show--I believe it was Todd Harris--who offered an explanation for the Fox snubbing, basically reminding listeners that dozens more debates are coming and Fred will have plenty of time to show his stuff. His disorganized pre-game show was explained by saying Thompson was a 'drafted' candidate without any real structure on the front end, which required an adjustment period. OK, we'll see.

As Allahpundit opined, a couple of solid performances and much of this goes down the memory hole. It's unwise to throw in the towel before the ship has sunk, and right now Freddie's is still rolling down the hill out of dry dock. But admittedly the staff upheavals, if true, are a bit troubling since it goes towards judgment, management of a bureaucracy, and leadership potential. As they say, it's crunch time. I wish him the best, along with all the candidates. Somebody has to beat "Hillbilly".

DEBATE TIME 9/5/07

Don't know why people are getting on Fred for skipping out on Fox. It's the You Tube debate everyone wants to see.

But about tonight...

Fox just launched into him right off the bat! Huckabee just smacked it out right off the bat!

Paul's response was not funny and disingenuous--nobody is "pro war".

McCain just dropped the "old" joke on him, hello pot? But in a good natured way.

Mitt was gracious and accused him of getting into the race too fast and Rudy just accused him of "playing my part" on Law and Order. Hey, Freddie is already spicing things up!

MORE

Rudy and McCain just got their clocks cleaned on immigration. Mitt has the upper hand with his plan to penalize sanctuary cities, but the left will have a field day with that plan. By the way, why the heck is Brownback still around?

ONE MORE

Maybe Brownback is still around to hammer home the importance of the family, and why its slow disintegration is something we should pay attention to.

A REAL DEBATE

On Fox. Lots of lively reality, not just posed responses. Too bad Fred couldn't have been there, maybe he'd have gotten a question from a real person like the military father who embarrassed Mitt (who should have apologized better but instead launched into rhetoric). Paul is on fire--his veins are sticking out. His stance continues to be stunningly wrongheaded, pointed out nicely by Tancredo.

ANTIWAR MONGER

Paul has floated out and is now playing with the Jetsons. Again he seems to be living in a world devoid of WMDs. Maybe he should just come out and name the city he thinks should give itself up in a first strike nuke attack so he can follow protocol and have the Congress declare war ... not sure who'll they'll declare war on.. as AQ is defined as a stateless bunch of rogues. Oh, and he also just divulged that Israel has a few hundred nukes, no secret to the Iranians of course but not something a president should be throwing around so cavalierly.

WHO WON?

Judging by the interviews with viewers, some message board posts I've been watching and my own take I'd say Fred Thompson won again. Nobody really jumped out and got a foothold. Paul and Tancredo were animated on their pet issues, no change, but Romney did not handle the comparison question and Rudy wasn't real convincing on the family values issue. I guess McCain probably did the least amount of damage to himself. Huckabee answers questions well but appears a bit rehearsed at times to me. And Duncan Hunter still should be angling for Secretary of Defense.