Lessons learned, and relearned, and relearned...

10/16/2007 | Jim Robinson

[CottonBall]

We definitely don’t need a President in a dress or a crusty old pant suit!

I know you're referring to Hillary....oh wait....it could be Rudy you mean. Well anyway, it's not the clothing that matters - a Margaret Thatcher-type would be just fine with me.

[maine-iac7]

ABC

Anybody But Clinton

Well, by Golly! Talk about the condensed version!

And exactly right...That saves a lot of hair pulling.

Just print out

..

ABC

and put it on the fridge.

Sometimes life is a lot simpler than we make it.

[Yaelle]

This might have been motivated by what happened with “Benedict” Ahnold and the bills he’s just passed. Live and learn indeed — I worked on his campaign at his headquarters! And now he is making sure that all California textbooks MUST include gay parents as the norm. I pulled my kids out of public school just in time.

[John Valentine]

Heck, I thought most of the people in Texas originally came from Tennessee; went down with Jim Bowie and those lads.

[Earthdweller]

382 days will go by fast. I can’t believe it’s that time again. BTTT

[Jim Robinson]

I am 100% positive Rudy will do for the USA what Benedict Arnold did to California, only worse.

[mkjessup]

Those are wise words Jim.

And although it appears that a huge majority of Freepers are rallying around Fred Thompson, I am unconvinced of Thompson's conservatism, and no less than Richard Viguerie and Jerome Corsi have come out and stated that Thompson is just one more faux-conservative, dare I say it Jim?

Thompson is a RINO.

Viguerie compiled a list of votes of Thompson while in the U.S. Senate, based on material from the American Conservative Union, and what I see does not augur well for a Thompson candidacy, nomination or run for the White House:

* FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. 1998

* FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) 2000

* AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. 1999

* AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” 2001

* FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. 1995

* FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. 1996

* AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. 1997

* FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. 1995

* FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. 1995 and 1999

* FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. 1996.

* FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. 1998

* FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. 2000

* FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). 1999

* AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. 2001

* AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. 1997

* FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. 1997

* FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for everyone. 2002

* FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. 2002. (McCain-Feingold)

In my view, the only true conservative who is right on the issues, pro-family, pro-life, is focused on national security and the need to secure our borders, is Congressman Duncan Hunter. And I readily admit that in polling data, Hunter has had, and has before him a tough row to hoe, but I believe that if a flake like Howard Dean can break out in 2004 and come close to building the momentum necessary to win a political nomination, (based on polls and based on his internet organizational efforts), then certainly someone with character, intelligence and experience like Hunter can go MUCH farther.

And it isn't inaccurate to point out that after Thompson served a third of one term, (2 years after a special election in '94) and then one whole 6 year term as Senator, he chose to quit.

Duncan Hunter has never quit and his 26+ years of leadership and support for our military testifies to that.

I'm calling it a night, hope all is well with you Jim.

MKJ

[Rick_Michael]

I’m just hoping we have a president that will bring us all back together (on the right). Some obviously won’t do that, but I think a few good men could bring back the conservative movement.

I know we’ll never please the left...no matter what.

Our goal should be unity in purpose, and the purpose being: individual rights, moral fortitude, a sovereign nation, and a reasoned foreign policy.

That sums up my desires. As long as we’re consistant and persistant, we’ll break-through our barriers.

[txhurl]

Yeah, yeah, election schmelection, I think I found a fix for the DB:

After removing the auto-increment from the ID field, and moving the primary key to a different field, I was able to save two entries with no duplicates.

I then re-instigated the auto-increment on the ID field, and moved the primary key back to that field.
After doing the above, the problem went away.

I still have another database that I have not altered. I will do a more careful study of the problem with that database, and see if I can nail it down. When I do, I will post the results here. May be a number of days, though, as I am quite busy.

Thanks for your comments, Peter. I didn’t think of checking logs.

http://forum.mysqlperformanceblog.com/s/t/381/

[Darkwolf377]

I just wish Bush would get out of this snit he's in--he seems to hold a grudge over the rejection of Harriet Miers (sp?) and the uproar over the ports thing--both of which, I think, were in part the result of the media manipulating the facts.

Bush seems to be two people--the great president who's holding steady on Iraq and taxes, and then the guy I think he might have REALLY been if 9/11 hadn't happened. If 9/11 hadn't occurred, Bush would have been a one-termer.

[Smokin' Joe]

Remember politicians don't lead they follow.

Precisely why we need Statesmen, and not politicians in elected office.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Fred Thompson: WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get)

In some releases ahead of a speech Thompson is to give tonight to the Conservative Party, one in particular catches my eye:

With me, what you see is what you get. I was a proud conservative yesterday, I remain one today, and I will be one tomorrow.

Now, at the risk of raised blood pressure for some of my friends, I have challenged the consistency of commitment to Conservative principles on the part of his rivals in recent days. Having said that, I can only throw this out there and let it stick where it may:

Some think the way to beat the Democrats in November is to be more like them. I could not disagree more,” the one-time Tennessee senator says in remarks he is to deliver to the Conservative Party of New York.

“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in.”

Music to this man’s ears.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/haystack/2007/oct/15/fred_thompson_wysiwyg

[sageb1]

You may be right, Jim. I will work like hell for anybody but Rudy, but if he wins the primary, it will be anybody but Clinton. There is no darned way I will facilitate the Clintons moving into the WH again.

[Prokopton]

And it isn't inaccurate to point out that after Thompson served a third of one term, (2 years after a special election in '94) and then one whole 6 year term as Senator, he chose to quit.

Duncan Hunter has never quit and his 26+ years of leadership and support for our military testifies to that.

Not only have you drank deeply from the anti-Thompson Kool-Aid, usually served by jealous supporters of marginalized candidates, but you have a liberals view of our congress.

Fred Thompson did what the Founders of this Country wanted it's legislators to do, serve for a limited time and then go back to being a private citizen. Thompson not only did this but said he was going to before he was elected. Some other people, Hunter included, see being a representative of the people as a profession, not as temporary public service. This is one of the biggest problems we have in this Country, ensconced professional politicians who think they are more important than the Country.

Hunter has some positive conservative attributes, but having spent most of his life as a politician is not one of them.

[Jim Robinson]

I will never ever support or vote for a gay rights, gun grabbing, illegal alien supporting abortionist for president. Nor will I allow FR to be used for such evil purposes. I hope and pray you guys wake up and recognize the evil intent of social liberals before it’s too late for all of us.

[ari-freedom]

In my view, the only true conservative who is right on the issues, pro-family, pro-life, is focused on national security and the need to secure our borders, is Congressman Duncan Hunter.
-
yes but Hunter is not much of a conservative when it comes to free markets. He’s not a socialist of course but he’s more of a mercantilist, an idea that Adam Smith worked hard to refute.

We want conservatives in all 3 areas of fiscal, social and security (that’s why I push that with my tag line)

There’s actually a 4th area of conservatism that’s not usually discussed and that is of pragmatism. This means a conservative would much rather vote for someone who had real life experience implementing his ideas (such as a businessman or governor) instead of someone with intriguing ideas but was shielded from the real world, like most lawyers, senators and academics.

[JDoutrider]

Well put Jim!

Worth a "Reup" on my monthly donations!

BUMP!!!

[cowboyway]

Start working on dismantling the federal behemoth and returning the power to the states and the people as originally intended.

I'm all for that. The powerful central government is the root of all the other problems that you listed.

But I've been around long enough now and have seen the federal government continue to bloat, unrestrained, despite which party is in power, that I am utterly pessimistic about dismantling the 'federal behemoth', short of a revolution.

Never vote for or support a candidate that is not for the dismantling of social security.

Never vote for or support a candidate that is for the redistribution of wealth through socialistic programs called 'entitlements'.

[Politicalmom]

Here you go.

Something to feed your obsession.

[LibWhacker]

I agree with every single point you just made!

I wish we could get Republican presidential candidates like you, JR. Why is it that there are always two or three issues that make a guy hold his nose when he votes for those guys in a general election (or even in a primary)? I never agree with prominent Republicans on every issue. I thought it came with the territory. Yet here you are and I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly on every single point.

Perhaps you should think about running, Jim? You have a large ready-made base of support already; namely, most of us Freepers. Who knows? You may be cut out for bigger things than simply being an internet innovator. Cheers!