Right Wing Nut House

Baseball has been played in the United States in one form or another since at least colonial times. Imported from England, the game of “Rounders” featured a ball and a bat along with something approximating bases. Rules and scoring were much different than today’s game. however.

A purely American offshoot of Rounders was “One ole Cat” or just “Cat.” Again, the essentials were similar but it was nothing we’d recognize as baseball.

Then along came “Town Ball” in the 1840’s - a thoroughly American game where in order to get the batter “out,” the fielder would have to hit the player while he was in motion and off the base. Since the game was usually played with rocks of various sizes, you can see the enormous amount of fun players had in recording outs.

Then in 1845, Alexander Cartwright wrote out 20 specific rules for what he called Base Ball that standardized base distances and made up something we would almost recognize as today’s game.

It wasn’t until the 1857 when New Yorkers took the game of Base Ball and altered the rules a bit (no need to hit the runner anymore) and thus gave us the national pastime. It had a set number of players on each side with an infield and bases that looked similar to what we have today. They made the game 9 innings and established the idea of “strikes” - balls thrown by the pitcher that were good enough to hit but the player refused to swing.

Cultural historians have studied the evolution of baseball because it says a lot about we as a people. A wholly democratic game, its popularity exploded during the Civil War when bored soldiers on both sides eagerly adopted it as a fine way to take one’s mind off of army life. The soldiers returned home eager to set up leagues and teams in their own towns and the game’s enduring popularity was assured.

But ever since 1869 when the first professional team laced up the cleats, there has never been a day in the history of baseball like this one. Today, some of baseball’s all time greats who performed feats of strength and skill almost beyond belief are revealed as cheaters, liars, and druggies - Frankenstein monsters who took the easy way to glory by hepping themselves up with performance enhancing substances.

Today is the day that former Senator George Mitchell releases his long awaited report on the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball. And the game will suffer a huge black eye it will be many years recovering.

Today, I feel like the little kid who, standing at the bottom of the courthouse steps in Chicago after the infamous “Black Sox scandal” trial, tugged on Shoeless Joe Jackson’s coat and looked his hero right in the eye asking, pleading “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” No answer from Jackson that day. Nor do I suspect we’ll hear anything except the canned, PR flak written statements from some of the greatest ballplayers who ever lived. They will apologize for their “mistake.” They will cry when they apologize to their families. They will beg forgiveness from the fans. They will apologize to their teammates for “letting them down.” They will thank the organization for sticking with them. They will promise to be better citizens. They will ask God for help.

It will be like Michael Vick - excuse the expression - on steroids.

We already knew about Barry Bonds and his drug regimen. And everybody figured the former single season home run record holder Mark McGuire had bulked up on “Andro” and other illegal supplements.

But the biggest shock to me was the naming of the greatest right handed pitcher perhaps to ever play the game. Roger Clemens seemed ageless and now we know why. He evidently didn’t start taking steroids until the 1997 season which makes sense; he had a God given ability to throw a fastball 100 mph. Why anyone blessed with the best right arm of his generation would take steroids will remain a mystery to me.

Then there’s one of the game’s good guys. Andy Pettite was a fine left handed pitcher but took human growth hormone to recover from injury faster. One of the acknowledged gentlemen of the game, Pettite’s brilliant record with the Yankees will now be tarnished forever.

All-star Miguel Tejada - traded today from Baltimore to Houston - also proved to be a cheat. Another ballplayer with great natural ability too lazy to do the hard work necessary to make himself a better player and instead, took the shortcut to fame and riches by juicing up.

Gary Sheffield whose best years were with the Marlins and Braves and was an All-Star with the Yankees for three straight seasons showed up on the list. One of the great clutch hitters of this generation, Sheffield was another surprise for me.

Jason Giambi, the only player named in the report to own up to his steroid use publicly was on the list. It is not known whether he named any names when he met with Mitchell last year.

Eric Gagne was named. With the Dodgers, he was damn near unhittable as a closer for a year and a half. Hitters couldn’t solve his slider but Mitchell did.

The list of active players continued with names like Toronto’s excellent hitter Troy Glaus, talented outfielder Jose Guillen, former pitcher now outfielder for St. Louis Steve Ankiel, And Gary Matthews, Jr. Mitchell’s list contains 50 names of present and former Major Leaguers.

Among the former players of note; Mo Vaughn - a great slugger, Rafael Palmeiro - Hall of Fame numbers, Chuck Knoblauch and Lenny Dykstra - hard nosed sparkplugs, sweet swinging David Justice, and catcher Benito Santiago - a man with the best arm in baseball for many years.

When I was a young boy, my friends and I lived, breathed, slept, and ate baseball. We played it constantly from the time the snow melted until the time it covered the ground again. We collected baseball cards. We argued about it. We defended our favorites. We got into fights over who had the best throwing arm or the best curveball.

I know the days when kids immersed themselves like that in the game are gone - a product of over saturation of the game on TV as well as a cynicism about the multi-millionaire players that is foreign to me. Perhaps we were too eager to believe in the infallibility of our heroes. Perhaps we lived in a different age that saw baseball and through the game, America, as virgin pure - unsullied by any of the dark and dirty forces that other aspects of life were subject to.

Scandals took place out of the sports pages back in those days. We had no reason to believe that many of the giants of the game actually had feet of clay, that they were as imperfect and flawed as any adult we came in contact with. To us, ballplayers were almost like Gods and we were only too happy to worship them.

Non-baseball fans will forgive me if I feel enormously saddened today. Not on the verge of tears but rather an empty feeling inside as if my guts had been hollowed out with a spoon. Perhaps that little boy in me feels finally and bitterly betrayed by those I still admired for their athleticism and grace.

That’s gone now. And I know I’ll be a poorer man for it.

UPDATE: 12/14

Michelle Malkin (”not a baseball fan” - a character flaw for which she is forgiven) nevertheless covers the “Freak Show” as well as a statement by baseball writers begging the owners to get tough on steroids.

The 40% of Iowans who self identify as Christian conservatives evidently don’t get out much. Either that, or they’ve simply decided to take an early Christmas holiday from reality. Otherwise, I can’t understand why so many would have fallen so completely for the flim flam being perpetrated by the least knowledgeable, least prepared, and most backward thinking of all the Republican candidates in the field -and that includes candidates going back to the 1950’s.

I am talking about the walking, talking disaster-in-the-making that is Mike Huckabee - former governor of a small, impoverished state, a baptist preacher whose conservative views on social issues make him a perfect candidate for the Leave it to Beaver wing of the GOP, and a man whose thinking is so shallow a warning sign should be plastered on his forehead reading “Absolutely no diving beyond this point.”

Now one might think the best way to get our Iowa brethren to abandon this silly love affair with a silly candidate would not accuse them of being dunces. I disagree. Sometimes, you need to throw a bucket of cold water on people to call their attention to erroneous thinking. And I would think they would find that preferable to the buckets of bullsh*t Huckabee has been tossing their way for months.

Kevin Drum is a liberal Democrat but a keen political observer nevertheless. When I find myself in total agreement with someone from the other side, you’ve got to believe that either some liberal witch has cast a spell on me or we both see the same thing from the empty headed former fatty from Arkansas:

Ross Douthat has more on the fact that Mike Huckabee is basically just making stuff up as he goes along and plainly doesn’t have clue about most of the things he’s asked about. Economic policy? How about a 30% sales tax? Foreign policy? He likes Tom Friedman and Frank Gaffney, two pop commentators with almost nothing in common. Energy policy? Let’s eliminate oil imports by 2017. Immigration policy? Ship everyone back to Mexico. Etc. It’s grade school stuff.

And not to beat this into the ground, but what’s really astounding about this is that nobody actually seems to care much. But eventually somebody will, because eventually this weird combination of barstool ignorance and internet-email-list credulity is bound to produce a howler of the kind that the press likes to latch onto. There’s no telling what it will be, but it’s coming, and when it does the Huckabee boomlet will be over.

Drum didn’t mention health care. Here are the Huckster’s deep thoughts on fulfilling a promise he made yesterday in the debate where he said that by the end of his term as president, all Americans would be covered by health insurance:

I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won’t pay for the shoes that would save his foot.

We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions. We don’t need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. When I’m President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.

Boilerplate mush and about as detailed as a connect-the-dots Santa drawing. Besides, you might note all those nifty tax deductions and tax credits. I wonder how he squares that with his tax policy?

I’d like you to join me at the best “Going Out of Business” sale I can imagine - one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly. But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. All our hours filling out forms, all our payments for help with those forms, all our shopping bags filled with disorganized receipts, all our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.

The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we’re not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won’t be taxed at all. We’ll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn.

Now I’m no economist or policy wonk or anything but how are we going to give poor folk a tax credit to buy health insurance if there’s no such animal in Governor Huckabee’s brave new Fair Tax world?

Just askin’…

Drum mentioned conservative blogger Ross Douthat who interviewed Huckabee last month and was struck by his unpreparedness for national office:

But when it comes to preparedness, to the hard work of scaling up one’s understanding from state-level challenges to national issues that any aspiring candidate needs to do, Huckabee is way out of his depth. This was my sense talking to him, certainly. Set him off on health care or education or what-have-you in the context of Arkansas politics, and he’s got enough juice to make you think: Here’s a guy who might make a good President. But widen the focus to the nation as a whole, and you’re left thinking: Here’s a smart guy who hasn’t come close to doing his homework. For a charming also-ran with a chance at the Vice-Presidency, that wasn’t a problem. For someone leading in Iowa, it is.

You can’t help but compare the vapid and depthless “policy” ideas extruded from the Huckabee campaign machine with the meaty, thoughtful, and detailed “white papers” issued by the Thompson campaign.

Take Fred’s detailed tax plan that was praised by the Club for Growth and the National Review among other conservative media. In it’s 7 points, Thompson lays out a coherent, conservative plan to cut taxes on individuals and businesses. He couples that with a spending plan that envisions widespread and necessary reform of entitlements along with an end to pork barrel projects. It is a demonstration of muscular - some might even say courageous - thinking that makes Huckabee’s campaign for class president platform look silly by comparison.

By all that is right and fair in the world, Fred Thompson should have enjoyed that surge that Huckabee experienced over the last month. But then, Fred didn’t run around Iowa hinting the Mormonism isn’t really a Christian sect in order to pander to the baser instincts of Christian conservatives. Nor does Fred have the ready charm and unctuous delivery of the sermonizing Huckster. Fred is, well, Fred. He heaves his 6′5″ frame up to speak and delivers it straight from the shoulder - no gimmicks, few wasted words.

And little inspiration, I’m afraid. While yesterday’s debate showed an animated Fred Thompson, even a passionate Fred at times, his claim is on our heads, not our hearts. For some reason, he has not made that personal connection a candidate must make with the voter that marks the difference between a contender and an also-ran. Perhaps he can take these last few weeks before the Caucuses and find a way to reach beyond the intellectual and touch people’s emotions. If he can discover a way to do that, he has a chance to surprise the field.

In the meantime, Huckabee’s obvious failings as a candidate are lost on the voters in Iowa who may actually agree with a statement signed by Huckabee in 1998 contained in a full page ad in USA Today that declared:

“I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention.” What was in the family statement from the SBC? “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

The ad wasn’t just a blanket, “we support the SBC statement,” but rather highlighted details. The ad Huckabee signed specifically said of the SBC family statement: “You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband’s sacrificial leadership.”

That’s 1998 not 1898, by the way.

Nor do many Iowa supporters of this neophyte on foreign policy care that he wants to drop the economic blockade against Cuba (Or at least he did 3 years ago. Where he’ll be on the issue next week is anyone’s guess) and talk to the Iranians (a la Obama). It also doesn’t seem to matter that the guy granted twice as many pardons and clemencies to state prisoners as his three predecessors combined.

As long as Huckabee is right on their issues, he could be revealed as an empty headed lout and still get their support.

A sad state of affairs, indeed.

It is becoming a depressingly familiar story in Lebanon. What looked so promising just a few days ago with leaders on both sides close to an agreement that would have made Army Chief Michel Suleiman President, has now evaporated in a sea of recrimination and a hardening of positions.

And this comes on top of the news that a massive car bomb - so big it nearly destroyed the building near which it was detonated - has killed General Suleiman’s designated successor and 3 others:

“General Francois El Hajj was killed in the blast and several other people were injured, including his driver,” said the source, who did not wish to be identified.

The official said Hajj was tipped to replace the army’s top commander General Michel Suleiman, who is the frontrunner to become Lebanon’s next president but whose election has been blocked by a standoff between the opposition and the ruling majority camps.

“He was a great man, a kind man, who was very intelligent,” the official said, referring to Hajj.

The general, who was on his way to the defence ministry when the blast took place shortly after 7:00 a.m. (0500 GMT), was head of operations in the army.

He gained prominence last summer during a fierce 15-week battle between the army and an Al-Qaeda-inspired Islamist group at a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon.

That victory over Fatah al-Islam became a source of immense national pride to the Lebanese people. In fact, it was probably the major factor in Suleiman’s rise to prominence as a presidential candidate. That victory convinced the government that the army chief might be able to rise above faction and serve all of Lebanon.

But at the moment, there is stalemate between the Hizbullah led opposition and the government backed March 14th forces. The majority had dropped their opposition to a constitutional amendment that would have waived the stricture against a serving army commander being elected president. Syria, France, and the US had all signed off on Suleiman and it appeared that once an agreement had been reached about the wording of the amendment, Suleiman would be in.

Alas, it seems that Lebanese politicians are afraid of success. They seem to walk up right to the edge of agreement and then, fearful of taking that last step, they retreat back to familiar territory. The opposition has balked at the amendment and has placed so many impossible conditions on its acceptance that both sides are almost back to where they were last summer:

Consensus over the nomination of the Lebanese Armed Forces commander, General Michel Suleiman, for the presidency appeared to have evaporated after constitutional and political obstacles forced a postponement of a scheduled electoral session for the eighth time.

Hizbullah politburo member Hajj Mahmoud Qmati said Aoun would be the opposition’s sole candidate if March 14 does not accede to Aoun’s demands. Qmati, speaking to Tayyar.org, the Web site of Aoun’s free patriotic Movement, on Tuesday, said that to achieve consensus, March 14 must accept a “basket of conditions,” which includes Suleiman as president and agreement on the shape of the new government, a new electoral law and the ministerial statement of the new Cabinet.

“No one item or condition is separate from the other; they are interconnected. So pending consensus, the opposition’s candidate … remains Aoun,” Qmati said. He added that there is no disagreement among the members of the opposition and said that Speaker Nabih Berri remains committed to the opposition’s “broad stance.”

In exchange for allowing Lebanon to have a president, Hizbullah wants to be able to dictate the makeup of the Suleiman government, the sectarian divisions that would be required in future cabinets, plus a new electoral law that would almost guarantee the Shias a majority in parliament.

And they are saying that the March 14th forces are being “obstructionist.”

So the two sides are retreating back to their original positions; March 14th threatening to elect a president anyway by simple majority while the opposition threatens… anything an overactive imagination can come up with including Hizbullah setting up a rival government smack in the middle of Beirut.

All of this is happening with the car bombing as a backdrop. Who done it? Ed Morrissey thinks it’s al-Qaeda because Syria has supported the compromise and the terrorists may wish to foment a civil war where, like cockroaches, they would come exercise power as a result of chaos and anarchy.

Good guess but I disagree. Al-Qaeda may very well have carried out the car bomb attack - anyone’s guess at this point is valid. But I still think the finger points to Syria with a great big assist from the Palestinians.

As popular as General Francois el-Hajj was for his victory over Fatah al-Islam, he was hated and resented by the Palestinians who didn’t take kindly to the Lebanese army going in to one of their refugee camps and literally leveling the place. Nahr al-Abed is a wasteland today thanks to the street battles and house to house fighting that was necessary to root Fatah al-Islam out of their hiding places. The fact that the Palestinians own leaders gave the Lebanese government permission to go into the camp in order to eliminate Fatah al-Islam doesn’t matter.

But why would Syria be behind the bombing? President Assad has apparently signed off on Suleiman as president. But that doesn’t mean he wants Lebanon any less chaotic. Nor does it mean that he necessarily approved of Francois el-Hajj as army chief.

As for who specifically could have the means and opportunity, there are several ultra violent Palestinian groups that are training in Syria right now and who would have the professionalism and technical expertise to carry out such a sophisticated attack. The massive car bomb is reminiscent of the device that killed former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri - an attack that was planned by Syria and probably executed by Palestinians.

Other, less plausible possibilities is that a violent Sunni or Christian faction carried out the attack. It is believed that el-Hajj actually had political sympathies for the opposition and the blast occured on the two year anniversary of the assassination of publisher and March 14th Member of Parliament Gebran Ghassan Tueni.

But the one overriding factor that fingers Syria is the sophistication and professionalism of the plot. Here is some reaction from Lebanese bloggers:

Tony Bey:

That the target was military is a message to Suleiman in case he had any ideas, but also, a message from Syria to whomever is to replace Suleiman as Army Commander. March 14 is said to have one contender lined up for the job, as part of the compromise over Suleiman. The Syrians just made their point the only way they do: through terrorism.

Mustapha at Beirut Spring:

• The bombing happened a day after another bomb that targeted the symbolic area of Ain Al Rimmaneh , where the Lebanese civil war started.

• While a common way to assassinate politicians, this is the first time an Army figure gets bombed this way.

• Brig. General Hajj holds a sensitive security position and his killing points to a serious security breach by non-amateurs

• The victim was one of the main architects of the Army’s assault on the Naher Al Bared camp.

• The bombing took place one day after the Syrian Vice President said that “Syria is the strongest ever in Lebanon today”

Blacksmiths of Lebanon:

This latest assassination is what it always is: Syria’s use of death, terror, and destruction to try and keep the Lebanese “in line”. Through every opening it receives - the last being France’s overwhelming act of diplomatic buffoonery in Lebanon’s Presidential elections throughout November - the Syrian regime is reinforced in its belief that the international community is unwilling to take serious steps against it, leaving it open to kill, maim, and terrorize the Lebanese.

Hajj’s assassination comes at an important juncture and targets a man who sat atop that juncture: Given the [eventual] ascension of Army Commander, Gen. Michel Suleiman, to the Presidency, Hajj was slated to be a serious contender to the post of Army Commander; And as the Chief of Operations for the Lebanese Army, Hajj played a major role in the military campaign against the Syrian-backed terror group Fatah al Islam at Nahr el Bared.

Taken with the continued drive at the reformation and modernization of the Lebanese Army seen over the last year and half, and the attempted transformation of the institution from just a symbol of sovereignty to an effective a bulwark and tool for implementing it, the above may hint at the Syrians’ choice for a target.

By murdering Hajj, the Syrians may have been sending the message aimed at making sure that none of that transformation is realized, either on the level of the Army or on the level of the Presidency.

From Beirut to the Beltway:

A Lebanese army general tipped to succeed Suleiman as army commander was brutally killed in a car bomb attack today in Baabda. The attack comes less than a day after the Syrian vice president boasted that “no one can win the battle against Syria in Lebanon”, and exactly one year after March 14 MP Gebran Tueni’s assassination.

According to Naharnet, Brig. Gen. Francois el-Hajj was “the chief of military operations of the Lebanese armed forces and a key figure in the army’s victory over Fatah al-Islam terrorists in a 15-week battle earlier this year.”

It is apparent where most Lebanese who support the government stand. But the assassination of General Francois el-Hajj will end up being one more murder mystery that will be addressed by the International Tribunal - if and when it ever begins deliberations.

When the Warren Commission, looking into the JFK assassination, got around to examining the role played by the city of Dallas in the tragedy, the members were torn between issuing a blanket condemnation of the rank hatred directed against Kennedy (and the American government) that many of them felt enabled the killer or a wrist slap that would have only mentioned the atmosphere in the city as “a factor” in the tragedy that played out that awful day.

Indeed, there was no more hate filled city that autumn in America than Dallas, Texas. Charges of treason against Kennedy and many in the government were on many people’s lips - the result of a series of editorials personally written by Ted Dealey, publisher of the Dallas Morning News, in which he regularly referred to the President and members of his administration as “traitors.” On the day of the assassination, the News carried a full page ad with a head shot of the president framed as if on a wanted poster. In large, bold type, the headline read “Wanted for Treason” and then listed a dozen or so ridiculous to our eyes reasons why Kennedy was a traitor.

But it wasn’t only Dealey who was spreading hate. The John Birch Society was very strong in Dallas as was the Klan. Many residents report hearing blood curdling threats made by ordinary citizens in schools, coffee shops, and other places where people would gather. If you lived in Dallas at that time, there was no way you could avoid being exposed to the searing hatred directed against Kennedy. He was a commie appeaser (or a commie plant). His entire cabinet was “pink.” He was a race mixer, a skinny rich kid whose daddy bought him the office.

This was the atmosphere Lee Oswald was exposed to in the days and weeks leading up to the assassination. As a declared Marxist - despite personal writings that made it clear he had little idea of what that ideology meant - he saw himself in heroic terms; a lone crusader against the evils of capitalism. For Oswald, there was little difference between Kennedy and the right wing racists and McCarthyites who spewed hatred toward liberals, toward the government, toward the “eastern establishment.”

But the Warren Commissioners were in a quandary. How much blame should be assigned to this right wing city for the actions of a declared leftist? The FBI tried to explain to the Commission that Oswald’s personality was very susceptible to this kind of virulent, visible hatred and that he could have channelled it unconsciously so that it enabled his act of violence. And it played in to Oswald’s ultimate motivation; it gave a patina of justification for what was really just a ploy to get the attention he craved so much.

In the end, the Commission cited Dallas and the climate of hate as a contributing factor but stopped short of blaming the city for enabling the tragedy.

No such reticence animated Bill Clinton when it came to placing blame for the Oklahoma City bombing. Although Clinton talked in general terms about the anti-government hatred spewed by militias and some far right websites, he went too far when accusing talk radio of enabling the killers:

“We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today,” Mr. Clinton told a college group in Minneapolis, after an obligatory obeisance to free speech, “whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression, by their very words, that violence is acceptable.”

The impression Mr. Clinton left, by his very words, was that the Oklahoma bombing had been incited by words “regularly said over the airwaves” by his political critics.

“Those of us who do not agree with the purveyors of hatred and division, with the promoters of paranoia,” he urged, “. . . we have our responsibilities, too. . . . When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them.”

Clinton was correct in blaming the vitriol that emanated from publications (McVeigh was a devotee of the racist Turner Diaries), websites and public utterances of the neo-Nazis, the skinheads, and the far right militia movement as a factor that played upon the minds of killers like McVeigh. But he went way to far when including talk radio in his diatribe against hateful rhetoric. Nevertheless, it was once again shown how an atmosphere of hate with dark hints of violence enables disturbed people like McVeigh and gives them psychological comfort when carrying out their heinous acts.

Last Sunday, a similarly disturbed young man walked into a missionary school in Arvada, Colorado and gunned down 4 people, killing two of them. Less than 12 hours later, he had driven 65 miles to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and opened fire with a rifle, killing two and wounding three before a courageous security guard ended his spree and forced the gunman to turn his weapon on himself. With a satchel full of ammo and a couple of other guns, who knows how many people Matthew Murray would have killed if not stopped.

Some of the time between the two shooting sprees Murray apparently spent on the internet. On a website devoted to people who have left formal religion behind, he wrote an incoherent screed - virtually the same words used by Columbine killer Eric Harris - and substituted the word “Christian” for the name of Harris’ target:

I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. ….God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel noremorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.

Well all you people out there can just kiss my (expletive removed) and die. From now on I don’t give a @#%$ about what all you (expletive removed) have to say, unless I respect you which is highly unlikely, but for those of you who do happen to know me and know that I respect you, may peace be with you and don’t be in my line of fire, for the rest of you, you all better @#%$ hide in your houses because I’m coming for EVERYONE soon, and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth, and I WILL shoot to kill and I WILL @#%$ KILL EVERYTHING! No I am not crazy, crazy is just a word, to me it has no meaning, everyone is different, but most of you @#%$ heads out there in society, going to your everyday @#%$ jobs and doing your everyday routine (expletive removed) things, I say @#%$ you and die, if you got a problem with my thoughts, come to me and I’ll kill you, because……..God (expletive removed), DEAD PEOPLE DON’T ARGUE! My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law. If you don’t like it, you die. If I don’t like you or I don’t like what you want me to do, then you die. If I do something incorrect, oh @#%$ well, you die. Dead people can’t do many things, like argue, whine, @#%$, complain, name, rat out, criticize, or even @#%$ talk. So that’s the only way to solve arguments with all you (expletive removed) out there, I just kill. God I can’t wait till I can kill you people, I’ll just go to some downtown area in some big city and blow up and shoot everything I can.

You break my back but you won’t break me…..all is black but I still see…shut me down, knock me to the floor…..shoot me up, @#%$ me like a whore….trapped under ice, comfortably cold, I’ve gone as low as you can go….. feel no remorse, no sorrow or shame……time’s gonna wash away all pain I made a God out of blood not superiority I killed the king of deceit and now I sleep in anarchy.

Note two things; Murray “didn’t care” whether he lived or died and it is clear he relished the “power” such an act would bestow. But it was his obvious hatred of Christians that ultimately gave him his target.

As an atheist, I am not as sensitive to the slights and insults hurled at Christians by some on the left. What I might find irreverent, Christians may take as an insult or hate speech.

Regardless, there is little doubt that some on the left cross the line of irreverence and play to their basest instincts by railing against the “fundies” and “Christofascists” whose beliefs they find objectionable. This is not true of all liberals, many of whom have expressed their concerns about fundamentalist Christians becoming too involved in the political life of the nation in respectful terms. But there is no doubt that a popular fringe on the left glories in using stupefyingly hateful language to describe their opposition to Christian positions on abortion, gay rights, birth control, even railing against organized religion itself.

Many times these rants cross the line and enter the realm of hate speech. The Amanda Marcotte affair and her ludicrous, hateful diatribes against Catholic beliefs is but one example of this mindset on the left that fails to differentiate between argument and vicious, hate-filled screeds.

Even more widespread but subtle by comparison is the anti-Christian bias found in mass media. It was much worse just a few years ago when it was impossible to find anyone of faith portrayed in a positive light on television or the movies. Christians - especially devout Christians - were portrayed as hypocrites and most often, criminals. David Limbaugh chronicled this bias in Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. I disagree with Limbaugh that there is something in the liberal ideology that manifests itself as hatred toward Christians - especially in mass media. It truly is a matter of not understanding people of faith as well as a distrust of anyone who believes in anything so strongly. The cynics who control the airwaves and movie studios simply cannot grasp the idea of the true believer. Hence, patriots, Christians, and zealots of every stripe are portrayed in a negative light.

Recently, this bias has been tempered by a slew of shows that portray faith and people who practice it in a more positive way. The long running show 7th Heaven, which showed the life of a preacher and his children, inspired a host of shows that also take faith seriously and attempt to examine an individual’s relationship with God in a positive light.

But fundamentalist Christians are still the target of an insidious bias in the news media as well as Hollywood. And the question that must be asked in the wake of the Colorado church shootings is does all this create an atmosphere of permissiveness that enabled the shooter?

Church shootings are nothing new in America although these kinds of mass killings is a fairly recent phenomena. Here are some major attacks at churches over the last few years:

May 21, 2006: Four members of Erica Bell’s family are shot to death in a service at the Ministry of Jesus Christ in Baton Rouge, La. She is abducted and murdered elsewhere. Her husband Anthony Bell is currently awaiting trial.

Feb. 26, 2006: Kevin L. Collins opens fire during a church service at Zion Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Detroit, killing Rosietta Williams-Culp and injuring a 9-year-old girl. He later killed himself.

March 12, 2005: Terry Ratzmann opens fire at a Living Church of God service held at a Sheraton Hotel in Brookfield, Wis., killing seven and wounding four before shooting himself.

Oct. 5, 2003: Shelia Wilson walks into the Turner Monumental AME Church in Atlanta while preparations are being made for service and shoots the pastor, her mother and then herself.

June 10, 2002: Lloyd Robert Jeffress shoots four monks in a Benedictine monastery in Conception, Mo., killing two and wounding two, before killing himself.

March 12, 2002: Peter Troy, a former mental patient, opens fire during Mass at Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church in Lynbrook, N.Y., killing the priest and a parishioner. He later receives a life sentence.

May 18, 2001: Frederick Radford stands up in the middle of a revival service at Greater Oak Missionary Baptist Church, in Hopkinsville, Ky., and begins shooting at his estranged wife, Nicole Radford, killing her and a woman trying to help her.

Sept. 15, 1999: A gunman opens fire in Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, killing seven people and then himself.

This is only a partial listing and doesn’t include some of the more recent attacks

In many of these incidents, it was alleged that the shooter was animated by anti-Christian hatred, enabled by a society at war with Christians. Is that really true? Given the spate of lawsuits brought by atheists and others who seek to remove Christian symbols and the outward manifestations of Christian beliefs from the public square along with attacks in media and on the internet, is it any wonder that Christians feel themselves besieged? Nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that this overpowering media blitz that appears on the surface to assault Christian leaders and beliefs would affect those already predisposed to hate and perhaps give them the subconscious impetus to act out that hatred by picking up a gun and using it on their perceived enemies?

This is very tricky territory to explore and some of my more feeble minded readers will try and take me to task for blaming liberals for the Colorado shootings. Nothing could be further from the truth. But to deny that the over the top rhetoric used by non believers along with the portrayal of Christians in mass media as hypocritical and evil has some kind of effect on these unbalanced killers - the Oswalds and McVeighs of today - is just not logical.

I confess to sharing many concerns about the Christian right that the sane left has articulated. But a blind man can see where the white hot rhetoric and constant debasement of Christians and Christianity in the media can lead. And perhaps it’s time for those on the left who care about the subject to step forward and ask for a bit more tolerance from their brethren despite the fact that they would be defending some whose own intolerance might ordinarily give them pause.

If there is a “war” some kind of peace is definitely in order. And understanding by all sides of the real world consequences that are the result of hate speech should be the first priority.

Join me today from 3:00 - 4:00 PM central time for The Rick Moran Show, live on Blog Talk Radio.

My special guest today is Rich Baehr, National Political Director at The American Thinker. We’ll talk about the state of the race; who’s up, who’s down, and who’s coming on.

If you’d like to call in to the show, here’s the number:

(718) 664-9764

You can stream the broadcast by clicking the button below.

A podcast will be available shortly after the show.

UPDATE

As usual, Rich was brilliant and interesting. You can stream the podcast by clicking the player below. Or you can download it by clicking the button above.

A good old fashioned Midwestern ice storm has arrived and we’re expecting almost 1/2 inch of ice to accumulate before it turns to rain later tonight.

I expect to lose power at any time - probably for at least 24 hours and maybe longer.

Same storm knocked out power to half of Oklahoma. Don’t know if it will be quite as bad as that but the radar does not look good.

We’ve got our flashlights and candles all set along with extra blankets. Sue won’t be able to go to work due to our depressed driveway being a sheet of ice already.

If you don’t see anything posted for a day or two, you’ll know why.

With the writers talks collapsing in a heap of acrimony out in Hollywood (and Keifer Sutherland going to jail for the next 48 days) it appears that next month’s premier of 24 is going to be put off indefinitely.

But that doesn’t mean you have to suffer the pains of withdrawal from our favorite show. Sterling Publishers has just released a book guaranteed to give you your 24 fix and then some. Entitled Secrets of 24: The Unauthorized Guide to the Political & Moral Issues Behind TV’s Most Riveting Drama, the book will give you tremendous insight into how the show is seen as well as some extraordinary background on the show’s characters and settings:

Secrets of `24′: The Unauthorized Guide to the Politics, Moral Philosophy, and Technology Behind the Most Riveting Show in TV History uses this blockbuster series as a jumping off point to pursue real issues of relevance to our times–from whether torture is ever justified to whether individual rights should be sacrificed in the fight against terrorism. These are “big think” issues, complemented by a survey and analysis of the technologies and methods that drive the suspenseful plots. The illuminating collection combines original interviews and commissioned essays from leading political figures, cultural commentators, celebrities, and experts on technology, security, and terrorism with carefully selected anthologized op-eds and essays. It follows the wildly successful model the authors established with Secrets of the Code and their Secrets books–which have more than four million copies in print worldwide and have been on more than a dozen international bestseller lists, including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Publisher’s Weekly, and USA Today.

Secrets of `24′ is an exciting, engaging, and informative read for everyone fascinated with the series–and an essential companion for understanding the show’s central concerns. It will be in stores just in time for the start of the show’s seventh season in January 2008, and the widely anticipated movie.

Yours truly was asked to submit an essay. It’s on page 50 and entitled “The Circles of Hell: Dante, Daniel Boone, Gary Cooper, and … Jack Bauer.”

A sample:

Bauer has transcended the entertainment world and become a political talisman; stroked by the right and bashed by the left, 24 has become the favorite guilty pleasure of the political class in America. Even many liberals confess their addiction to the show, despite Bauer’s enormously troubling use of torture and the cavalier way in which he disregards the constitutional niceties. And many conservatives, seeing Jack taking the fight directly to our enemies (along with maintaining a moral certitude that is both refreshing and emotionally satisfying), cheer their hero on as he battles evil.

Sound familiar? It should. Hollywood long has prospered making heroes of such men — although not quite in the same context. Jack could best be compared to the small town sheriff who finds himself up against the ruthless outlaw gang as Gary Cooper played in the classic western High Noon. Cooper’s portrayal of Marshall Will Kane, who must vanquish a gang of criminals bent on revenge on the day of his wedding, had many of the same points and counterpoints found in the character of Jack Bauer. It is the solitary nature of his fight – the man willing to do his duty against terrible odds – that brings to mind Bauer’s predicaments as Jack flies from the frying pan into the fire week after week, always coming out on top because in the end, good must triumph over evil.

The book features interviews with people like former DCIA James Woolsey as well as columnists like Frank Rich and of course, interviews with the stars about their characters.

I will have a review of the book in a few days but you can reserve your copy at Amazon by clicking on the link above.

“Anything is possible.”

That’s what I wrote on Monday morning following the “narrow” win by the NO! forces in the Venezuelan referendum on granting President Hugo Chavez enormous and unprecedented powers. My speculation seemed wild at the time but was based on reports coming from Venezuelan bloggers who turned out to be pretty damn reliable in the end.

Most pre-election polls had NO! winning by 55% or greater. For those on the left who are sneering about the fact that Chavez didn’t try and rig the election, I would suggest you wait a day or two. There certainly were some strange things going on at CNE headquarters in the wee hours of the morning.

And one rumor is the final margin of victory for the opposition was actually negotiated between the two sides so that Chavez could save face with a razor thin loss rather than the 57%-58% that some polls were showing prior to the vote. That particular rumor seems wildly off base – until you remember we’re talking about Chavez’s Venezuela where after the last presidential election, half full ballot boxes disappeared for hours only to turn up later stuffed to the brim with votes for Chavez.

As it turns out, the NO! vote was indeed a landslide and Chavez was in the process of rigging the election in his favor when the Army came a-calling and told him if he cheated, he’d be gone:

Most of Latin America’s leaders breathed a sigh of relief earlier this week, after Venezuelan voters rejected President Hugo Chávez’s constitutional amendment referendum. In private they were undoubtedly relieved that Chávez lost, and in public they expressed delight that he accepted defeat and did not steal the election. But by midweek enough information had emerged to conclude that Chávez did, in fact, try to overturn the results. As reported in El Nacional, and confirmed to me by an intelligence source, the Venezuelan military high command virtually threatened him with a coup d’état if he insisted on doing so. Finally, after a late-night phone call from Raúl Isaías Baduel, a budding opposition leader and former Chávez comrade in arms, the president conceded—but with one condition: he demanded his margin of defeat be reduced to a bare minimum in official tallies, so he could save face and appear as a magnanimous democrat in the eyes of the world.

(HT: Ed Morrissey)

I also reported the role of General Baduel in heading Chavez off at the pass by going on TV and demanding that the vote - already held up several hours by the CNE - be released. Either shortly before or after he made that appearance, he placed his call to Chavez telling him the jig was up.

There are so many lefties with egg on their faces this morning that the liberal blogosphere could very well be mistaken for an omelet chef blog burst in progress. Praise for that great “democrat” Chavez and comparing him favorably to Bush was laughable at the time and now, simply priceless - one of those moments in blog history that can be trotted out time and time again whenever some lefty gets a little too large for their suspenders.

Just for fun, let’s review what some on the left had to say about their buddy Hugo and how he was a superior democrat to American leaders:

“I would be the last to claim that Hugo Chavez is a saint, or even a politician worth emulating. But I do find it interesting that when faced with the will of the people, Bush ignored that will and Chavez bowed to it. One we are told, is a vile threat to the freedom of his nation because of his incessant power grabs and disdain for democratic process. The other is a great leader of men, fully committed to democracy in his home country and abroad. If I hadn’t attached names to this story, could you tell which was supposed to be which?

This is one of my favorites:

Before the vote began, Venezuela’s government had agreed to randomly open 30% of the ballot boxes to monitors in order to assure a fair election. Upon receipt of the result, President Hugo Chavez — the putative dictator in waiting for Venezuela — announced simply, “I congratulate my adversaries for this victory. For now, we could not do it.”

The Venezuelan and American press — both enormously and dishonestly hostile to Venezuela’s Bolivarian transformation — had spun the article dropping term limits as a bid to become “President for Life,” though there was no provision to ever stop presidential elections that put that decision into the hands of Venezuelan voters. We shall now see if a single mea culpa is expressed by any of the media in the wake of the Chavez government’s quick and gracious acceptance of the referendum result. I doubt it.

The author never mentioned that the agreement to “randomly open 30% of the ballot boxes” went by the wayside that night - as did every other agreement Chavez made prior to the election about independent electoral observers, opposition access to the raw vote count, and anything else that would have prevented Chavez from stealing the vote.

And as far as shenanigans that occurred during voting, here’s a few of dozens of irregularities from this revealing letter sent by two International Observers to the Venezuelan recall vote in 2004 to Members of Congress:

* We were threatened on several occasions, at least once with pistols concealed under the shirts of Chavistas who yelled threats and showed us their weapons.

* When we went into the 23 de Enero barrio, Chavistas working in the voting area turned into rabble-rousers and tried to stir the crowd into attacking us. The Plan República troops did nothing to stop them, and when our safety was in question, they escorted us out. We could no longer observe the many irregularities in the area.

* We r eceived first hand reports from witnesses who saw armed Comando Maisanta and Circulos Bolivarianos posted outside voting centers, threatening the people who tried to vote SI.

* We witnessed military officers prohibiting the vote of people in the opposition areas because they were “wearing shorts”, a violation of the constitution and their human rights.

* Thousands of voters who voted SI, were physically assaulted at the voting centers.

* In some voting centers, the review process was started without the presence of Opposition witnesses to guarantee transparency.

* Opposition witnesses and table members were physically removed from voting centers or blocked from entering and guaranteeing transparency.

This is the election Jimmy Carter guaranteed as fair and open.

Of course, the biggest omelet on the face goes to Roger Cohen for this lights-out slice of schadenfreud:

I salute you, Hugo Chávez.

If Roger had stopped there, people would have only thought him crazy, not an idiot:

And yet, there was a glum Chávez declaring in the unadorned language no totalitarian system can abide that: “The people’s decision will be upheld in respect of the basic rule of democracy: the winning option is the one that gets most votes.”

The United States might ponder those words — not just because of what happened in the presidential election of 2000; not just because the arithmetic of voting has proved unpalatable in Palestine; not just because of the past U.S.-abetted trampling of elected Latin American leaders in Chile and elsewhere — but because democracy was alive and vital in Venezuela on Sunday in a way foreign to President Bush’s America.

As I said in my American Thinker blog post, “Thank God for that.” And I might have added, thank God Cohen only writes for the Times and not a real newspaper:

But his honoring of democracy’s brittle wonders still merits a salute. Above all, however, I salute the Venezuelan people. Chávez said before the referendum that a “no” vote equaled a vote for Bush. Unperturbed, Venezuelans went ahead. And they gave a civic example from which Bush’s battered and blathering democracy can learn.

Bush’s “blathering” democracy apparently doesn’t need to negotiate with the opposition his margin of defeat. What say ye, Roger? Up for eating a little crow?

It’s childish, of course, to gloat so. But when people are constantly throwing mud in your face, it’s sometimes nice to return the favor by tossing a banana cream pie and hitting them right in the kisser.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that the CIA informed Members of Congress about what they were doing to get information from high value al-Qaeda prisoners. Nor is it surprising that Democrats who were briefed would have kept that information from their colleagues as they were bound to do by law.

Some Republicans are trying to explore the hypocrisy angle by trying to point out that Democrats are hardly in a position to come down on Republicans for torture when their own leadership was privy to the “severe interrogation techniques” being used. I have yet to see any quotes from those who we know were briefed that they then objected to the torture later and used it in a political context to bash their opponents.

In the absence of proof that Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, Harman, et al criticized the Administration for their torture policies, it is hard to make the hypocrisy charge stick.

However, they can be and should be excoriated for meekly going along with these policies and not registering their objections in the strongest possible terms. Alone among the Democrats, former ranking minority member of the House Intel Committee Jane Harman says she sent a letter of protest to the CIA questioning their methods to extract information. The letter fell on deaf ears.

Some of the netnuts are twisting themselves into knots to posit the notion that the whole purpose of the briefings was to embarrass the Democrats:

It’s pretty clear that either one of the Republican members of Congress at the meeting, or the CIA, decided to leak what happened at a super-classified post-9/11 briefing in order to embarrass Pelosi and the Democrats. And I don’t doubt for a minute that Bush approved the leak, as he always does.

It’s also clear that had Pelosi raised any private objections during the meeting - remember, it took place in the first year after September 11 - Bush and the Republicans would have leaked that fact to the public (like they just did) and destroyed her career and marked her publicly as a traitor. No member of Congress, no American, could have spoken up about anything in the months after September 11 and survived. It’s patently unfair to suggest that somehow because Pelosi didn’t object then that she doesn’t have the right to object now.

One final point. I hope this teaches Pelosi and Reid and all the Democrats that no matter what you do, this administration will mark you as a traitor and try to do destroy you. You might as well fight back and try to win, because if you don’t, you’ll sit back and lose.

Note that not only did some nefarious Republican leak from a “super classified” briefing - as if Avarosis ever gave a crap about leaking from other classified briefings as long as they reflected badly on Republicans - in order to make Pelosi look bad today, they would have leaked back in 2002 if Pelosi had objected to make her look bad today.

Of course, Johnny has no evidence whatsoever that a Republican leaked the story to the Post nor does he have a scintilla of evidence that Bush was behind it. He’s just throwing crap against a wall to see what sticks - a pastime he enjoys immensely when outing gay Republicans who would choose otherwise.

One other major meme that is emerging from the netroots is that since Bush had this meeting hanging over their heads, the Democratic leadership refused to begin impeachment hearings. With that kind of logic, we can expect an immediate effort by Pelosi to start the impeachment bandwagon moving next week now that everything is out in the open.

Fortunately for the republic, Pelosi is a little smarter than the rabid, frothing at the mouth bloggers who would push the Democratic party over the impeachment abyss.

Finally, just for levity’s sake, we now have to 9/11 truthers hot on the trail of the destroyed DVD’s that opened this whole can of worms in the first place. Here’s a comment left on my post on the subject:

The tapes destroyed primarily not because torture but because of what the tapes reveal. Possibly revealing the conspiracies behind 9/11 attack. This is another set of evidence revealing that the 9/11 was an inside job. The secret societies are directly responsible for this. Especially Bush family’s Skull & Bones. 2006 movie “the good shepherd”, directed by Robert De Nero, shows how the CIA was formed and the Skull & Bones influence over the intelligence community plus CIA’s torture…

I am not one who believes the republic has been permanently destroyed as a result of the torture authorized by the Administration. Good grief what a shallow and ignorant view of history one must have to believe that nonsense. We survived four score and seven plus years of allowing slavery in this country - even to the point that the government was in cahoots with slave owners in that they went after escaped slaves in the north and depended on revenue gleaned from cotton exports to survive.

There are plenty of sins committed by the United States government - some of which make torturing murderous jihadis look like a walk in the park. The innocents who have been victims of the government down through the years are a much blacker stain than the “severe interrogation techniques” used by the CIA and Army on, by all reports, was an extremely limited number of murderous, cold eyed killers.

Torture is wrong in all cases at all times. But to get hysterical about its implications for the republic, as most on the left seem determined to do, is absurd. Those nations overseas who are saying “American has lost its moral standing” didn’t recognize that standing in the first place. And even if some actually feel that way, I can guarantee that the next time we selflessly give of ourselves to save the victims of some natural disaster or pull some tiny country’s chestnuts out of the fire when it is being bullied by a larger neighbor, talk about America losing “the moral high ground” will disappear fairly quickly.

Let us treat this with the seriousness it deserves without either exaggerating its impact on our history or using it as a political club in a cynical attempt to demonize your political opponents. Torture has been used to our great shame and calumny. But it hardly merits the “end of the republic” rhetoric being bandied about so cavalierly by those whose outrage is nurtured and husbanded against their own government rather than directed equally toward an enemy that seeks to kill us all.

For Fred Thompson, the race for the Republican nomination has just gotten extremely simple.

Do well in Iowa or fold up shop and go home:

FORMER TENNESSEE SENATOR Fred Thompson has decided to take his campaign and virtually all of its resources to Iowa in an all-or-nothing attempt to register a strong showing in the caucuses here on January 3. “We’re getting ready to make this not only our second home, but our first home,” he told a small gathering of supporters at the Polk County Convention Center on Friday night. Thompson and his wife Jeri chatted with the crowd before making their way through the exhibits at the Iowa Farm Bureau’s annual meeting in downtown Des Moines.

Beginning Monday, December 17, Thompson will launch a bus tour that will take him throughout the state. From the beginning of that trip through caucus night, Thompson will essentially live in Iowa, taking only a one-day trip out of the state to celebrate Christmas at his home in Virginia.

“Iowa is critical to our campaign, and it may in fact be everything to our campaign,” says one Thompson official. “If we don’t do what we need to do in Iowa, it will be tough to compete effectively down the road.”

Outgunned and outmanned by Mitt Romney and on the downside of the boom for Mike Huckabee who has captured much of the support the former Tennessee senator was depending on to be competitive, Thompson finds himself in a do or die position in Iowa. He has disappeared from polls in New Hampshire, garnering less than 5% and trailing Ron Paul. Most importantly, he finds himself 3rd in the vital South Carolina primary, losing to Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

In short, Thompson must find a way to reverse his fortunes or he will be forced to make a quick exit from the race.

Thompson’s troubles have been well documented by the national press (I detailed those criticisms for Pajamas Media here). But beyond the familiar litany of charges that he’s too lazy, too detached, and doesn’t want to be president bad enough, there is simply the matter that Thompson never lit a fire under conservatives in Iowa or New Hampshire.

This left an opening for Huckabee who patiently cultivated the religious right and then tapped into the enthusiasm of the Fair Tax movement. The combination has proved itself potent - up to this point. Recent revelations about Huckabee and his intervention to get a rapist paroled (who then went on to rape and murder two women) as well as a groundswell of opposition being spearheaded by The Club For Growth who see his fiscal policies as governor in a decidedly unconservative light may create doubts in voter’s minds.

So Thompson’s “all in” move to Iowa may be coming at exactly the right time. As people begin to really scrutinize Huckabee’s record, Thompson will help them along by highlighting his opponent’s total lack of experience in foreign and defense policy:

“All I’m saying is that national security and foreign affairs is the most important thing facing this country,” said Thompson. “It affects our security and the security of our children. And who has nuclear capability is the most important part of the most important issue. I think it’s best if someone has experience in that regard. I’ve spent a lot of time–I served on the Intelligence Committee in the United States Senate, I’ve traveled around and met with foreign leaders. I chaired a committee that involved oversight of nuclear proliferation issues and things of that nature. So I think it’s surprising that someone that would aspire to be president takes the position like closing Guantanamo, for example, is a good thing. And does not keep up with what’s going on in Iran.”

In addition to throwing a bucket of cold water on the boom for Huckabee, Thompson’s emphasis on national security issues may finally excite those conservatives who see foreign policy and defense issues as the most important criteria to judge a potential candidate for president.

Previously, much of Thompson’s stump speech has been devoted to his thoughtful ideas on federalism - not exactly red meat for the right but positions that have earned him praise from most GOP quarters. A switch to emphasizing his foreign policy credentials while Huckabee stumbles over Iran and other issues dealing with the War on Terror could be just what his campaign needs to win back (or get off the fence) many conservatives who may be uncomfortable with Huckabee’s inexperience.

Thompson has previously said that he must finish third in Iowa to remain viable. That prospect certainly appears within reach even if he can’t overtake Huckabee. But realistically, Thompson must exceed expectations in Iowa by finishing second in order to generate the kind of momentum that would propel his candidacy forward. And a first place finish - a remote possibility but not unimaginable - would shock the field and give the campaign a huge boost, making the candidate a contender even in states that he’s not doing well like New Hampshire and Michigan.

There is something appealing about a candidate who recognizes what needs to be done and doesn’t hesitate to try and do it. In Thompson’s case, he is putting it all on the line in Iowa in a make or break effort to achieve a breakthrough.

Not a long shot by any means but rather a recognition of the reality of a campaign that is currently in flux. And where it will settle is anyone’s guess.