Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
Conservatism Wins. Fred Thompson for President
He’s the Man with the Conservative Plans
By Mark I Posted in 2008 | conservatism | Fred Thompson | Presidential Primary | Principles | Republicans — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For most of this primary election season, I have found myself very sympathetic to the arguments expressed here. National security is certainly a prevailing concern in this presidential election, more so probably even than in 2004. But just as central to this election from a Republican Party perspective is the nature of the Party in the post-Bush era. If Republicans want the party to remain a majority party, as I believe it still is, they must remain true to the conservative principles upon which five of the last seven presidential elections have been won.
There is only one candidate running that has demonstrated a consistent dedication to conservative principles of federalism, smaller government, family values, the rule of law, and the proper exercise of the role of the three branches of government. That candidate is Sen. Fred Thompson, and I am proud to offer my endorsement of his campaign.
Read on…
In fairness, I should point out that I believe Thompson’s campaign has made some fundamental errors in strategy; and I do generally agree with the proposition that the operation of a candidate’s campaign is a good indicator of how his administration would run. However, this campaign should not be about electing the smoothest political operator, nor should it be a test of personal ambition. Campaigns are about ideas and a willingness to engage issues based on sound principles. Candidates owe the voters a look at their ideas and a defense of them, not necessarily a whirlwind swing through 6 states in 5 days.
Sen. Thompson has been the most specific candidate on the issues of anyone running for president, Republican or Democrat. While most of the others speak in generalities, vague commitments, and platitudes, Thompson issues plans. His willingness to address issues like entitlement reform with specific proposals, rooted in conservative principles, finds no equal among the Republicans. On taxes, too, Thompson goes beyond simply embracing popular brand name fixes and populist rhetoric. He puts forth a detailed solution that demonstrates a serious study of the Federal tax code and incorporates both a bold new approach and a faithfulness to past actions that have worked.
On social issues, Sen. Thompson holds unashamedly conservative views as well. He has received the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee and various state life groups. He supports adult stem cell research and opposes human cloning, and embryo destroying stem cell research. Thompson had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Thompson supports a federalist approach to abortion, in which each state would regulate the practice as its citizens see fit. On same-sex marriage, Thompson believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and, most importantly, that judges should not set about changing that by judicial fiat. He supports a Constitutional amendment to prevent judges from misinterpreting the Constitution to allow for the practice. Sen. Thompson is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and has received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association. He has been the most consistent Republican candidate in talking about the need to appoint judges that recognize their proper role in government.
Lastly, on what I believe will be the two major issues of the presidential campaign, national security and illegal immigration, Thompson has issued positions that are both comprehensive and specific. On defense, Thompson supports increasing the military budget to 4.5% of GDP. He wants to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to a combined one-million men as well as increase the size of the Navy’s fleet to at least 325 ships. He believes in the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and recognizes that remaining on offense in the War on Terror is the best way to defeat the enemy as well as secure the homeland against attack. On illegal immigration, Thompson goes beyond all of the major candidates by supporting the completion of the 854 mile long border fence authorized in the Secure Fence Act and supporting efforts at reducing the number of illegal immigrants already in the country. Thompson believes in attrition through enforcement and removal of the jobs incentive. He labels as a “false choice” the belief that there must be either a guest worker program or massive deportations. Thompson supports increased interior enforcement, including committing the resources necessary to the task, employer verification, increased use of a federally authorized expedited removal process, sharing of information between the Social Security Administration and federal law enforcement, and cutting off discretionary funding to cities with sanctuary policies. On both issues, Thompson is confident in his principles and unapologetic in his plans.
Equally important to the issues is the candidate’s willingness to stand firm for the principles that support his positions. Part and parcel of this is having the courage to call the opposition what it is, and not bend to criticism from the elite. Too often, Republicans have sought compromise with Democrats in the name of bi-partisanship. The problem with this approach is that, for Democrats, compromise means that Republicans abandon their principles. Thompson has shown that he has the courage to call Democrats out for what they have become, and has called upon Democrats who feel that their party has abandoned them to join with him. I believe that this strategy will be as effective in the general election this year as it was in 1980 and 1984, when disaffected Democrats helped give President Ronald Reagan two terms. Marginally Democratic states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin could be put in play with a consistent appeal to moderate Democrats based on sound conservative principles.
Sen. Thompson’s closing appeal to Iowa voters demonstrates his ability to effectively communicate conservative principles and reach out to broaden the Republican Party’s base.
Of particular interest to me, and that which clinched my support of his candidacy, is the following passage, in which Sen. Thompson discusses the nature of the modern day Democratic Party.
I believe I am the only candidate in this race who can bring our party to victory in the Fall. First, because of the firmness of my principles and the trust that that engenders. Secondly, because of the detailed program I’ve put before the people. Third, because I've been tried and tested – and I’m a known quantity in public life.
But, most of all, I think I know how to talk to the American people about the opposition and the danger their victory would pose to the principles we hold dear.
You know in the last debate – when I was asked the biggest problem with American education-- I had a ready answer: "The NEA."
By which I meant the National Education Association -- that highly politicized, Washington-based union that is a hindrance to students as well as to the teachers it claims to represent.
But you know the NEA is not the only problem. Just like its education policy, the Democratic party's foreign policy is heavily influenced by another left-of-center pressure group—Move On.org which implied that our leading general in Iraq betrayed us, that tells our men and women in uniform that the war they are fighting is lost, and then tries to cut off funds for our troops in the field.
And its social policy is heavily determined by the radically secularist ACLU -- which tries to take God out of the public square and leaps to the legal defense of our Nation's enemies.
You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter. Because these days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA, Move On.org, ACLU, Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course. […]
In this campaign I will be seeking the support of millions of Democrats who no longer believe that they can trust their own party’s leadership on the issue of national security.
I will be seeking the support of millions of Democrats with young families who are beginning to see the economic burdens they may face because of their party leadership's taste for high taxes and politically motivated refusal to fix social security and remove the threat of a shortfall in federal benefit plans that could be a catastrophe for younger taxpayers.
And, finally, I’ll be seeking the support of Democrats who are weary of spin politics and the permanent campaign and endless attempts to control the media dynamic who think policy stances ought to be judged on a higher criteria than what works better in a sound bite or fits this week's campaign-message guidance.
So I’ll be asking good Democrats as well as Independents to give us another chance – to see if a Republican president and Congress that’s dedicated to conservative principles can move forward with an agenda that goes beyond narrow partisanship and political expediency and actually deals with the long-term foreign and domestic crises we face.
I know we can do better than a 14% approval rating the current Congress had. And I know we’ve learned our lessons from last year's election. We’re the party of smaller, smarter government, lower taxes, and less Washington spending. And the only way we win is if we understand that, remain true to it, and refuse to yield to those who would have us abandon it.
The other candidates all have appealing qualities, and any of them would be preferable to a Democratic administration. But, Sen. Thompson is the most ideologically pure Republican running. I believe that will translate well into electability in the general election. It will also serve the Republican Party well in the aftermath of a presidency of qualified “compassionate” conservatism, and place the party back on a path of advancing winning conservative principles.
Elections are about ideas. Sen. Fred Thompson has stood far and away ahead of the other candidates in this primary season in terms of putting forth his ideas rooted in conservatism and showing the courage and willingness to defend them. He knows who he is and what he believes. Just as importantly, he knows who the opposition is and what it believes, and is willing to challenge Democrats on the strength of their ideas. Sen. Thompson realizes that conservative values are mainstream American values, and he believes he can increase the appeal of the Republican Party with a platform based on those principles. He cares little for the opinions of the coastal elite or the inside-the-beltway crowd, focusing instead on achieving results through tested conservative initiatives. It is for all these reasons that I am supporting Sen. Fred Thompson in the Republican primaries. I hope you will consider joining me.
« The Bloom Is Off The Rose — Comments (1) | Dear Dale Cardwell — Comments (6) »
Conservatism Wins. Fred Thompson for President 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I LOVE FRED
by ggross56
I just wish I knew why Hugh Hewitt is calling Fred a Bob Dole clone. Talk about foolishness.
Hugh has gone mad
by ktcat
His Romenylove has driven him insane. I read his post and it's the most deranged drivel I've seen in a long time.
Visit The Scratching Post!
I know that Fred Thompson supporters
by kowalski
I know that Fred Thompson supporters will cut Mitt Romney a lot of slack seeing how Fred Thompson supported McCain/Feingold, one of the main purposes of which was to cut the legs out from under the National Rifle Association in terms of their ability to use the airwaves for political endorsements.
He was against it after he was for it, and his flip-flopping on that issue hasn't been forgotten.
Romney is telling the truth in that statement, BTW. I recently applied for my FIC in Massachusetts and the process was clear, simple, unambiguous, and painless.
The difference between Fred and Mitt
by JTaylor
is that Mitt wants to be President and Fred wants to serve as President. Mitt's blind ambition turns us off because his flip flopping generates from his desire to be elected versus a change in opinion on a policy.
Fred's change of opinion on McCain/Feingold is based upon his now seeing the negative impacts of that policy, and not because he is running for President. Fred reached that conclusion independent of his run for President, all changes in Mitt's positions are because of this desire to be President.
Yeah, sure...
by kowalski
And I have about 15,000 acres of real estate in Florida that I'd like to sell you.
You must be young and ignorant...
by dbecraft
no offense, but anyone who says such things are usually way too young to understand or way too old to care. I actually still have hope for the country (and only the older generation seems to understand our problem), you do not show such caring and so I should just forgo any chance of this country's continued existence... Ah, our glorious youth... May you enjoy your brief existence in power...and I used to think you were part of our conservative saviors...geez...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I See...
by EconomicFreedomFighter
So Fred Thompson is allowed to see the negative impacts of bad policy, but Mitt can only be a cold calculating politician driven by personal ambition and unable to see the negative impacts of public policy?
Well...at least we know how to evaluate your comments.
And FYI - I think that given that the founding fathers thought that McCain-Feingold is such bad policy that they prohibited such laws in the FIRST AMENDMENT probably should have been his first clue that there might be negative repercussions of such a law. I'm glad that he's against some of the provisions of that law, but he rather staunchly defended the vast majority of McCain-Feingold in an interview with Laura Ingraham...so, I'm not really sure that he really learned his lesson on that law.
Hey Al, what is "FIC"
by E Pluribus Unum
I googled it, and the first page consisted of"
--Fair Isaac Inc (ticker symbol "FIC")
--First International Computer, Inc
--Fogarty International Center
--Fellowship for International Community
--Free Internet Chess (my favorite so far on this list....)
--Federation of International Canines
None of them seem on-topic for what you're saying.
So, please help a brother out!
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
But the official acronym is FID.
It's not just the matter of having an ID, I refer to it as an FIC because that's the form it takes.
Got it, thanks <nt>
by E Pluribus Unum
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Not to threadjack, but why the weird acronym?
by Moe Lane
I know that you didn't come up with it, but why did the Commonwealth?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Who knows?
by kowalski
I'm a little dyslexic so I do get confused about the "official" acronym from time to time. To me it would have been better to call it an FIC because that's what it is. It's a Card that you use to prove you've been licensed.
And Mitt is correct that when he says
by kowalski
In that video that his administration made the process simpler. As I've noted before, you no longer have to fill out a single piece of paperwork to obtain an FID/FIC. The process is completely electronic and the license (the fee is $100, up from the $75 Romney proposed by virtue of the Massachusetts Legislature) lasts for six years.
But there's no paperwork to fill out and the process takes about 15 minutes, tops. You walk into your local police department, answer a few questions, and have a fingerprint scan and a photograph taken. No waiting, no complex forms to fill out, the paperwork was reduced to nothing. Any law-abiding citizen in Massachusetts can't complain about that. It really honestly was that quick and painless in my home town.
Of course, you need to have taken one of the requisite certification courses, which my local Rod and Gun Club offers during the summertime, and it was very well-conducted.
More Negativity From Mitt Kool-Aid Drinkers
by PetraeusForPresident
I wonder if Mitt Romney and his supporters realize just how much they are turning off large portions of the GOP electorate with their incredibly negative campaigning and distortions of the other GOP candidates.
Yeah, Fred supported McCain-Feingold as a U.S. Senator. He did so because he thought it was the right thing for the country at that time, in the wake of the Clinton Chinese Fundraising Scandals, Gore's "Iced Tea Defense", and Gore collecting $10,000 soft money checks from Buddhist monks at a Temple in Hacienda Heights who had taken vows of poverty.
Fred DID NOT support McCain-Feingold because he was calculating it would help him get re-elected to the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, seeing as how he didn't even run for re-election when his term was up. A Senate seat he would have surely been able to win again, I might add.
Contrast this with Mitt Romney, who never served in the U.S. Senate because while nearly every other Republican Senate Candidate in the U.S. won that night in 1994, Mitt lost to Ted Kennedy, of all people. Mitt Romney and Michael Huffington indeed have a lot in common. We'd probably fare better in 2008 with Bill Weld or Pete Wilson at the top of our ticket. They are virtually the same as Mitt Romney ideologically. At least Pete Wilson never lost to a Kennedy (and he even beat a Feinstein). Bill Weld and Mitt Romney are nearly interchangeable - becoming Massachusetts governor over a Democrat lackie, and both losing to Ted Kennedy.
Had Mitt been in the U.S. Senate, would he have voted against McCain-Feingold? I doubt it. Not as calculating and Machiavellian as he is.
BTW - Your point about Fred's vote taking away the NRA's ability to run ads is very misleading. The last thing Fred would want to do is hurt the NRA's ability to participate in elections. Fred owes much of his Senate victory in 1994 to NRA support. His McCain-Feingold vote was based on his convictions about how dangerous the Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals were in the 90's.
Unlike Mitt, Fred actually does have firm convictions on policy and ideology.
As for NRA support, let's see who most NRA members will vote for: a true NRA candidate like Fred (see 1994 elections), or a guy like Mitt who claims to be a lifelong rabbit and squirrel hunter, but runs away from the NRA when he's losing his Senate campaign to Ted Kennedy.
Mitt Lost to Teddy Kennedy
by EconomicFreedomFighter
That's like being astonished that any fill-in-the-blank Democrat would lose to a member of the Bush family in Texas. Not exactly a shocking or earth-shattering event.
In fact, it is the opposite result that would be a real earthquake.
Mitt supporters are offending
by JTaylor
Mitt supporters are offending the Thompson supporters. They have given me reason to rethink my support for Mitt as a distant second --
I have the same thoughts. n/t
by redneck hippie
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Scorched Earth
by ktcat
Mitt's scorched earth tactics helped along by his lapdog Hugh Hewitt have totally turned me off. If Mittens wins the nomination then he'll campaign without my support.
See also: Operation: Rat Filth.
Visit The Scratching Post!
No One Impugned Fred's Intentions
by EconomicFreedomFighter
...but as Milton Friedman said, results are what matter most - not intentions.
I don't think anyone implied that Fred backed McCain-Feingold because he thought it would be BAD for the country. And that's part of the problem. He thought that restricting FIRST AMENDMENT free speech rights WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY! I mean, that's kind of breathtaking when you think about it.
And even today he merely says that McCain-Feingold went a little bit too far but still backs the vast majority of the bill, as evidenced by his interview and pressing on the issue by Laura Ingraham.
No one is saying that any candidate is backing a policy because they think it would be bad for the country. I don't even think that Hillary is backing policies that SHE thinks would be bad for the country. I just happen to believe that she is wrong about that.
Likewise, I believe that Fred was and is wrong about restricting political speech being good for the country.
At least Mitt Romney has identified where he is wrong, recanted, apologized, and adopted policies that conservatives happen to believe are good for the country.
I'm not saying that Romney is more conservative than Fred but he's more conservative than everyone else, his agenda is very close to Fred's, and Mitt's campaign the added attraction of currently being a viable candidacy - which will be important if we are to beat back any one of the candidates running on decidedly more LIBERAL campaign platforms.
Hillary would beat Romney to a pulp in the election
by Connie Brimmer
I don't get a sense of the kind of leadership ability from Romney that he would need to have to engage in a full-scale assault on her.
Thompson is my candidate, but I would support Rudy over Romney because his negatives are known (and he knows we know) and because he could draw from both sides. He's also a fast-talker who would have few qualms about putting Hillary in her place.
Of course, that's why he was asked to run in the first place - the GOP was desperate to find someone who could beat Hillary.
My ideal ticket would be Thompson/Hunter, but I would accept a Thompson/Giuliani and maybe a Thompson/Romney ticket.
As a matter of fact, Thompson/Giuliani appeals to me as the perfect Clinton attack tagteam.
"results are what matter
by Flagstaff
"results are what matter most - not intentions."
I was surprised to learn (because of my own ignorance, no other reason) that that is an old Jewish precept. At least, that is what I took from Michael Medved's comment.
Not that I necessarily agree with it, either. Doing anything for a good reason, then later recognizing it as bad, is far better than doing it for any reason and then failing to recognize the problem.
Acting in bad faith to begin with makes both situations worse.
I accept both men at their words--they were wrong before and now see the error of their former positions.
"Likewise, I believe that Fred was and is wrong about restricting political speech being good for the country."
This is a wild re-characterization of Fred's beliefs. Incidentally, whatever YOU think he thought, the act itself has received the seal of approval from the Supreme Court, so it wasn't that far from OK.
"I'm not saying that Romney is more conservative than Fred but he's more conservative than everyone else"
You got that right. Since these two men of good will are our two best conservative candidates, let's not spend a lot of effort tearing either one of them down. Either one will be a better President than any of the others. IMHO, of course.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Illegal Immigration
by debbie0040
Anti illegal immigration groups are active in the Iowa Primary. They have identified only four GOP candidates that are against amnesty for illegal aliens. They are Thompson,Hunter,Romney and Paul. Three are for amnesty and they are Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani.
We shall soon see how big an issue illegal immigration is in the GOP primary.
Email they sent out:
Friends of ALIPAC,
Today's press release is going out to our press list of 40,000 press contacts. Please reinforce our efforts by sending copies to your favorite talk radio show hosts, Lou Dobbs, Hannity, etc...
You can also help us by jumping through our portal to over 300 websites in Iowa to post this information.
Jump Gate and Instructions.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-96615.html
Press Release
Release: Huckabee's numbers fall in Iowa as Immigration Record Spreads!
http://www.alipac.us/article2832.html
We only have a few hours left to make a difference and Huckabee's campaign claims they have 700 blogger allied to their side. Let's show them what our legendary ALIPAC activists can do!
Illegal immigration ...
by Oz
Interesting ... this will definitely make things interesting.
I read somewhere else that a couple of Tancredo's guys had jumped to Fred so we'll see if that makes a difference.
Illegal immigration
by Flagstaff
is what should be the defining issue of the primary season. All our guys are more or less together on the GWOT. Some are way off the reservation on illegal immigration, though.
It's an issue that America knows which side is the right side. The ones on the right side should use it.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Fred is the Only Consistent Conservative
by debbie0040
He is both a social and fiscal conservative. He is deliberate and analyzes things. He would make a great President.
For the last time, HECK YEAH!!!!
by E Pluribus Unum
I thought everybody already knew......
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
...I'm getting pretty tired of reading a variant of this every time somebody front-pages a complimentary article about one of the candidates. RedState has not endorsed a candidate in this primary. Each of the major candidates has support from one or another of us, but there has been no official site choice, and I will be surprised if there is one. The current dispute in the GOP is mirrored in the opinions of the Contributors and Directors.
Moe
PS: Now watch Erick or somebody else higher up contradict me. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Now that it's been
by Flagstaff
Now that it's been established that 'higher-ups' exist, are there any 'lower-downs' for balance?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I'm right here.
by itrytobenice
:)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
And don't forget....
by garhighway1
...Fred's got a smokin' hot trophy wife!
She nicely balances his cadaverous appearance.
(BTW: Any truth to the rumor that Fred is taking on the Frankenstein role for Mel Brooks on Broadway if his candidacy stalls? He's no Peter Boyle, but he'll do. I'd love to hear him sing "Puttin' On The Ritz"!)
Gar
How is HWMNBN
by JTaylor
so how much money did you send RP? A fool and his money....
Fred for President!
by political_dave
http://instapundit.com/archives2/013585.php
This article is right.
What everyone's SAYING they want is Fred.
What they're VOTING is something different. I can't figure out why.
But I hope the SEE what he's promoting, WHO he is, and WHY he's the best choice before it's too late and we're stuck with voting for the better of two evils, rather than the MAN that we can support.
Groupthink (FredState)
by David Ribeirao
From Wikipedia:
Symptoms of groupthink
In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
-Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
-Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
-Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
-Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
-Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
-Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
-Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
-Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Great Point
by PetraeusForPresident
Someone ought to post this over on Townhall.com, otherwise known as Mitt's Toadies.com.
For the record, I see a lot more "Groupthink" going on amongst the Romney and Giuliani supporters than I do with Fred supporters.
We are true Conservatives, who want the real thing, not some Blue State political contortionist who will have to spend the first 9 month of his campaign repudiating many of the positions he ran on and governed by only a few years ago. Fred won't have to waste time and resources convincing Republicans that he is a Conservative, because we already know he is.
That's true
by David Ribeirao
but not on this site. See my reply to Rick below. Your criticism of Romney is petty.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Groupthink could be applied
by Vegas Rick
Groupthink could be applied to many supporters of all the candidates. Every group of supporters is engaging in the same conduct. Look at all the Romney negatives you're ignoring.
There's just more of us Fredheads.
Vocal minority of FredHeads
by David Ribeirao
I think if you go through the list above and apply it to the vocal minority of FredHeads (meaning the subgroup of FredHeads, not that FredHeads are the minority) you can see how that specifically applies to them at this site. Groupthink absolutely exists within all campaigns.
I'm surprised you would accuse me of ignoring Romney's negatives Rick. I think you've read enough of my posts to see that I acknowledge them.
Happy New Year!
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
I hear that Rush..
by dba31498
Is hitting both Huck and McCain pretty hard
Great post, but Thompson is toast.
by shooflyguy68
I completely agree with you that Thompson would make a fantastic President and that his positions and policy proposals are all solidly Conservative. Unfortunately, all of those great ideas, solid credentials and relevant experienced come wrapped in the dull Fred Thompson packaging. He has not connected with the people who have seen him the most - the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. He's likely to finish behind a man who hasn't campaigned in Iowa (McCain) and a man whose name we can't even mention here (HWSNBN). I expect Fred to drop out right after New Hampshire and endorse McCain who will then go on to win the nomination and have the best chance to defeat the Dem nominee. Any of the others would be almost certain losers in November.
These are good points
by Adgedomin
I think most of us here would love for Fred to get the nomination and the presidency, but I am afraid he won't be able to pick up enough steam. I live in Iowa and will be caucusing for him tomorrow night, but I don't think there are many people in Iowa who know much about him, except that he is the guy from Law and Order. I have seen tons of Romney ads and signs in my area and I can only remember seeing one TV ad and no signs for Fred(I have one). If Fred cannot get the nomination I think our best bet is a McCain nomination. He is probably the only candidate who can win in November.
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George S. Patton
I don't disagree with most of this.
by Mark I
While I think Sen. Thompson has connected with voters, I don't disagree that his campaign needs a small miracle to overcome his standing in the polls in Iowa. I have a gut feeling that he will do better than expected and be in the race at least through Florida.
That said, even if his campaign is toast, supporting him is not a lost exercise. Campaigns are about ideas, and by supporting Thompson, I am seeking to advance the ideas as much if not more than the man.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
I won't be sad if Fred gets nominated
by Charles Bird
I'd like to see strong showings in Iowa and NH, but I don't think they're gonna happen.
Bob Novak Prediction For Iowa
by debbie0040
1st Place: Mitt Romney
2nd Place: Mike Huckabee
3rd Place: Fred Thompson
4th Place: John McCain
Interesting Email Going Around
by debbie0040
It was sent to me by a Christian Activist, not a Ron Paul supporter.
Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet
h ttp://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/840.html
Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet
Mike Huckabee recently named Richard Haas (the President of the CFR) as his advisor on foreign policy. CNN's WOLF BLITZER asked "Who are your principal foreign policy advisers, Governor?" Mike Huckabee responded: "Well, I have a number of people from whom I get policy. I'm talking to Frank Gaffney, I talk to Richard Haas.."
So what does Richard Haas believe in? Here's an article below which was written by Haas for the Tapei Times. It basically states the Bill of Rights and Constitution should be given up in favor of a cooperative world body run by elite consensus. Who needs individual rights in the techno-futuristic world police state? And you thought liberty was in jeopardy now? Just wait till you see what your children will have to deal with. Get activated folks, These police state freaks want to shape your future into a control grid enforced through the fear based reaction to state sponsored false flag terror.
Deliberately break the link: we don't give people like that the traffic*.
Thank you in advance.
Moe
*You will note that I am operating under the assumption that you do not endorse the opinions found there. Making me conclude otherwise is contraindicated.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
There is enough legit reasons to oppose Huckabee, using such a link is not one of them. I believe many bad things about Huck, this is going over the top.
It was an email I received...
by debbie0040
Huckabee portrays himself as an outsider and not part of the establishment, yet one of his foreign policy advisors is part of the establishment. (CFR) This is another instance of where Huckabee's words do not match up to his actions..
The fact Christians activists are sending this email out is an indication that Huckabee does not have the lock on the Christian conservative vote he thought he did. The email will cause evangelicals to think because of what the Bible says about the end of times and the one world government...
Just Thought It was an Interesting Email
by debbie0040
It appears that there are holes in Huckabee's support among Christians.
I don't believe in all the conspracy theories...
Senator Thompson is the only true conservative
by SheetAnchor
Indeed Senator Thompson is the only true conservative in the Republican primary race. He is the only candidate capable of uniting the party's three pillars, specifically, fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious/social conservatives, as explained in an earlier comment on Red State, and here:
http://sheetanchor.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/the-best-republican-presiden...
I Like Fred But....
by IMWITHMCCAIN
He has less of a chance of winning than Ron Paul. His campaign has no momentum, sorry. My guess is that he got into this race because he saw his friend McCain having a tough time in the summer, but now that McCain is surging Fred's campaign looks dead. I hate to say this to the Fred supporters, but after New Hampshire, I'm sure Fred will sign on with the McCain team. He'd make a good VP for McCain!!!
IMWITHMCCAIN
Anyone Fred chooses is good for me. Even McC. n/t
by redneck hippie
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
but what the heck -- I have never been known for being tactful
Yes -- Fred Thompson will make a great Vice President for Mccain. We know that McCain/Thompson would beat the pants off of anything the Dems send our way.
And provided McCain leaves office after the fence is built but before he could champion another amnesty bill.
So Amen, RIP President McCain.
Bravo President Thompson -- 10 great years of Fred Thompson as President and we could have this country turned around and back onto a track of prosperity and security beyond our wildest dreams.
Apology
by JTaylor
I read your post wrong.
I guess I am so stuck in a groove of supporting Fred Thompson for President that I am starting to have knee jerk reactions to the other candidates.
FRED08.Com
McCain Will Not Win the Nomination
by debbie0040
This is one Fred supporter that would only support McCain if the only alternative was Huckabee.
McCain's support of amnesty for illegals and his vote against the Bush tax cuts will come back to haunt him...
Fred is not out and it is foolish to count him out at this time
True Conservative
by redneck hippie
I believe we will be hearing supportive things from Rush in the future. He was vague today about the candidates, but while he was trashing Huckabee and McCain, he also clearly stated two principles:
1) He cannot support national healthcare.
2) The president can do only two things to eliminate abortion, a) nominate judges, and b) work to change hearts and minds.
This is to me as much as an endorsement of Fred. Nothing he has said today leads me to think otherwise. We shall see.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Wait
by David Ribeirao
are you saying that Rush Limbaugh doesn't support healthcare reform? What did he mean by "national healthcare"? I think he was probably talking about single payor.
I don't see how you could possibly interpret that as an endorsement of Fred - give it up, he hasn't and he won't.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
No, he did not say healthcare reform.
by redneck hippie
If anyone has the transcript available, maybe they can tell exactly what Rush said. I interpreted his statement as "national healthcare." If I'm wrong, I will stand corrected.
I have no problem with healthcare reform. It's nationalizing healthcare that I'm leery of.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Fred for President NOW
by jftous13
I am very glad that a few of the commentors above stayed on subject relating to the fine and well written article. Surely did have to wade through a bunch of less than interesting muck to reach the bottom.....some was pretty BORING and OLD.
GO FRED-- You ARE the only VERY BEST in all areas and subjects!!
Well I'm a FredHead with both money and mouth
by Mike Dugas
But to be truly honest, as far as conservatism goes, if he had a lick of a chance I'd vote for Duncan Hunter. He is truly a conservative.
I heard Rush today
by the struggler
I heard Rush today Redneck.Your interpretation is right.
Also heard hour 2 of Rush today
by GregInFla
Caught it on Louisville KY radio driving south. It sounded so much like Rush wanted to support Fred openly, but just could not get the words out, when responding to a Huckabee supporter from Grand Rapids, Mich.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --
Great post, Mark I
by LDahl752
You are totally correct. Nice to see a really clear thinker here. Fred is certainly the one we need. McCain makes me nervous; because, he is just too much a part of the way things seem to get done in the Senate these days -- don't forget the "Gang of 14." Bipartisanship may have been okay several years ago; but, the way the Dem's have behaved for the past several years, why bother? They're all about obstructing, not doing. Has anyone heard McCain standing with Tom Coburn? It seems Coburn is nearly always alone in his efforts to shine bright lights on pork. Why don't the Republicans stick together? With all of McCain's years in the Senate and his "leadership," shouldn't we see more of him sticking to conservative principles and less back-scratching of the Dem's? 95% of Congress makes me ill. I just don't see McCain as any sort of hero in his office. POW, yes. Effective Senator, not really.
Linda D, Henderson NV
I refuse to make a decision
by TexasLady
about who I will vote for besides Fred becaue Fred is not out of this race. No one has voted yet and Iowa is the first state to vote.
Mark I., your article/blog was spot on. What you wrote about Fred is exactly why the FredHeads support Fred.
All of the other candidates make me nervous except Duncan Hunter. I do not want a President who is conservative one day and liberal the next based on who needs to be pleased on that particular day. I am not going to attack any other candidate because I can't stand it when Fred is attacked, especially when it is by people who haven't done their research about him.
Mark I, thanks again for the article and thanks for your support of Fred.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Great Post... Thanks!! n/t
by iamcool388I was there
by Mud GuruNo, but there are enthusiast support sites.
by jonlesterNot everyone who thinks
by yolepierdomiamorPulling a Kowalski...
by aceintxI can see a whole line of these nt
by dglennP.S. here is what we are exporting
by JoliphantCED was just strange
by JoliphantThank You so much! I want
by dld1717If true, that would be a serious heresy
by civil truth& the Cries of Unity
by Whitehorse5*5*5*5*5*5*5 nt
by aceintxAs a Southern Baptist, the
by Kev85Come to think of it,
by jonlesterWe need a new Jesse Helms.
by Nobama
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
I very much appreciate this article and I support your choice in candidates. Senator Thompson is the best choice!