Well, that was a kick in the teeth
By Neil Stevens Posted in Activism | Fred Thompson | Republicans — Comments (169) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Boy, it was a rough night for us fans of Fred Thompson. So many of us had so many hopes wrapped up in him. He seemed a rare and special candidate; he was a conservative's conservative. Mix equal parts Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, and you get Fred Thompson, ready to swoop in and carry us all to victory in November.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the inauguration: the party was not there for us. We thought that everything would pull together since Thompson represented the ideals of two of the most admired Republicans of the 20th century, but he was not even close. Where we thought the party should be is decidedly not where it is.
And worse than that is that a dream many of us have had even before Fred Thompson was drafted for President, has failed. Republican Conservative mythology centers on the great conservative captivating the party with his ideas, taking the nomination, and leading the country with him. We talk about Goldwater, we talk about Reagan, and we sigh wistfully. But we now see that in at least three tries, we have only actually taken the Presidency once. Our plan just will not work.
So what do we do about it? We could quit. We could decide that caring about politics just is not worth this. But, I have to assume anyone who quit will not be reading this, so that option will not be discussed further. So we have to act, but what can we do?
Read on...
So what do we do? How do we nudge our national coalition party back in our direction? I propose that we try a new form of Republican activism, and that Red State 3 will be the tool to help us get it done.
Well, there is always the Markos Moulitsas/Vis Numar approach. We can try to 'crash the gates,' and try to force a top-down change in the Republican Party structure. But does that work? Well, post after post by Moe on Red State's front page would suggest that no, it does not.
Besides, we already have an expert on the national party telling us just the opposite. Haley Barbour believes the whole party needs to go toward a bottom-up approach, and I think most conservatives were content with the party back when he held the levers of power. His Governorship seems to be a positive force for his state as well.
So what I hope, and what I have been so excited for since first discussing Red State 3 with Erick, is that we at Red State will gather together and engage our community in our party at the state and local level, using the coming new State sections of the site to get informed and focused. Only by engaging and taking roles in the party locally can people like us take hold of this large party, and throw our weight in it to guide it closer to the direction we want.
Why is it that conservatives have complained about "the establishment" continuously since Goldwater and Reagan were so despised by that establishment? I say enough is enough. We have failed to beat the establishment, so now it is time to join it, and in doing so alter it.
I of course have no illusions that a sudden influx of a few conservatives on the Internet will change this whole national coalition party into The Conservative Party. That can never happen, because there are not enough conservatives to win a national election. Conservatives need to cooperate with classical liberals, neocons, budget hawks, pro-growth activists, anti-abortion activists, defense hawks, and all the other factions who make up our party. That means having humility and a good spirit. No chest-pounding about who's the True Republican and who's the RiNO. It means hard work and persistent commitment to building the Republican party.
We can also help candidates for office at the state and local level. The more conservatives we elect at the bottom, the more will move up to higher office, and the bigger the conservative bench will be when the time comes to pick candidates for Governor, Senator, and even President.
We can do this, and the time to start is now. I am just pleased I can help Red State help our community get involved. The fun begins very soon, as Red State 3 is coming thanks in part to all our wonderful donors. Thank you to all who have given to that effort.
the ship of federalism has sailed
we might be able to stop centralization from continuing, but we're unlikely to restore the federalist system.
trying to be realistic, not pessimistic.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
or possibly 1949 with the national security act.
But essentially correct.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
the beginnings of a restoration of federalism. after all, if we get an originalist majority on the court (esp. if it's a 6-justice majority), then a lot could happen to allow federalism to return.
of course, the states would have to fight off the gross impositions of congress, too
but i still feel as if there's a slight chance
or am i just fooling myself to make myself feel better?
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
global commerce and that most people are engaged in same, federalism is and of necessity must be, dead. But as to social issues like education, social morays, etc, happiness pursuit maximization depends on federalism. And with Alito we have made a great start. One more originailist and we are there. And this is an issue that we could get libs to agree on, as they would be able to set the policies in their neighborhoods as well.
Moreover, as we saw with Miers, the conservatives in the beltway have the Bork bench they they will insist a GOP President choose from, and we can make McCain pick from this bench just like we did Bush.
We must insist that the President not compromise on this. We must take this issue to the people to take on the DEM majority, if it still rules the senate.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
thanks for the thoughts
glad i'm not just deluding myself...
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
will balk at taxes and light bulbs based on Gorescience. We can jam the phones. In fact, we need to do this now on the energy bill that Bush caved on.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I'm ready. Just let us know how we can help.
I just hope tonight's front page isn't an indicator of what I'll see there.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
but I had no illusions. You have a sitting Senator, an international celebrity, and a multimillionaire in the race. The sitting Senator can call on almost all of the Party organization and officeholders just because he is a sitting Senator. The multi-millionaire can call on whatever he wants. The celebrity just IS. Huckabee is just doing a Zell Miller imitation; he's really a Southern Democrat, but since The South has gone R, for the moment anyway, he dresses it all up in R clothing. It will be the political equivalent of the Miracle on Ice if he gets out of The South. We'll see about Giuliani; maybe he's right with his big and pivotal states strategy. There's a lot of sense in not subjecting yourself to the wierdness inherent in kowtowing to the early, small, and in some instances wierd states.
I hope FDT stays in a while longer, but even if he doesn't, he has performed a valuable service; he has forced the others to guard their right. Do you think for a minute that McCain, Guiliani, Romney, or Huckabee would have moved away from some of their more leftward positions if there were not a threat on their right.
Sometimes when you're a good Party Man and Patriot, you run for an office that you don't really want and don't really think you can win. You do it because you know that your presence in the race shapes the ground on which the others must run as well. Whether he drops out tomorrow or stays in through a brokered convention, FDT shaped the ground, and for that we all owe him.
In Vino Veritas
in:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjYxY2IxZTRjNDg0YTU2YzZhO...
excerpt:
Even If He's Blah Tonight, Why Should Fred Drop Out?
The gang on CNN, including Bill Bennett, is talking about Thompson as if his campaign is over.
I realize I've been Mr. Don't-Get-Your-Hopes-Up-Fredheads lately, but even with a mediocre performance tonight, there's no reason for Fred Thompson to leave the race. He's apparently put more effort into Louisiana than the other candidates (they vote Tuesday), and there's a bunch of deep red states he can fight in on Super Duper Tuesday, including his home state of Tennessee.
If there were a clear frontrunner, and this thing was all over, I could see it. But if he really finds some of his other rivals as not-conservatives who are unacceptable to carry the Republican mantle, why not stay in this thing until the end, collect as many delegates as he can, and at the very least, throw them to the one he finds most acceptable at the GOP convention?
01/19 07:40 PM
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Stay in the race, influence it and if he can throw his delegates to the most conservative of the bunch and help him win - that's the ticket.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
They were all moving to the right to start off with. Its not Thompson who makes it advantageous for candidates to move to the right, its the voters.
The new Republican Party seems to be a copy of the Democratic Party with some pro-life aspects and a head-out-of-sand foreign policy (except for Saudi Arabia). Kind of like Joe Lieberman before he gave up his pro-life stance to run for Vice President. Of course, if Romney or Huckabee win, it looks like we'll have to settle for the pro-life part.
My suggextion is to vote for the democrat. I don't want my party taken down by McCain, or Huck's fake conservativism. Let the real fakes take the hit with their policies and wait for our conservative to surface in (I hope) '12.
Rudy is not included in this list because he gets a pass on terrorism, my #1 issue.
I still feel we have a prayer with Fred. Small, but a slight chance something happens. Just call me a dreamer, and a potential dem voter for the first time EVER,
I've never voted Democrat in my life*, and I'm sure not starting now. I can't even imagine that.
* I do understand why some here have, because a Democrat in, say, Georgia is not the same as a Democrat in California.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I used to hang around polipundit...then one of their front pagers started trashing the war that I was currently in. So I slid over here to Redstate. Been here about a year.
The biggest let down of the night, was the glee of a good number of people here over the poor performance of Fred Thompson. Particularly since these people are cheering the loss of conservativism. Based on the stuff I've been seeing here tonight, I don't feel all that welcome anymore. I suppose that is appropriate.
For now...
Roger. Out.
I hope you'll stay. A few have been sharpening their knives, eagerly waiting for FDT to drop out. But I think the vast majority here at least had mildly warm feelings for the man and his policies, if not for the way his campaign was run.
Neil, I'm afraid your post is about the only one on the front page that sounded like anything other than "it's about time Fred dropped out." Frankly, most of the others sounded like they were annoyed he'd even gotten into the race.
As a strong Fred supporter, by the way, I'd like to thank you for your comments. I'm not ready to say we're done, yet, but I do appreciate what you've said.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
whose original mission statement called for the advancement of conservative principles through the election of Conservative Republicans to public office.
Maybe we'll have better luck with Redstate 3.0, because it appears that Redstate 2.0 has succumbed to diversity and lost its way.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Because I'm going to start playing one for every poor FredHead who manages to have the... ahem... intestinal fortitude... to claim that RedState is or has been some sort of anti-Fred site. I'd think it was sarcasm except that I think it's impossible for so many people to be making the same bad joke at the same time.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
and I don't believe that is the case now.
The influx of new users grew at such a brisk pace that assimilation was virtually impossible.
In fact, many of the new users reject conservatism, and have no intention of working to advance conservative principles.
They simply wanted to soil our carpet.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
An objective review of RS would show that the front pager posters have drifted to the middle while RS 1.0 'mutated' to RS 2.0. I'm not looking forward to RS 3.0.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
picked up by NRO, Crosswalk, and Cybercast News this week, the powers that be, knowing that my legal work is basically automated, will soon be making me CEO and paying me a huge salary, so, hang on.
Be back in a minute, Free Republic is calling me again with another offer...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
...even if you write features for them. Sad fact I've experienced personally.
Stick to the lawyering day job to pay the bills, and keep up the excellent punditry in between depositions. That's how crank and the rest of our lawyers do it, and I suspect they're better off for it :-)
smile
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Most are just caught in the emotion of people and positions they support. If you've been around government for a while, you learn not to get to attached to a position because you're not going to be in it long. You also learn that the one thing you can count on about politicians is that you can't count on them.
These are the tears of the cheerleaders, not the players; they live in a different world. Don't take the harsh words and ill-considered thoughts too seriously, and come back in a day or two.
In Vino Veritas
or the silly classless things people say when pimping their guy and anti-pimping the others.
While Fred is not my guy, I always take what YOU say seriously. Stay.
The Gipper is rolling over in his grave. Can you say President Clinton? Get use to it!
McCain thinks he’s called the sheriff. Wonder what Teddy calls him? I call him co-conspirator.
I'm so down right now that depressed doesn't even start to cover it. This is the first time in my adult life there's been a candidate who put forth a message I fully believed in and that message has been shot down by...I just don't have the energy to gripe.
My soul hurts. That's the only way I know how to put it.
I was looking forward to being able to proudly vote for Fred but I suppose it's comforting to know that by the time the primaries get around to Texas it won't matter one way or the other. There's something to be said for familiarity I guess.
I like what you wrote here. I hope I don't sound otherwise.
I don't think conservativism, republicans, or the electorate failed here.
Fred Thompson failed. He failed me. He was not the perfect conservative candidate. He was merely the perfect conservative.
Politics is. In four years Fred, who is plenty young for his age, can be the perfect conservative candidate. This is what I was talking about in my McCain blog comments section.
We need a cleaner Washington, an electorate with more confidence, and some of the big issues that languish unresolved to finally get resolved, like border security. We can get those things done with a candidate who has a winning campaign.
You can't have the dream team every election. I knew last week that this wasn't the year for implementing the dream. You know what they say: It's a rebuilding year.
People want conservativism, but the conservative candidate needs the right environment to get elected. This wasn't it.
Yes, I agree activism is necessary. Yes I think working to put new people in office will be a good thing. But the national election is so much bigger than that.
It isn't a lack of conservatives that turned this election. It was the lack of a conservative campaign. I've seen people here for months snipe about "oh so you want style over substance?" Well no, people, I want both.
But style plus some substance will beat all substance and no style every time. It's time to end the denial about what was wrong with Fred. His campaign was lackluster. The facts are in, there's just no question anymore.
If the best conservative is lackluster next time around, all the new faces and fresh hope and idealism sprinkled through the party won't make a hill of beans.
Fred could have done this. He didn't.
So while we are all getting ready to change the party, I think there are some of us that need to look at ourselves. If we aren't willing to play ball, then we aren't getting on the field. You have to have a good campaign to get elected. We can curse it, but it's true anyway.
Hope it doesn't sound like I'm shooting at your blog, I think it's great. I just think its not enough to look at the party and point a finger. There are some perceptions right here at Redstate that need adjusting as well, especially if we still want to win this election.
absentee
I'm not blaming anything. I'm just observing the fact that the party isn't where we want it to be, and addressing how we can change that.
thank you,
You do seem to think that changing the party not leaning conservative enough is the problem. It is a problem that's true. But I don't think it is the problem.
absentee
That should say, the party not leaning. Changing was going to be a different sentence.
I think people want conservative ideas. In a vacuum, one idea at a time, they sell. Not just broadly, but specifically to Republican voters. If the ideas are widely held, then the conservative wing should have the advantage. People will buy the Reagan conservative candidate. But that is a winning package. Bring them a losing package and they don't vote. I guess that's what I mean.
People out there, they yearn for a Fred Thompson platform. I really believe rounded-out conservatives are the majority.
absentee
Ask not what you can do for your candidate, but what your candidate can do for you
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Look at how candidates are changing their positions on everything. And I mean all of them (save Fred). McCain wants to build the g-d fence now. Romney wants to give money to auto workers. Huckabee wants to give money to everyone. They're all willing to say whatever they think the current audience wants to hear even if they have 100 years of history doing exactly the opposite. You call that good campaigning?
Apparently people are buying it. I just don't want to hear a bunch of, "Wow, I didn't see this coming" once they're in office.
Voters today are lazy and gullible.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Changing their plan on immigration, that's not pandering. It's just smart. We told them what we want, that's what they'll do.
But even if it was pandering this time, that doesn't mean that pandering is the only kind of good campaign that sells. History shows otherwise.
absentee
It also means that their core instincts are not conservative. And once they are in office, they will govern with their core instincts, NOT with sugar-daddy campaign promises.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Whether the immigration issue should be resolved with a border security first plan is not a core conservative issue in the first place (ask Reagan), and in the second place, observing the need to build a fence first isn't a sugar-daddy campaign promise.
I award you no points, but I do have this lovely poinsettia consolation gift.
I also never congratulated you on having three words in your username. I'm not doing it now, I'm just observing that I haven't.
absentee
that McCain isn't saying some things now to get votes that he has no intention of fulfilling once he's in office?
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Of everything he ever said so I can see if he's saying something new. But are you seriously saying that you would single out McCain among all politicians of all time if one of his campaign promises didn't come through?
We were talking about something specific. It isn't pandering, or chameleon or whatever, by any of the three candidates I mentioned to now support border security first.
We all try to convince politicians what we want them to do. When we finally convince them, we're going to turn around and point at them and call it pandering.
Seems like a bad plan if you ask me.
absentee
I don't trust McCain on border security. Yes, I believe he's pandering on this issue. I believe that because of recent statements by him (g-d fence, for one). That doesn't sound like a change of heart, that sounds like hating us for making him say he's changed.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
If the border is secured, I don't really care how happy people are about it. Personally, I think it's silly to think any of our candidates don't want a secure border.
absentee
of consistent votes on this issue doesn't convince you?
I honestly don't know what else to say.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
He's voted both for and against border security bills.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Umm, do you think if Reagan had done border security instead of amnesty version 1.0, we'd have 20 million illegals today?
BTW, I never congratulated you for having an uncapitalized username. I'm not doing it now, just observing that I haven't.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
That's not the point at all. You said it was a core conservative issue. It isn't. It's merely a policy with a number of logical solutions, with all of our top five candidates supporting the extremely logical idea of security first.
I just don't see how it's pandering.
And also, I never thanked you for not congratulating me on my username, and I never said you're welcome for you not thanking me for not congratulating you about your username. However, I will thank you for not thanking me for not saying you're welcome to your non-thanks for my failure to congratulate you about the excellent quantity of words in your username. You should consider that henceforth corrected.
absentee
I believe Rudy's change over the other three.
That makes me sad.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
I've especially noticed this chameleon act by Huckabee and McCain. When TV reporters play a tape of something that contradicts what they just said and ask them if they want to retract they don't retract. They can write one thing on their website and say the contradiction on the air and get away with it. I guess they figure people are lazy with short memories.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
if he said flat out "i was wrong"?
serious question - not rhetorical.
pres. bush never says flat out "i was wrong", either. he just improves his position and runs with it.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He's the last one I'd ever expect that from. I'd faint if he ever did it.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Rudy says look some things you disagree with me, but you agree with me on a lot more. I believe that a lot more than i believe McCain and Huckabee have completely changed their positions.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
i've gone back and forth on the question myself
i can't decide whether mccain's saying "i was mistaken" would make him more trustworthy or make him look weak
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
McCain-Feingold. Heck, maybe that was part of his poor campaigning.
I, for one, appreciated the honesty.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
as late as the middle of last year, he was still defending the bill (i'm thinking of his human events article on the subject).
when (approximately, if you don't know exactly) did he say that?
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He said that about two parts of the bill.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
parts haven't worked out
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He still thought parts were good, but admitted some was a mistake (my word).
BTW, I don't. I think they whole thing was a screwup.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
made up my mind about it
i know it's important, but there's a lot to keep up on, and i've never gotten around to examining that one closely...
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He came off looking good, thoughtful. It was a good move on his part. He was able to repudiate what happened without contradicting his original intent. They wanted to clean up corruption, they did it wrong. I thought it worked for him.
absentee
He will not say he was wrong because he doesn't believe himself to be wrong.
You can see it, sense it, and just know it from what he says. He'll throw out the "we have to secure the border first" and then immediately jumps away stating his position wasn't wrong in the first place.
Huckabee did it on CNN yesterday saying that the US Constitution is a living breathing document, and his website states that he is opposed to the idea of a living constitution.
McCain said that he never proposed amnesty, and then they played a tape where he was speaking about amnesty.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I guess I can look them up, but since I wasn't the one making the accusation, I guess I just presumed you might have them handy.
absentee
see the discussion in RedHot by our valorous editors
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
make law like the libs do.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The Great Communicator 2.0™ says something that is misinterpreted and we're just supposed to give him a rider on it.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
but in this case, it really was trumped up
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
-- 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 --
I honestly think his best chance is being VP for John McCain. It's not totally wishful thinking on my part. They are good friends, and they've avoiding burning one another down.
absentee
Part of the reason Fred is where he is today is the fact that he was unwilling to take on McCain for his liberalism. If he in fact does drop out and endorse McCain it will make him a fraud in my eyes. I don't care if he's friends with McCain, if FDT is really the solid conservative he cannot support a lib like McCain.
He would make a logical VP choice for Romney or Rudy, and I'd hope for that.
So my bet is that he does not endorse anyone. That would make it about him. If he had supported another candidate, he would not have gotten into the race to begin with. He has his principles, and they are mine too.
-- 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 in Florida--
I think there's a far more important fact that gets ignored: imagine if Huckabee had not entered the race. Fred (with the National Right to Life endorsement) gets lots more evangelicals in Iowa and his policies plus Southern charm easily carries SC. See my blog entry for the full argument.
hard to call that an achievement... especially since he made SC his big stand and went after Huck relentlessly.
Huck is a no name governor from a no name state who rose up to the top tier.
Fred had celebrity, momentum, and the MSM aching for him to enter, and he fizzled.
What if history could work anywhere. For example, what if Thompson decided to stay on Law and Order? Huck's wins in Iowa and SC would have been much bigger.
Which he hasn't done yet, although he probably will. However, be that as it may, why should he try again? He gave the people what they said they wanted but the reality of what they wanted didn't match what they said. It's not about when he got in. It's about the glitz and the glamour. The people told Fred they didn't want what they said they wanted, after all. What would be the point of subjecting oneself to this again? He said it in his speech last night: It was never about him but about the country. He was rejected for the very principles that everyone said they wanted. Given the speeded up nature of this world, what makes you think there will be a chance for anything for '12 if we continue working from the top down?
He wasn't prepared to be President when first asked whereas the others had taken years to prepare for campaigning for President. He didn't ask for the job and he was in the middle of obligations he needed to fulfill. He gave up a lot to do what people asked and then because he didn't do it to their timetable they faulted him for the very reason they wanted him to run... he would fulfill his obligations, first and foremost.
We are just as guilty because, like petulant children, we want everything on demand when sometimes that's just not possible. That's what killed Fred's campaign as much as any missteps with the campaign itself.
Right or wrong, that's the way the world is. Neil's right. If we truly want change back to first principles, the only place to start is at the bottom and work our way up. I don't know if even that will work but it's certainly worth a try.
I know there is a lot of disapointment right now in the failed campaign of FDT. Thompson is a good man, a thoughtful man, and would make a great president. But the problem is he is a terrible campaigner, and even worse political strategist. And part of the American process requires you to do both well.
I don't think what has happened to him is really a reflection on the movement or the party. It's really a reflection of his faliure as a candidate. If had taken the game more seriously and campaigned harder, and smarter, he could have won this race. By running such a dysmal effort in Iowa he allowed the Huckster phemon to take hold. (some really poor debate efforts hurt this too) Once Huck usurped him as the southern conservative candidate it was game over. Now of course FDT is more conservative than Huck but perception matters and Huck ran a better campaign.
Besides I think people need to realize that if he preformed this poorly before a primary audience of sympathic conservatives he'd really strugle to gain independents in a general.
This may seem counter-conservative, but I think one thing that would definitely increase the conservative roles is ensuring every American pays some taxes. I think a 2 to 3 percent federal sales tax coupled to a mandatory reciprocal reduction of 2 to 3 percent income tax for those who actually pay taxes would go a long way to making fiscal responsibility prima facie to even the most governmentally dependent dead beat. When we get the welfare mothers to question the necessity of lib project X, and "can't we do without this", we'll start winning converts. Until all people are made to feel ownership in paying for our government spending, nothing will change. I'm tired of seeing conservatives and conservatives dragged through the mud.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
call that conservatives of all stripes should continue to influence the party and the process. I for one don't think the party has changed all that much; the number of candidates this primary season has caused the results to look different is all. If it were a two man race McCain would have gotten smashed in SC. The demise of Fred is not the problem, however it is indicative of a long seated problem in the party that I find it hard to believe so many are just now noticing.
Generalizing the failure of one man in one election cycle to the failure of a movement is sheer nonsense. Fred Thompson has not accomplished one tenth of what Ronald Reagan built over decades of work to establish a credible national presence from clear and consistent positions that were ridiculed by the mainstream media all through Reagan's eventual victory and beyond.
Fred needed to better than this in South Carolina. I've been a FredHead for a long time, but this is enough for me. John McCain is tough on the war and tough on spending. That's good enough for me.
Visit The Scratching Post!
he decides. I am a loyal guy and I see Fred's cause as the same cause I chose when I converted to the GOP after 18 yrs an activist Dem in 2000-1 due to the success and truth of conservative principles and the need to preserve the judeo-christian principles that built this country.
I suspect Fred will drop out. But he hasn't. I am a patient man. And I think that when we back a man in a cause such as this, one must affirm those principles by backing them with good character which includes respect for the leader.
Fred can win TN on 2/5, and lots can happen between now and then. Fred went from 0 to 3rd in Iowa and went to a higher % of the vote in SC.
I'm still for Fred. I am not his leader. He is mine.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Who knows, I could get to the convention. Since CO delegates aren't committed, I could do what I want once I'm there.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
I support Fred Thompson because of his principles & stances on the issues that result from those principles. I STILL believe he is the better candidate among the republicans & the primaries are for supporting whom one feels is the best candidate.
His performance last Sun night was what the GOP needed all along in these debates. Still begs the question... does he actually want the job? Unfortnuately, I think not... he was on point all night.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
I'm happy to see you're staying the course. But I'll let you know that there's a warm spot on the Straight Talk when you're ready :)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
of the so-called "nuclear" and "constitutional" options over judicial nominee filibusters now (read your column too on that, and it was well argued as well) and spent much of last evening accentuating the positives of McCain (I asked Gid to send you my love!) and trying to learn from what occurred in SC. SC is still as conservative a state and especially as republican a state as it was in 2000, and there are good repub-con reasons that McCain and Huckabee came in one, two. I'm going to write more today, but suffice to say that McCain and Huckabee are both pro-life, McCain exudes patriotism and strength on THE #1 issue a President is responsible for, ie national defense, and McCain did make a concerted effort to reconcile with Christians last year and made a lot of progress that enable him to win SC in a crowded field.
more later my friend
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
From going to his events, I will only add that he talked a lot about small government, cutting spending and regulations, etc. He did it with the passion that comes from holding Goldwater's Senate seat.
Coburn, the SC house majority leader, Phil Gramm, and Sanford (although he didn't officially endorse) are all big on those issues and they were all brought into SC for the campaign trail.
So Win the War, Cut the Pork, Stop the Spending, Appoint the Judges, Vote McCain!
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Appoint the judges that McCain helped defeat? So, how does this work? The Democrats lose the Senate and are in the minority after the 2002 elections. So, they filibuster Bush's conservative judicial nominees. The Republicans threaten to strip the Democrat minority of their filibuster capability.
McCain steps up to the plate and defends the right of Democrats to filibuster conservative judicial nominees and says he would vote against the nuclear option.
Miguel Estrada is not on the federal court of appeals today.
So, under a McCain presidency, how would McCain get people like Miguel Estrada confirmed, given that the Democrats control the US Senate?
Remember, McCain never filibustered a single Clinton judicial nominee. McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.
Is McCain just saying, "Conservative judicial nominees" to keep conservatives quiet as he sells us out once again? How do we know that we aren't being snookered by McCain and his allies?
Look, you don't trust him. That's your problem. Enjoy it.
For those who don't just blindly hate the man, they can judge the Gang of 14 on their own.
After the fact, I wrote a post the next day that predicted (correctly) that the filibuster of judges was dead for that session of Congress. President Bush got to pick his Supreme Court nominees knowing that they would not be filibustered. I don't see how Alito is nominated if that wasn't true.
There was never any certainty that the Rs had close to enough votes on the Nuclear Option. It was being used as a treat and I still believe that the bluff was just that. Relying on people like Specter to use the Nuclear Option didn't seem wise.
So McCain broke the logjam, ended the filibuster during that session of Congress, allowed President Bush to nominate any qualified judge he wanted, and helped give Roberts and Alito "moderate" cover.
But in your twisted history, since McCain voted with over 90 Senators to approve Ginsberg and Breyer, he's somehow out of step with Rs. In your twisted history it McCain was "defeating" judges.
But in his record (and unlike some Rs), he voted for Bork, for Thomas, for Roberts and for Alito. Oh, and he voted for ALL of the Bush appointees who made it to the floor.
He has a great history on judges. And much more to go on than Romney, Huck or Rudy (actually Rudy's judge record is arguably worse).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
There was never any certainty that the Rs had close to enough votes on the Nuclear Option.
Maybe if McCain had announced that he would support the nuclear option could have changed the dynamics a bit. After all, is it likely that Lindsay Graham and Michael DeWine, McCain allies, would have voted to the Left of McCain on this issue? Not likely. Once McCain, Graham and DeWine are not available to Chuck Schumer, the Democrats would have a difficult time getting 6 Republicans to defeat the nuclear option.
So McCain broke the logjam, ended the filibuster during that session of Congress, allowed President Bush to nominate any qualified judge he wanted, and helped give Roberts and Alito "moderate" cover.
Not really. That's sort of like saying that the rooster crowed and the sun rose, therefore the rooster caused the sun to rise.
In reality, the Democrats only had 45 seats at the time. This meant that they feared that the Republicans might use the nuclear option even after the Gang of 14 deal. It also meant that the Democrats would have a more difficult time getting 41 Democrats to filibuster in any case.
When you have 55 seats and the White House and the Democrats have only 45 seats, one would think that conservatives have the upper hand and don't have to allow the Democrats to decide which judicial nominees get confirmed and which don't (unless they can defeat them openly).
As for "cover," that's what McCain got. He can pretend that he is in favor of conservative judicial nominees even though he never advocated taking the Democrat judicial filibuster away when the judicial filibuster resulted in many conservative nominees not being confirmed.
It's reasonable to wonder how McCain would get a majority Democrat US Senate to confirm conservative judicial nominees.
McCain would have been a hero to conservatives if he had announced that he would vote for the nuclear option since he had never filibustered a single Clinton judicial nominee.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Until the clock or the cash runs out. Anything can happen.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
That is simply what we need to do. I'm not sure if Fred's going to pull out of the race or not - I honestly hope he doesn't, & continues to expouse conservative principles during the debates & on the trail.
I have studied politics formally & informally for a long time - haven't made any money off of it, but I enjoy it. Successful movements are not top-down - the foundation fails. Grassroots involvement & activity are the keys to the conservative movement. Take that personal inventory of your principles & stay or get active & involved.
Fred Thompson had no chance of winning and everyone knew it. The only reason Fred Thompson was in the race was to take votes away from Mike Huckabee and his noble campaign which has been base more off of heart and grass roots.
It is a shame that grass roots who gave all they could were cheated by big business millionarres.
I will never vote for Fred Thompson who said that this is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party against us social conservatives.
We wrote a petition to the GOP and fake conservatives which you can read here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-message-to-the-republican-and-conserv...
Please sign your name to it if your a social conservative who cares, and God Bless you.
The establishment is trying their best to put us in a lose or lose situation and to give in to them will only mean the end of morals and values.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Look for the SPAM near you.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
A moral man would not lie,would he?Amoral man would not make offensive jokes about serious issues would he?A moral man would not plagiarize another persons platform for the sake of obtaining something he would in no other way could have , would he? Values are admitting you are wrong,no answer at all is an admittance by fault.Values are keeping promises within an attainable achievement instead of inflating ones own ego or the hopes of those he's tryin to trick into voting for HIM!!!
It's the commitment of the benighted ideologue - anything done for the cause (in this case in the the name of Huckabee - which he keeps hinting at is Gods campaign) is justified. It's a Kossack way of thinking.
To all Fredsters sorry your are so disappointed but remember no one likes bitter losers
Another thing we can try that would probably help us to nominate more conservative candidates in the future is to overhaul the primary system, preferably to a national primary in which every state votes on the same day. As a Texan, I have felt justifiably disenfranchised in the primaries pretty much my entire adult life. The guy I really want to vote for is almost invariably out of the race by the time I vote, and I'm reduced to picking between other states' sloppy seconds. Many of the early-voting states allow Democrats and Independents to have a large role in choosing OUR candidate (and by extension eliminating some of our choices), and it's just not right.
How do we start a serious movement to change the primary system? Who, if anyone, has the authority to force all the states to have their primaries on the same day, so that no-one is disenfranchised anymore? The RNC? To whom do we write? To whom do we send petitions? Surely, after this ridiculous debacle of leapfrogging primary dates and slashed delegate counts, the powers that be would be open to overhauling the system at long last. I'm confident that if states like Texas had had a chance to choose from among ALL the candidates, without the undue influence of early-voting states (particularly ones that allow Democrats and independents to choose OUR candidate), we'd get a far stronger and more conservative candidate in the end.
The state parties decide themselves when they pick their own delegates to the RNC. The RNC can set its own rules about seating those delegates, but ultimately it's not a practical long-term strategy to deny states delegates.
We would obviously never get Iowa and New Hampshire to sit still and let the rest of us vote on the same day as them. It would take a colossal, unprecedented cooperation among the other 48 states to vow to change our dates to match Iowa's date every time they change it, no matter how ridiculously early they set it, down to the very last day. But then when the rest of the states "caught up" to them, they'd be in violation of their own state laws that require them to hold their primaries X days before everyone else. What then? Would it force a showdown between state laws in the Supreme Court? I imagine they'd rule for Iowa in that case since Iowa has precedent on its side.
Could voters in some late-voting states file a class-action lawsuit against their state election commissions, charging unconstitutional disenfranchisement or something? I don't know. I'm grasping at straws. It just seems so fundamentally WRONG the way the current primary system works. It is de facto disenfranchisement, and there must be a way to fix it.
Agreed--better than the alternative.
But I'm thinking more about this, and I'm thinking I may be onto something. I think Iowa's state law requires it to hold its caucuses X (8?) days before all other states' primaries. If that's correct, then it seems like if just one other state passes a law that says the exact same thing as Iowa's law, the two states' laws would be in direct conflict with each other and would have to be resolved in the Supreme Court. Like I said earlier, I think the SCOTUS would probably side with Iowa due to precedent, but there's a chance it would say that all such laws claiming "first" status are not allowable due to interstate conflicts. But the Constitution gives the power to run elections to the states, so I don't think the SCOTUS could call it unconstitutional. Any lawyers here who know what would happen if another state directly challenged Iowa's "first" law?
So there's just no way to fix the primary system, is what you're saying. The 99% of us who don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire just have to suck it up and continue letting these two tiny, largely unrepresentative states decide for us who we get to vote for forever? That seriously flies in the face of what I believe to be the spirit and intent of American politics. I never thought I'd say that the Constitution is seriously flawed, since I think it's pretty much the greatest political document ever written, but this is a serious flaw. I'm sure the founders never anticipated these kinds of problems when they gave the power to run elections to the states, but there you have it. I guess we need an amendment that says states can still run elections, but the primaries all have to be on the same day. I don't see that happening either, since amendments are pretty much impossible to pass anymore. But both parties might support it at this point since both parties are dealing with the leapfrogging and delegate reduction idiocy and can expect to have it happen again (but probably even worse) next cycle.
Look at the two big states that defied the parties this time around: Florida and Michigan. Those are swing states, and hardly anybody in either party wants to go and turn voters in those states against them.
like the RNC deals with some state delegations...
well, you get the picture.
Still, they have no one to blame but themselves. They could've made more stringent rules before these states decided to swing.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
I've never voted in a primary here in Texas that had any meaning whatsoever. We're one of the reddest of all red states it stinks to be treated like this, but I think maybe the reliability hurts us in this aspect because they know we're going to vote for the Republican no matter what happens in the primary.
I can't remember the last time I saw a presidential ad on TV or in the newspaper or heard one on the radio, because the Republicans and Democrats know we're in the bag.
It just kills me that I have to depend on South Carolina to fix Iowa and New Hampshire's mistakes. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be their mistake to make.
A candidate was once third going into the Republican convention, and got the nomination on the third vote.
That was Abraham Lincoln in 1860, during another key time of our nation's history.
PS: Fred, forget about Lincoln then getting assassinated 5 yrs later: only run for one term.
-- 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 --
Thompson hasn't withdrawn from his bid.Let me get this straight you want to throw in the towel on the only candidate running as a true conservative that you busted fanny on to grow your own? To restore the party to the conservative platform it once was.You watch too much MSM if you are convinced that conservatism and the Reagan coalition is dead.I read through most of these posts and I'm shocked to think how you have the nerve to say it's over before Fred does.After fighting against the media on this very subject and burning up the wires pounding out about "how dare they say he's done, it's only been yadayada primarys.Fred's the true....Fred's can whip Hillary...Fred's win ...it was all just BS is that how it is.We can't win cause the partys broken.Freds not a fireball campaigner...He shoulda done this or that...Cry me a river!Not once did you hear him complain .On the road in a bus sun up to sun down,away from his family.Remember Jeri and those two little ones? All the work,the money,effort,hours,for what? For the very thing you are so worried about saving?
What pray tell, no who,do we run for the POTUS until your new batch of Republicans is grown up and Graduated from the School of New Conservatism ? You have right in front of you a man who is everything we are looking for.He's given it all.But no not even his own supporters are willing to see him through.It takes money,people lotsa money.More Fredheads means more money.To quit is something he's never done,A Door opened and he walked through now your ready to shut it in his face.NNAAAA, not me I'm allin all the way.Go Fred
I'm with Fred as long as he'll have me, but the facts are as follows: Fred himself many times has said that South Carolina is where he makes his stand and that he needs a "strong" showing. I don't know if distant 3rd is good enough, especially when it's a distant third finishing behind the glass-jawed pro-life huge government, populist, tax raising, soft on crime and illegal immigration candidate who's apparently been endorsed by Jesus Himself.
I think the man has too much dignity to allow himself to be a sideshow like Duncan Hunter.
If I have to go somewhere I guess it's with Mitt but that's not something I'm going to worry about as I let the rest of the country make my primary decisions for me until it's my turn to pick through the leftovers.
I know this may be unpopular on this page, but here goes. I am switching parties this year from Democrat to Republican for one main reason, the economy and taxes (plus I'm now approaching 40 -all grown up). I believe that neither democratic candidate would not be fiscally responsible. They would likely drive the US economy into a horrible, drawn out recession with their policies, particularly since Republicans are unlikely to secure the House or Senate in 08 (The Senate has 34 seats up for grabs, 22 of which are Republican).
Although I agree with Romney the most fiscally, I believe McCain has the better chance of grabbing more independent votes in a face off with the Democrats. I would support Romney if he was the nominee, but I just don't see the majority of Americans voting for him in a general election. I believe he would do very poorly in the south (demonstrated tonight), and many Republicans would tend to not participate.
For the sake of the country, I would much prefer a fiscally responsible Republican in office (McCain) than a democrat. Should McCain capture the nomination, I believe the anti-McCain rhetoric on this and other conservative news sources only plays into the Democrats hands. I know many are upset about the choices, but I believe conservatives should take a deep breath, step back, and picture a "what if" scenario should a Democrat be elected.
On the other hand, should McCain win vs a Democrat, I believe this is an opportunity to win over new, independent voters to the Republican party for this and future elections.
Please try to remain positive. ANY Republican, including McCain, would be better than a Democrat. Please think of the alternative, and think of what's best for our economy and our country.
Welcome to the Republican Party.
As disappointed as I am with the way things are going at the moment, I believe the single biggest issue in any election is the USSC appointments that come out of it. And the idea of any of the leading Dems being in charge of the country is downright scary. People that think things couldn't be worse generally haven't lived long enough.
I know Ron Paul's candidacy is much-maligned on this site (and in most of the mainstream GOP), but his (small-l) libertarian cronies MUST be embraced. 9/11 Truthers aside (who ARE NOT even close to the bulk of his supporters), he espouses many small gov't principles that would make Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman, George Will, and Thomas Sowell proud.
Since I'll be deployed to the Middle East (probably Iraq) when the general election goes down, Iraq and Afghanistan are my #1 issues. Hence, I will go against some of my deeply held reservations (McCain-Feingold, Rudy's 2nd Ammendment Record, Romney's quasi-Socialist Mass healthcare plan) to not only vote for *almost any* GOP nominee in the general election (save Huckabee), but I do support McCain big-time. Call me a misguided veteran or some one who believes the MSM, but no one appears more equipped to continue (and improve) or tactics in the GWOT, and almost as important, reign in ridiculous gov't spending. Some of my libertarian friends would be highly appalled. So be it...
Fred would've been fantastic... but, he never looked like he was into it. Defeat Huckabee, then defeat socialism (and Al Qaeda subsidiaries).
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
I know Ron Paul's candidacy is much-maligned on this site (and in most of the mainstream GOP), but his (small-l) libertarian cronies MUST be embraced. 9/11 Truthers aside (who ARE NOT even close to the bulk of his supporters), he espouses many small gov't principles that would make Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman, George Will, and Thomas Sowell proud.
Since I'll be deployed to the Middle East (probably Iraq) when the general election goes down, Iraq and Afghanistan are my #1 issues. Hence, I will go against some of my deeply held reservations (McCain-Feingold, Rudy's 2nd Ammendment Record, Romney's quasi-Socialist Mass healthcare plan) to not only vote for *almost any* GOP nominee in the general election (save Huckabee), but I do support McCain big-time. Call me a misguided veteran or someone who believes the MSM, but no one appears more equipped to continue (and improve) on tactics in the GWOT, and almost as important, reign in ridiculous gov't spending. Some of my libertarian friends would be highly appalled. So be it...
Fred would've been fantastic... but, he never looked like he was into it. Defeat Huckabee, then defeat socialism (and Al Qaeda subsidiaries).
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
In fact, a few hours later, I'm still pretty much in the same headspace I was when it became clear Fred would finish no better than a weak third: the Republican Party is dead to me for at least the next four years.
Who says we all have to decide on a candidate now? It's not even the end of January--the convention is in September.
Let them compete. Let them fight for donations. Let them debate.
The MSM wants the decision now so that our enthusiasm will die. The money will dry up because there will be no excitement. Then, the liberals will win.
Go on. Fight. We will circle the wagons and fight to the end.
Mitt to me is a close second to Fred.
Yes, I've heard all the reasons why I shouldn't like him, but at least he is CURRENTLY espousing the tenets of conservatism which puts him ahead of the other three in my book.
Perhaps the recipe for me when next month rolls around will be to send Redstate $50 and Mitt $50.
Let's hope I don't have to drop down to option 3 (rudy), option 4 (mccain), or option 5 (huckabee).
My fear is that we're currently seeing the GOP split into three phases: 1) Anybody but Huckabee (voting for McCain) 2) Anybody but McCain (voting for Huckabee) and 3) the rest of us.
To do this "project" how do we outwit the MSM? The real power in this country is the MSM and has been for more than a century. This is where we need another Reagan, he outwitted them all the time, sometimes without their ever realizing it.
There are some who can fulfill the conservative part but the MSM is the real hurdle.
And just so I'm sure you realize it, the MSM hates us bloggers, too. We muddy the waters and make them have to work harder.
In order to beat the mainstream press we first need the party with us. So let's worry about shifting the party our way, then the party as a team can worry about the press.
here in Florida and most if not all other states. We can still vote for him.
-- 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 --
------------
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Fred fought them. Not hard, but he wouldn't kiss their behinds and play their little games, and he pointed out their bias. They retaliated by either not showing him at all (creating the "Fred's not campaigning like the others; Fred doesn't really want it" meme when in fact he had visited almost 20 states in less than three months before he even got started in Iowa and SC), by pulling their reporters from his campaign, by leaving him out of their polls, or by talking about him ONLY in the context of his lack of fire, his laziness, etc. It was infuriating. I really wish Fred had hired an amazing PR person who could have overcome that crap.
Which confuses me. I thought the bulk of Republican voters distrust the MSM. Or is it just us in the blogosphere?
Sometimes I forget how tiny a minority we in the conservative blogosphere really are. This primary season is reminding me, though.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The press is the press and its been the same for going on eighty years now. If Fred didn't want to work with the press why did he get in the race ? If he didn't understand that this was part of what HE WOULD HAVE TO DO TO WIN why all the hoopla for someone that was deluded ?
As to his hiring a PR person, it all starts and ends with the candidate. There is only so much that can be done.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I have no problem with that. I understand that's how it works. The MSM followers are getting what they want. And the MSM is getting what it wants too. It's a match made in Hollywood.
I also agree Fredheads shouldn't complain about the media. Fred chose his strategy, and so far it hasn't worked out as well as he'd hoped. Sometimes your gamble doesn't pay off.
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Most people really don't have a choice on how they get their news. Its up to conservatives to change that. As things currently stand the body politic has no contact with reality.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
knows that if you don't utilize the press (even a hostile press), you allow them to define you. Fred should know better. Not the PR guys fault.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I think this might be a sign that the Republicans can't just win by having a "real conservative" candidate, as has been the conventional wisdom. After 2006, as well as after most other recent Republican setbacks, many people on this site and in the Republican Party said that the party needed to be more conservative/get back to its conservative roots/etc. This is the opposite of what normally happens, when a party thinks that its message is not working and needs to be moderated. This feeling was especially prevalent after 2004, when people said evangelical voters would dominate forever. But the general idea on the right for years is that conservatives simply need to pick a good enough conservative and everything will almost automatically fall into place.
I think this has always been overstated. It is true that more people consider themselves conservative than liberal in this country, but I think part of that gap is people not liking the term liberal, as people agree with the more liberal position on a lot of issues. In addition, 2004 may have been a victory for the Republicans, but it was the smallest reelection for an incumbent in history (I think), which is not really domination. And in 2006 the Democrats got a higher portion of the votes for the House of Reps than either party had since the 1980s, with 53 or 54. In comparison, in 1994 Republicans got 49.9 percent.
My point is, I dont think conservatives will be put on a pedestal as the true path to success anymore. In the Democratic Party, a number of interests and constituencies vie for influence and a say in picking the candidates. In the Republican Party, the conservative base reigns supreme, but that will change. The Republican Party will turn into Evangelicals, Neocons, corporate types, libertarians, etc. all vying for a piece of the action rather than a unified front of conservative Republicans. This will mean that a) the path to success for Republicans is not just picking a "true conservative," b) conservatives are not an all-powerful voting bloc to end all voting blocs, c) the whole Republicans-lost-so-need-to-return-to-their-roots thing will not work, as sometimes the answer for them will be to become more moderate, d) conservative Republicans will have to compromise a bunch, same way liberal Democrats do (for example, not caring that Ben Nelson is so conservative - he is like Lincoln Chaffee was to Republicans, but if you go on Daily Kos you will not see many people criticizing him, because it is hard for liberal Democrats to do better in Nebraska), e) conservatives will have to pick their battles, even if really important things fall through the cracks.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
Build the conservative brand from the bottom up.
I am a precinct chair, and I suppose alot of RedStaters have their fingers involved in local politics. There is plenty of work to be done there, that's been neglected for far too long.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Fred get's 3rd in S.C. and you give up on the whole conservative movement within the Republican party???
Geez, like you have never faced anything tough before in your life and had to keep going!
Y'all sound like the bunch of democrats that want to give up in Iraq!
Why isn't anyone asking Rudy to give up? Why don't y'all ask Huckabee to give up? I would do a victory dance if they would both give up!
Why the sad faces! Why now! We have work to do people! Don't give up on the brink of a miracle! Look at the amount of money spent by Thompson and the amount of money spent by the others then take a look at where Thompson stood in the race next to Romney and Rudy! Have you truly done everything you could to help Thompson? You can do more!
There is no time for you to sit around in a little pity pick yourself up and get to work writing letters to the editor and calling local talk radio shows. Send letters to your local television news media and reach out to where people are with the message telling people what to look for in a true conservative candidate. Give a few history lessons to the public and quote a few facts. Take a stand and don't give up.
Support conservative candidates in local, state, and federal races.
Stand strong and stand tall instead of acting like a bunch of beaten wimps.
I'm talking about just the opposite: I'm saying that now is the time to start building up to nominate the next Fred Thompson. Working from within the party to alter it is what I suggest.
Isn't that exactly what you suggested, too, in that other diary about the people starting a new party?
to give him a Gold medal to take to Florida.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Does anyone have a link?
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
read that Fred is favored there and has been the only one that has campaigned there.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Republican party. Just taking a day off to gather thoughts, etc.
Depends on its growth. I worry that we may have passed the tipping point a while back.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777