Redstate

I just saw where Erick endorsed Romney as the only conservative (with an asterisk) left in the race. That casts this aside against Romney in a different light.

Instead of just being a random cheap shot, its the disappointment of someone who would like to see Romney as the acceptable alternative but feels like Romney might be screwing the pooch.

I can accept that, because its how I feel.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I don't understand why the cheap shots at Romney keep coming in especially on this issue. After all Erick hs spent a lot of time defending the Huck the last few weeks for some reason, and he is the ultimate populist. Whatever I guess.
Thompson did the right thing today by not hanging on any longer or endorsing McCain. Had he endorsed McCain the most liberal of the GOP front runners he would have sold out his entire effort of promoting consistant conservativism.
I think FDT is the front runner for VP for one of the two remaining candidates who are most conservative; Romney and Rudy.

Erick is like the inverse Hugh Hewitt.

Hurricane ravages Jamaica.

Hewitt: This will help the Romney campaign! Objectively! Its a sure win now!

Erick: Yeah, if the hurricane weren't Romney's fault.

that you can't see what an objectively liberal position he took in Michigan.

I, like others can concede Romney was pandering in MI, but don't think it was something unique to this race or to our preferred candidate. More specifically, we don't know what it has to do with Thompson's decision to drop out today. Do you?

on inconsistency to come from a serious (Huckabee not included) candidate from our party. It's a perfect example of the kind of things we conservatives shouldn't allow from our "leaders" or candidates.

Have you even looked at what Romney promised in Michigan and how it squares with his prior campaign promises? have you even looked at some of the switches the other guys have done? And you can't count out Huckabee, you know, since Erick doesn't.

I don't think federal R&D for fuel efficiency is all that liberal (unlike an actual bailout) but I don't think its all that conservative either.

What I do think is funny is that Giuliani is pro-choice and, with caveats, pro-amnesty, McCain is pro-amnesty, pro-global warming regulation, pro-fuel efficiency regulation, pro political speech regulation, but its Romney's R&D money that Erick feels like he has to take a crack at. That's the point I'm making, which you don't seem to get.

that was my point as well, difference being I was too lazy to add any comparisons. Thanks.

Giuliani is pro-choice and McCain is pro-CFR, but they've been consistent. You can't say you're a small-gov't Reagan Republican one day, and promise a Marshall Plan for Michigan the next.

Also, please don't tell me what I "get" and what I "don't get." I disagree with you because our philosophies on the role of the government differ, not because I'm too ignorant to follow your logic.

So you're idea is that Thompson should start acting as a hall monitor for consistency but ignore conservatism? I don't know about you, but I'm just as worried about McCain and Giuliani's bad positions *now* as I am Romney's bad positions in the past.

And please don't tell me what my philosophy of government is. If I think Erick is pretty egregious in singling out Romney, of all people, its not because I'm some big government parody.

Still laughing!!

.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

.

my mistake. I've read too much today.

I've seen several comments by "senior staffers" to fred saying he doesn't want to be VP or "in the administration"

that was when he was running for President. now, who knows?

It'd be a smart move by one of the northerners, that's for certain. Fred's been pretty clear that he's not interested in any other position in the upcoming administration, however. Might change his mind, of course.

Just really disappointed right now...

How's that sede vacant anyway?

Fred's seems to have been far, far more people's second choice than their first. I can't help but think that's unfortunate.

HTML Help for Red Staters

With the rumor that McCain only wants the one term, I don't see it as a problem. Or, at least, that was my thought when I put that down.

Can't decide how I feel about the scenario you describe. (Even if the rumor on McCain is currently true, I confess little confidence that he'll feel the same way after four years.)

Is there a difference between the Democrats and McCain domestically?

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Pro-life, pro-tax-cuts, anti-waste, anti-pork. Conservative alliances and supporters in the house and senate. Good judges, (R)appointments.

Think the dems are going to come in and cut spending? Don't think so.

absentee

But the others are good points. And he might do tax cuts too, who knows? He's said he will.

Didn't McCain vote against tax cuts? Wasn't he the leader of the gang of 14 which is still keeping conservative judges from getting an up or down vote?

"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson

A thousand suns have sprung to life and fallen dark during the time this has been belabored.

He voted against the Bush tax cuts, ipso facto he is against tax cuts? Nonsense.

As gamecock's blog entry last week showed, there is a good case to be made that the gang of 14 was a wise choice. And, as a number (somewhere in the hundreds) of discussions here at Redstate have elaborated on, it can be said the gang of 14 gave us conservative judges we'd not have got.

You have only scratched the surface of candidate research if those are your objections to what I said.

absentee

I don't like McCain, but I'd guess at
* Better on the economy
* Better on abortion
* Better on 2nd Amendment

for starters. I don't know that McCain's record on those is flawless, but I don't see how it could be as poor as any of the leading Democrats.

And it's not like the foreign policy stuff is small beans. Let's not fool ourselves: as much as we're looking at a primary dominated by the liberal arm of the party, the liberal arm of the party is still not as far out there as the liberal arm of the opposition.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

At least its you the other candidates are hoping to get on the rebound and not your girlfriend, unlike 8th grade. :)

There are way too many things about Paul that concern me...things that neither he nor his supporters will address.

He's not even on my list of candidates to consider. To my mind, he hasn't shown himself worthy of consideration.

--------------------------------------
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
-- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)

Didn't that already just happen? Do you mean like "make him run against his will"?

Better to face reality than to keep dreaming. That's a great philosophy for life in general.

It's possible that he's still on your ballot. While I doubt a significant showing at the polls would bring FDT back to the race, it would send a message.

That said, it's not a plan I can really recommend.

I will NOT vote for a RINO. It won't happen!

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

Don't be more Catholic than the Pope.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

Was that the candidate who was supposed to hold Reagan's torch in this election was the guy who really wanted someone else to hold the torch, or pass him the torch only if they wanted to, or something like that.

I mean, Fred did well in a couple of debates but I can't think of him as anything but a spoiler now. He got everyone's hopes up and got a real movement going and then he just sauntered out of the gate with a droopy mien and a lacksadaiscal campaign and totally wrecked what he was supposed to be generating so much enthusiasm about.

Maybe it was deliberate. It'll be interesting to see who he endorses. My guess is that he'll endorse McCain.

I think Fred Thompson really put the final nails in the coffin of the Reagan cult of personality. He was supposed to be the best representative of it among this field and what did he do? It almost seems like he deliberately chucked it into the weeds.

People like you "chucked it in the weeds". This isn't about him or his message. You and people like you didn't bother to listen and understand as you were more worried about how it was packaged and delivered.

You wanted animated snake-oil salesmen selling pipedreams. Well, now you've got four of them.

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

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

You're just trying to kick FredHeads while they're down. Unlike you, I hope Fred keeps getting his message out. The message is good. It's one I believe him. He never made it to my number one spot but the more champions that true, conservative, principles have - the better.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

I'm not trying to kick FredHeads while they're down. I think it was a big mistake to support him in the first place and I have every right to tell people that I think supporting him was a mistake, which I was consistent about for a long, long time.

Fred has great principles but he sabotaged himself, and I don't mean to rub salt into the wounds, if that's how it's being perceived. But the fact is that a lot of people should have grabbed him by the lapels after Bluey reported he was putting people to sleep and really asked him what the heck he was trying to achieve.

My father is a Fred Thompson supporter and I love him more than life itself. I'm not trying to rub salt into his wound today; he understand why I'm saying this. You don't *start* this kind of thing unless you really *mean* to finish it. Fred didn't even really start it, and he obviously didn't ever intend to finish it. Now it's over. And good riddance, with no further advice from the man who botched it.

You don't have to like that opinion but that's how I feel.

n/t

Here's Fred Thompson:

I don’t know if they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know if they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. Nowadays it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure that in the world we live in today, it’s a terribly good thing for a president to have too much fire in his belly.

Well, here's George Washington. He had a fire in his belly. And Thompson's "Tennessee comfort" couldn't come at a worse time.

Instead of getting out in the boat, Thompson would have people build the boat and cross the Delaware for him, and then report back about whether he wanted him to fight.

People really should read a little more about what a "fire in the belly" has historically meant, and why it's still so important for our country:

December 1776 was a desperate time for George Washington and the American Revolution. The ragtag Continental Army was encamped along the Pennsylvania shore of the Delaware River exhausted, demoralized and uncertain of its future.

The troubles had begun the previous August when British and Hessian troops invaded Long Island routing the colonial forces, forcing a desperate escape to the island of Manhattan. The British followed up their victory with an attack on Manhattan that compelled the Americans to again retreat, this time across the Hudson River to New Jersey.

The British followed in hot pursuit, chasing the Americans through New Jersey and by December had forced the Continental Army to abandon the state and cross the Delaware into Pennsylvania. With New Jersey in their firm control and Rhode Island successfully occupied, the British were confident that the Revolution had been crushed. The Continental Army appeared to be merely an annoyance soon to be swatted into oblivion like a bothersome bee at a picnic.

To compound Washington's problems, the enlistments of the majority of the militias under his command were due to expire at the end of the month and the troops return to their homes. Washington had to do something and quickly.

His decision was to attack the British. The target was the Hessian-held town of Trenton just across the Delaware River.

During the night of December 25, Washington led his troops across the ice-swollen Delaware about 9 miles north of Trenton. The weather was horrendous and the river treacherous. Raging winds combined with snow, sleet and rain to produce almost impossible conditions. To add to the difficulties, a significant number of Washington's force marched through the snow without shoes.

The next morning they attacked to the south, taking the Hessian garrison by surprise and over-running the town. After fierce fighting, and the loss of their commander, the Hessians surrendered.

Fred Thompson entered this race wondering whether people needed a leader with "fire in his belly." I'll say that they do, and that Thompson was wrong, and I'm glad he's gone, and I don't regret it.

The fight over the Democrats' judicial filibusters and the discussion of the nuclear option during the 2003-2006 time period when the Republicans held the Senate majority really forced all Republican senators to make a choice:

(a) Keep Democrat Senators happy by letting them retain the option of filibustering conservative judicial nominees.

(b) Irritate Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy by removing from the Democrat minority the right to filibuster conservative judicial nomineees.

So, the nuclear option really separated the "be nice to the Democrats" group from the "we won the election so the filibuster is out" group.

McCain announced that he would oppose the nuclear option. This means that he cares more about making Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy happy than getting conservative judicial nominees confirmed.

The Republicans on the other side of this question were Senators Santorum, Kyl, Frist, McConnell ....... at least 80 percent of the Republicans.

Even Arlen Specter didn't announce, as McCain did, that he would vote with the Democrats.

So, on judicial nominations, it is fair to say that McCain is to the Left of Arlen Specter.