Redstate

(if work is procrastination), but as soon as I saw this I joined imwithfred.com and donated. I plan on donating from every single paycheck from here on out. I toyed with Mitt and Rudy is great on the Edwards' bumpersticker slogan (otherwise known as the GWOT), but only Fred! gets me excited. That he's acquiring people I really admire and respect (Matalin, for 1) is a big plus. That the MSM and usual suspects are aiming their guns at his wife's chest for Pete's sake makes me even MORE likely to donate to him! The left reveals its real self yet again.

The guy is just plain likeable and presidential. He may not be a pure conservative, but he's conservative and he's electable.

Fred! Fred! Fred!

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

He had 220,000 his first day and 130,000 his second. Pretty good.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com

Follow this link to watch his speech to the Virginia Republican Party. It'll give you lots of insight into what Sen. Thompson believes.

Don't interfere with anyone caught up in the initial thrill of romance, political or otherwise. The heartthrob of today can become the dumpee of tomorrow. Unless it's the one we want to marry. :>)

I am truly in support of you guys rooting for whomever you want...I GET that you are a Rudy fan AFC...streetwise, I know you have said who you support but it escapes me at the moment.

Frankly, we serve each other no favor by insisting that we need to hate our OWN choice because your choice (in your misty eyes) is so much better...really...

Saying Fred's only draw is that he's 6'4 is like suggesting Rudy did 20 things more than Fred...oh wait-you did say that...ease up killer he was a freaking Mayor...Thompson was an elected US Senator...and in both cases...so freaking what?

Root for your guys...but please spare me the "mine sucks less than yours" stuff, m'kay?

Let's use that one in November '08...for now, howza bout pimping the positives? May actually help bring the factions under that tattered tent of ours closer to being optimistic again...what say?

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

I would simply be nice to hear what are Thompson's qualifications to run the executive branch. AFC had a harsh way of saying (almost like a sergeant?) but by and by, it's a good question that no one has answered, or is willing to attempt to answer. Fred might be awesome, but no one is really willing to make the case why.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com

Thompson's at least 35-years-old. Thompson is a citizen of the United States.

Yes, he's qualified.

Anything else is a matter of personal opinion; you know, "I want my President to be..."

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com

Sorry for the length of this post, but you asked...

Fred Thompson Served on the US-China Economic Review Commission

- U.S. - China Economic and Security Review Commission

http://www.uscc.gov/about/commissioners/thompsonpg.php

*

Fred Thompson is an AEI Scholar specializing in Diplomatic Relations and Foreign Intelligence.

Professional Experience:

United States senator from Tennessee, 1994-2003 (chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 1997-2001)
Member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission, 1985-1987
Special counsel, Senate Committee on Intelligence, 1982
Special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1980-1981
Special counsel to Lamar Alexander, governor of Tennessee, 1980
Minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities ("Watergate Committee”), 1973-1974
Assistant U.S. attorney, 1969-1972
Practiced law, 1967-1969
Feature film and television actor

- American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.78,filter.all/scholar.asp

*

As Watergate minority counsel, Fred brought forward the fact that Nixon had taped White House discussions.

As an attorney in Tennessee, he sent the Governor to prison on corruption charges.

As Chairman of the Government Affairs committee, he blocked giving North Korea essentially all of our trade secrets.

He helped to bring down a crooked Republican president, he brought down a crooked Democratic Governor, and he exposed impeachable offenses of a Democratic president.

Not bad for someone commonly incorrectly refered to as a "one timer" or "just an actor."

- Comment by Dan to a Hotline story on Fred Thompson, May 11, 2007

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/thompsons_linco....

*

Fred Thompson is currently the Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a high-level panel charged with evaluating long-term threats to U. S. security.

- U.S. Dept. of State, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, ISN, ISAB

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/isab/68268.htm

*

Fred Thompson's Senate Committee assignments:

Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations under President Reagan

Member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over, among other things, international trade.

Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Member of the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments.

Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee 1997-2001

Ranking Republican Minority Member of the Government Affairs Committee 2001-2003

Chairman of the Youth Violence Committee 1995-1997

Chairman of the Senate Government Oversight Committee

Foreign Relations Committee, 1995-96

Member, Judiciary Committee, 1995-98

Member, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, 1997-98

Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov't. Information, 1995-98

Member, Finance Committee, 1999-2002

Finance subcommittees
Member, International Trade, 1999-2002
Member, Taxation and Oversight, 1999-2002
Member, Social Security and Family Policy, 1999-2002
Member, Health Care, 1999-2002

- University of Tennessee Modern Political Archives, Finding Aid for the Fred Thompson Papers, 1993 -2002 (pp. 5-6)

http://mpa.utk.edu/thompson/ThompsonFindingAid.pdf

*

Earned "Restoring the Balance" Award from National Conference of State Legislatures; given annually to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators

- HSGAC and National Conference of State Legislatures

http://hsgac.senate.gov/030201_thompson_press.htm

*

Sen. Fred Thompson was recognized by Citizens Against Government Waste for his report documenting the federal government's staggering levels of waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Thompson presented the report, which includes his recommendations for addressing those problems, to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitch Daniels at a press conference in Washington. Report includes analysis of the four biggest challenges facing the federal government: workforce management, financial management, information technology management, and overlap and duplication. In addition, the report includes an agency-by-agency appendix citing examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. The report also contains a list of the "Top Ten" worst examples of mismanagement in the government. CAGW is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government.

- Citizens Against Government Waste press release, June 5, 2001

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_06052001b

*

Fred Thompson's Interest Group Ratings:
National Abortion Reproductive Rights: 0
US Chamber of Commerce: 100%
ACLU: 11%
American Conservative Union: 85%
AFT: perfect 0
League of Private Property Owners: 90%
National Tax Limitation Committee: 97%
National Taxpayers Union: 88%
ADA (liberal): perfect score
Supported Newt’s Contract with America 100% of the time
Planned Parenthood 0%
NARAL 0%

- Project VoteSmart, Interest Group Ratings for Fred Thompson

http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22003

*
Just a few of the 90 proposals and inclusions Fred introduced while in the Senate:

Nuclear Proliferation Act
Special Counsel Act
Aviation Security Bill Amendment
FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill
Regulatory Right-To-Know Act
Homeland Security Workforce Act
Homeland Security Education Act
Thompson amendment to Treasury-Postal Title (Section 646) of the Consolidated Appropriations Bill
Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981)
Thompson Amendment to the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act
Thompson Amendment to the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Act
The Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act
The Federalism Accountability Act
The Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA)
The Thompson Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act
The Truth in Regulation Act

United States Senate

http://www.senate.gov/

*

Why draft Fred Thompson ?

A review of Fred Dalton Thompson's voting record shows that he consistently voted for gun owners (the NRA called him a "staunch supporter of the Second Amendment"), against abortion, for business, against higher taxes, for a balanced budget, for a strong defense, for ANWR drilling, for capping foreign aid, for free trade, for private property rights, for personal retirement accounts, for the Iraq War Resolution and for welfare reform.

Among his interest group ratings, FDT earned a perfect zero from National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action, a perfect 100% from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only 11% from the ACLU, 85% from the American Conservative Union, 86% from the Center for Security Policy, a perfect zero from the American Federation of Teachers, 6% from the National Education Association, 90% from the League of Private Property Voters, 97% from the National Tax Limitation committee, 88% from the National Taxpayers Union and a perfect zero from the liberal ADA. In a 1995 analysis, Project Vote Smart listed Thompson as having supported Contract With America items 100% of the time.

According to Lawrenceburg Online, among FDT's Senate accomplishments were his election as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs in 1997, making him among the most junior senators in history to serve as Chairman of a major Senate Committee. He served as Chairman until June of 2001.

The Governmental Affairs Committee is charged with overseeing the management of the federal government. During his Chairmanship, Sen. Thompson's committee actively pursued an agenda aimed at producing a smaller, more efficient, and more accountable government. Of his efforts, the Kingsport Times-News wrote, "Sen. Thompson is to be applauded for keeping a watchful eye over Washington fiscal matters. There should be more like him."

Sen. Thompson held hearings on topics such as improving the federal regulatory process; reforming the IRS; exploring ways to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; and a number of national security issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies. Thompson also investigated and successfully enacted solutions to information management problems such as computer security.

Thompson was also a member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, and international trade. From this position, he focused on reducing taxes, reforming the tax code to make it simpler and fairer, and restoring the Social Security and Medicare programs to long-term solvency.

While a strong supporter of free trade, Sen. Thompson advocated a balanced approach to trade and national security. He pushed for an export control policy that protects our country's national security without unnecessarily burdening American industry with bureaucratic red tape. He also proposed legislation to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China and other countries and to strengthen the United States' response to such activities.

A third committee FDT served on was the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments.

Even the liberal Washington Monthly, in a 1999 hit piece on Thompson, had to begrudgingly admit that as a Senator, Thompson worked hard to keep his campaign promises. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel admitted, in a discussion on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes program, that Fred Thompson for president would be their "worst nightmare" because of his communications skills and ability to appeal to swing voters. But you'll see many backers of Fred's GOP opponents attacking him because he poses a major threat to their candidates if he gets in the race.

Thompson biggest negatives with conservatives are his stances on immigration (he wasn't a hawk on it) and McCain Feingold (he supported it). But those votes were a full decade ago, and since then FDT has taken a much tougher stance on securing our borders before all else, and he has admitted that McCain Feingold was campaign finance reform gone bad.

If Mitt Romney can have a change of heart and mind on gays, guns and abortion, FDT should at least be given some slack for admitting that both he and Ronald Reagan were wrong on immigration, and the reforms he hoped McCain-Feingold would produce didn't turn out to be "reforms" at all. Fred is a stand-up guy, and he will answer questions on any issues honestly and in a straitforward manner when he gets into the race.

Fred Thompson is media-savvy, has a commanding presence, enjoys superb name recognition (thanks to his Law & Order and movie roles and his hard-hitting commentary for ABC Radio) and left the Senate with a solid conservative voting record. Though Fred is the first to admit that there was and will ever be only one Ronald Reagan, he's one of Reagan's smartest students and most consistent disciples. Like Reagan, Thompson is that rare sort of conservative who can sell conservative ideas to moderates and independents. And again like Reagan, he may be the only potential candidate who can unite the factions of the Republican Party right now.

Oh, and lest we forget, Ronald Reagan was an actor and radio commentator, too.

- Sturm Ruger, draftfredthompson.com, March, 2007 (revised 5/11/07)

http://draftfredthompson.com/index.php/topic,746.0.html

*

This Rapid Response is a Perico/Ruger collaboration for draftfredthompson.com

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

This is good to know.

..."Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one." - Malcolm Forbes...

the fact that he hasn't been immersed in politics for his entire life. Many of us like the fact that Fred would be our first non-professional politician to be President since--(no, not GW Bush) Ronald Reagan.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

JB, You say that "Fred might be awesome, but no one is really willing to make the case why." Wrong. I'll gladly tell you why he's awesome.

1. He believes strongly in states' rights.
2. He's a strict constructionist in terms of judges.
3. He's taken some controversial stands recently, which tells me that he's a man of courage & conviction, something that's in short supply in Washington these days. (The most controversial of those stands is his standing with Scooter Libby. He's even repeatedly said that he'd pardon Libby because the investigation was a travesty.)
4. He believes, like most conservatives, that John Roberts will one day be one of the best chief justices in US history.
5. He wants to undermine Iran, North Korea & Venezuela with a radio presence similar to Radio Free Europe. He'd use those radio programs to spread the message of liberty like Reagan did with RFE. RFE inspired the dissidents in the former USSR by telling them what was happening in the real world.
6. He's for keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, crediting them with bolstering the US economy. (Yes, he voted for them, unlike McCain.)

Is that a detailed enough explanation of why I support him?

1) Rudy- IMO the guy with the most potential, electorally and experience-wise. Still has to close the deal with the GOP base.

2) Romney- his incandescent energy is the big draw, as is the executive experience and squeaky-clean personal background.

3) Hunter- strong on defense, strong on immigration. Honest.

4) McCain- a great patriot, a great man, and possibly a great president, but his cluelessness re party leadership is a huge drawback.

5) Thompson - great speaker and presence. Very limited executive experience. Am not sure he has the staying power to go through what anyone must go through to be elected President and then sit on the hot seat for 4 or 8 years.

6) Huckabee - he is moving up in my estimation. A promising dark horse. Having him explain to Hillary what he had to do to fix Arkansas would be very interesting!

The others are fine gentlemen but not presidential material IMO.

My advice to AFC, to the Fredheads, and to myself is to be moderate in our critiques because some of us are not going to get our first choice. And I don't want any of my last choices: Hillary, Obama, Gore, Edwards. (Yes Mr. Haircut has the distinction of being absolutely LAST.)

What baffles me is why Rudy is getting support from those who call themselves conservatives considering he's decidedly not one himself. He's demonstrated himself to be an anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-illegal alien, anti-immigration enforcement politician as NYC mayor, yet I'm to trust him to uphold conservative principles as President?

The only thing that makes sense to me is that name recognition resulted in an early lead in the polls, and that high poll numbers led people to believe he was the most electable candidate in a self-fullfilling cycle.

If RINOs like Rudy, Romney or McCain get the nomination I'll dutifully uphold the spirit of "haystack's 12th" and keep my virtual mouth shut. However, I'll still be staying home on election day for the first time since being old enough to vote. GW fooled me once, I'm not going to be fooled again by another "moderate".

Whoops. That doesn't sound quite right.

Anyway, let's lay the RINO to rest. We are ALL RINO's, because that's what "Republican" is, a name. We've rallied behind the name because we more or less agree with most other Republicans on some general concepts: fiscal responsibility, lower tax rates, individual liberty, smaller government, national sovereignty, states' rights, right-to-work, right-to-life, right to own property, truth, justice and the American way. I probably missed some.

But do you think that every Republican supports ALL of those concepts equally, or even agrees as to what they all mean? To give only one small example: the Kelo case. Four conservative judges voted against a state's right to condemn property; five liberals agreed with with the state's assertion of its rights. Yet, at the same time, the four Conservatives voted to uphold property ownership rights, and the five liberals voted for "big" government. By my reckoning, the Conservatives were right on both counts, but they were certainly voting against "states' rights."

At one time or another, some of our candidates have taken positions on some of these concepts that many or most of us can disagree with. Some of them still stand by those positions/opinions and have said why they do, and some have offered "extenuating circumstances" to explain their earlier breach; others have "seen the light" and changed positions entirely. (In the latter case, to complain that they've changed their minds in a positive direction is to declare that if anybody ever has a mistaken opinion, they get no credit for correcting it.)

Only you, the voter, can decide if the reason, circumstance, or change is sufficient to convince you the candidate isn't too liberal at heart for you, but the only way you're going to get a candidate to agree with you 100% is if you, yourself, decide to run . If you do, don't be surprised if somebody, sometime, doesn't call you a "RINO."

Otherwise, while you're sitting at home not voting, don't overlook the fact that a non-vote for the lesser-of-two-evils is one-half vote for the greater evil.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

>>>Otherwise, while you're sitting at home not voting, don't overlook the fact that a non-vote for the lesser-of-two-evils is one-half vote for the greater evil.<<<

is why we have had "evils" as our nominees. We settle for a mediocre choice and we vote for them anyway, just because they're Republican. The party powers-that-be know their lapdog members will take whatever is shoved down their throats, so they continue to pay off the "heir apparent" to the nomination and/or their cronies. Dole (I keep harping on him) is/was a perfect example of this.

No, not all Republicans support all the concepts equally. But what you'll find around here, as a general rule, are people of the conservative persuasion. And at one time, the Republican party was largely representative of conservative principles. How else will we get the message across to the Republican leadership that we will not stand for those who are anti-conservative if we don't vote against or bypass those candidates? This is precisely what happened with the immigration bill - we didn't just roll over and do what Bush told us to - we stood up for our principles.

My vote goes to a candidate who I believe will represent my values in government. Rudy does NOT represent my values. I will not vote for him or anyone else who holds such anti-conservative positions. I certainly won't vote for Hillary either. So given a Hillary (or Osamabama or whoever) versus Rudy race, barring a conservative 3rd party candidate, I'll be punching NOTA.

Do what you want to do, but if you understand the logic and do something illogical, I would want a better reason than to "get the message across to the Republican leadership."

They don't get those messages. Instead, when the Democrats win, they "get the message" that the American people have given them a mandate to be liberal, officially. Send your message during the primaries and at party caucuses. Those general-election messages don't reach the right recipient, and we get stuck with a Democrat House and Senate, and maybe President.

I say again, a vote not cast for a Republican (perhaps one for a hopeless 3rd party candidate) is one-half vote for a Democrat.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

I understand your point. And I understand the logic, but I don't accept it. I have principles and I will not go against them by voting for someone who has none. I am not an unthinking drone. I act upon what I believe is right. If you deem it illogical, so be it.

As far as the Democrat House/Senate/WH, been there, done that...and we're all still here. In fact, 2 years after that (1994) we had the biggest victory to date by the Republicans. And a lot was accomplished thereafter. NOTE: it took a total takeover of both sides of the aisle and of the WH to get the point across. Then the American public wised up.

I contend that the biggest advantage we have when we own the WH and Senate is the ability to place judges. And we had big victories with the last two. Yet somehow Souter slipped through under a Republican president - the biggest SCOTUS screwup in decades.

As others have voiced here, I don't believe the results would be as dire as you paint them, and the long-term impact might be more positive than you are willing to acknowledge.

That didn't come out right, either.

You may be right, and yours is a reasoned position. Maybe it will take another political 'high colonic' to retake everything. And the Souter appointment is directly attributable to the fact that we didn't control the Senate at the time.

I hope you're right and that the results wouldn't be so bad. But the Lib's are extremely intransigent, and they could get a lot of bad bills passed in just two years if they have a large majority and the WH.

Your position is based on the desire of the electorate to stop the Democrats before they destroy the country (once they are reminded that the Dem's can do it). My position is based on the desire of incumbents to stay in office, once they've been shown they can be replaced if necessary.

I think today's (6/8/07) victory over the Immigration Fiasco Bill is due to both forces at work together.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

My support for the Republican party is contingent upon them supporting conservative principles and governing accordingly. If I feel they are not doing this, I have every reason I need to not vote for them.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

When I say RINO, I'm not referring to someone who doesn't maintain what I believe to be conservative principles 100% of the time- that's unrealistic.

However with candidates like Rudy, Romney and McCain, they've a record of abandoning those principles repeatedly and enthusiastically.

Your Kelo analogy was a poor example in my opinion. What I consider to be the #1 conservative principle isn't whether one toes the party line on every single social issue, but rather maintains a Federalist outlook and a faithful adherence to Constitutional principles as written and intended by our Founding Fathers. The reason Kelo was a bad decision for conservatism is that the court stretched the phrase "public use"- roads, utilities, etc- to mean "public benefit", including the generation of more tax revenue, regardless of whether any actual public use is involved.

The pursuit of Federalist ideas encompasses almost all those things you started with- smaller government, liberty, property rights and the American Way. Unfortunately the Supreme Court and the party that is supposed to represent conservative values has abandoned Federalism for an overly large, big spending federal government with too much power and too little regard for individual or states rights.

Were it just a disagrement on a social position or two, I could live with it... but I've little confidence that someone like Rudy with no regard for 2nd Amendment rights, who just think it would be "OK" were Roe v Wade overturned would uphold Constitutional, conservative values. Same for Romney, who's already come out as anti-2nd Amendment and for Big Government health care and education- both areas the federal government has little business being involved in at all according to the text and intent of the Constitution.

Sorry you didn't like the Kelo example, but it was the first that came to mind. I'm sure there are better ones.

The fact is, I was just trying to illustrate the fact that sometimes time-honored Conservative principles can be at odds with one another, so one must choose the relative importance of the offense when a possible candidate strays from the path. In my case, I think a candidate who can't get the Immigration Problem/Concept right has failed, because the very survival of the country is at stake. Same, but less so, for the GWOIF. And taxation philosophy. Same, but less so, for SC Justices (because that's a bit of a crapshoot anyway). Much farther down the scale come issues that the President would have practically no effect on.

And I disagree with your characterization of Romney's positions, but that's OK.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

with THIS:

What baffles me is why Rudy is getting support from those who call themselves conservatives considering he's decidedly not one himself. He's demonstrated himself to be an anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-illegal alien, anti-immigration enforcement politician as NYC mayor, yet I'm to trust him to uphold conservative principles as President?

You forgot Pro-Gay marriage, but you get my vote anyway...
awesome

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

I think we have now officially started to use the term RINO for anybody who hasn't agreed with us on all issues for their entire life in public office. Which I think is unfair as I doubt that any of us have been entirely consistent on every issue for our entire adult lives. As a personal example, as an at the time 20-year-old man, I didn't really think all that hard about abortion or immigration as issues when I cast my vote for Bob Dole in 1996. They either weren't on my radar (immigration) or weren't critical to me personally (abortion) to factor in. I have since developed much more substantive positions, and in the case of abortion have become much more pro-life than I would have described myself then. Is it so much to give the candidates the same sort of slack?

As to RINO-hood. We now use that term for everybody from Rudy (who if he had an ACU rating, I'm sure it would be lower than Lincoln Chafee's) to John McCain (who as far as I've seen has an ACU rating of over 80 lifetime - higher even than Judd Gregg who seems to be in favor these days). I don't necessarily disagree that McCain has gone off the reservation on some big-ticket items, but that's a far cry from being a liberal in reality.

Perhaps we need some sort of sliding scale to distinguish the liberals parading around in Republican garb (Specter, Rudy, Snowe) from people who have solid conservative credentials seemingly limited to certain areas (like McCain and Romney).

Full disclosure: I'm with Fred. But that doesn't mean that everyone who isn't is some sort of Republican apostate. As we've pointed out Republicanism encompasses more than just Conservatism down the line.

I'm a Constitutional conservative first, Republican second. Considering the direction the party has taken when in power, we should be pushing the Republican party to be more loyal to conservative values rather than conservatives being pushed to be more loyal to the Republican party.

is in the right place.

BTW, re: the Kelo case. I just browsed an article about it that stated Justice Kennedy's position was "the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer." And here I thought the Fifth Amendment prohibited improper takings by government, not just the ones that were unfair to some of the "takers."

This decision was a travesty--even the ACLU was on the right side.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

I'm surprised that you also don't attack the age differences between Fred Thompson and his present wife, Jeri. Fred has also been described as a "lazy" politician when he was a U.S. Senator, and I'm sure that the MSM will attack him for also being a cigar smoker. The MSM will find all kinds of things to attack Fred about even if they have to make things up. The MSM will truly do all that they can do to help elect Democrats at every political level.

that they exist.

Fred! may be imperfect- his vote for finance reform was disappointing- but to suggest that because Fred's conservative credentials aren't 100% we should vote for someone with few conservative credentials (and some very non-conservative ones) like RINO Rudy is absurd from the conservative point of view.

He's since addressed that vote, and called it a mistake with regards to the negative effects on free speech it had. Does that excuse it? No. Does he bear the same responsibility as the one largely responsible for the bill being written- John McCain? No. Our problems with McCain go much further than the campaign finance bill.

The lack of executive experience is a legitimate concern, but having such experience didn't seem to do much for the likes of GW Bush or *spit* Jimmy Carter. Furthermore, Rudy's executive experience as mayor showed him to be a anti-gun, pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion authoritarian RINO. It also lacked significant foreign policy experience.

As a Senator, Fred demonstrated a commitment to Federalist principles- the core of conservatism. While he may not be a perfect conservative candidate (no one is) and probably won't be able to completely live up to the current hype (no one could), he has the best combination of conservatism and electability in the race.

One thing Fred Thompson did was help put a corrupt democrat governor in jail.
His initial run for the senate included a call for the legislative branch to got back to part time status.
And as he has stated, sometimes working againist a bill is the best thing a senator can do.

Last, my dislike (not despise) is for his general "government is better" attitude, evident from his opposition to the tax cuts, campaign finance "reform", and even the so called tobacco settlement.

"And as he has stated, sometimes working againist a bill is the best thing a senator can do."

Doesn't that describe RedState hero Tom Coburn? Yes he introduces stuff, but don't we get just as excited when he vehemently opposes the many inane and ridiculous things the Senate tries to do? Jim DeMint seems to be doing quite a bit of the same - standing athwart the lunacy of the Senate and saying "NO!"

Maybe we need to start looking at what Fred (and others) was against as much as what he sponsored. Remember we are not the side that thinks every problem has a solution in Washington just waiting to be passed into law.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com

I think AFC's point is legitimate, if unduly belligerent. Like many of the D candidates, Fred is a bit short on accomplishments and empty on executive experience.

True, we can't get the dream candidate - experienced and accomplished as an executive, has foreign policy experience, war hero, eloquent speaker, perfect family life, success in the private sector, smart, tough as nails, etc. We have to prioritize among the realistic options.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Presidents.

"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)

So because it the high was in the 60s a couple of days ago here in the nation's swampland, and was in the high 70s yesterday, and will be reaching the 90s today, it will surely to continue to be unbearably warm from here on out.

Nope, not buying it. Your post either.

Senators have had a tough time running for President, true. Having a long and usually recent voting record that's easily distorted is a big hurdle. Fortunately, the front running Democratic candidates- Hillary, Obama and Edwards- all lack executive experience as well.

But perhaps you'd care to inform us how many East Coast politicians have successfully and unsuccessfully run for President? Why is that?

How many who've never held a position higher than Mayor have run?

Rudy is a good man, and did a commendable job as mayor of NYC- especially with regards to the aftermath of 9/11; he was an effective administrator. I think he'd be great in a high level cabinet position. However, he's not a true conservative- and that's what we need for President if the recent damage to the Republican party and conservative cause is to be undone.

It has been a while since a sitting Senator was elected President (JFK was the last sitting Senator). That said, you must also remember that the democrat party will select a sitting Senator as their candidate in 2008, and that two of the top Republican candidates have their careers as Senators near the top of their resumes. It does seem very likely that we will see an ex-Senator in the White House after 2008.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

you should have quit while you were ahead. There have been ZERO Mayors elected President,near as I can tell.

Again, tell us why Rudy should be President, not why Fred should NOT. The left will take care of that. And, I especially await your ability to explain away why we Conservatives want a pro-choicer leading the party. Or, given his esteemed leadership in NYC, how this will translate to running the free world...

And, Thompson was a lawyer and a Senator...not just an actor...

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Some people can do that from memory, but I'm not one of them. I wonder if he is.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

I cannot do it from memory either (perhaps this is why I do not teach US History).  I have trouble with the post-Jackson to pre-Buchanan period I also have trouble with the post-Grant to pre McKinley period.  Strangely many of my students are able to list the presidents in order, prior to entering my classroom (these are the same teenagers who cannot read a map, and think that James Watt invented electricity)." Historically, when I have asked my students where they learned their presidents they almost always respond the "Presidents' Song." Apparently, one of the elementary school teachers in my school system requires his/her students to memorize and sing the "Presidents' Song."

I am not sure, which "Presidents' Song" my student's have learned, but the do seem to memorize the Presidents through it.  Here are a list of "Presidents' Songs."Maybe one of them will help you memorize the Presidents.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Let's see...

Washington
Adams
Jefferson

come easy. Then I have to think a little bit for

Madison
Monroe
Adams
Jackson

That's where I lose it, and even for those four I wasn't 100% sure. Fortunately I just checked myself and I did THAT much right! I can pick it back up with TR through the present, though. That's 18 presidents in a row, yay me.

Maybe one day I'll bridge the gap, using the Civil War Buchanan-Lincoln-Johnson-Grant as support in the middle, heh.

Dang, I just checked, I should have known Hayes came right after Grant, thanks to the unfortunate compromise that gave him the election win. Cut and run for political gain, blech.

In college I memorized ~50 digits of pi 5 digits at a time, since I didn't have much free time and it was something I could do in short bursts. Maybe I'll finish this job, much easier since it's not seemingly-random.

Run like Reagan!

We have the exact same gaps, except you knew McKinley was before TR and I didn't, heh. Nice.

Run like Reagan!

Both of our gaps correspond to periods in US history that are filled with one term (or less) presidents and issues that are under-covered or ignored in many history courses.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

of the universe? This could shake up a lot of New Yorkers...

As for me I'm spending the weekend there! I hope ayway...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Why people think citing the biggest Democratic city in the country should sway Republicans is beyond me...

Run like Reagan!

and then President. See what a little NY executive experience can do?

As for the dearth of Senators, apparently Senatitus is a chronic malady for which the developing sciences of our republic have not found a cure. For over 200 years.

Was at that time a patronage job which required little leadership and little in the way of actual work.

Methinks Arthur had ZERO experience ACTUALLY running anything before he was elected.

As to the original question, I believe that the follwing served as Senators PRIOR to their presidencies:
Monroe
JQ Adams
Jackson
Van Buren
WH Harrison
Tyler
Pierce
Buchanan
A. Johnson
B. Harrison
Harding
Truman
Kennedy
L. Johnson
Nixon

That would make 15 of the 44, which is just about 1/3. Not so few after all.

There are no Mayors of New York on the list.

Of the non-Senators:
Washington - had no chance to serve in the Senate as he was elected President.
Adams - same but elected as VP.
Jefferson - Continental Congress delegate, Secretary of State
Madison - House, Sec. of State
Polk - Speaker of the House, Gov. of TN
Taylor - U.S. Army General
Fillmore - House
Lincoln - IL State legislature
Grant - U.S. Army General
Hayes - House
Garfield - House
Arthur - as noted, Collector of the Port of NY
Cleveland - Mayor of Buffalo, Gov. of NY (less than 1 term)
McKinley - House, Gov. of OH (2 terms)
T. Roosevelt - Gov. of NY (for only 2 years before becoming VP).
Taft - Sec. of War; Administrator of the Phillipines
Wilson - Gov. of NJ (for only 2 years)
Coolidge - Gov. of MA
Hoover - Sec. of Commerce (a somewhat funny irony)
FDR - Gov. of NY (1 yerm)
Eisenhower - Commander of Allied Forces; President of Columbia Univ.
Ford - House Minority Leader
Carter - Gov. of GA (1 term)
Reagan - Gov. of CA (2 terms)
GHW Bush - House; UN Ambassador; Liason to China; RNC Chair; CIA Director
Clinton - Gov. of AR (served for 14 years)
GW Bush - Gov of TX (1 1/2 terms)

With the exception of Lincoln - there were no "locals" - every one was either a governor or a member of the federal government establishment (generals count as federal establishment). No Mayors went direct to the White House. And no Mayor of NY has ever gone to the White House at all. If it's such a great experience builder for the presidency, you'd think someone would have done it.

Actually, I wouldn't include any VP who succeeded to office, so while that takes care of Arthur, it also takes care of Tyler, A Johnson, Truman and L. Johnson.

Nixon is a special case. He was elected to the Senate in 1950, principally as a result of the reputation he built in the house. He as elected VP in 1952, and wasn't elected President for his background as a Senator.

Editing further, Monroe & JQ Adams were elected as a sitting Secretary of State, which was considered a key step to the Presidency. I believe Van Buren was Jackson's VP.

so now the adjusted list is:

Jackson
WH Harrison
Pierce
Buchanan
B. Harrison
Harding
Kennedy

So now we're doen to 7.

The question was how many Senators have been elected. But even with your number we still have 7 more Senators than we have Mayors. And if we're going to disqualify from the list people who seem to have done something else in the interim, then let's just call Fred Thompson an actor, since he's been out of office for 6 years.

Unless we're going to go digging in old microfilm - I don't know that we can credibly say for most of the people on the list, that their experience in the Senate was not a factor in their nomination and/or election to the office. Nixon and Truman were the only ones we could probably discuss. As to Truman, I think FDR knew he was not well going into 1944. So one could say he picked Truman as the next President - I'm guessing his service has something to do with it. (Since you got to make Nixon a special case, I get to make Truman one).

Believe me that I understand the point AFC is not making all that well. Senators in the modern age have struggled. My point is that, I don't believe that is inherently a function of the office (Kennedy, a very junior senator managed to beat a sitting VP in an environment not unlike 2000 - relative peace and good times).

I also don't see how AFC's point leads to Rudy as a better choice. At least we can say that there have been Senators who went to the White House. But as you might note - only one person seems to have gone from being a Mayor to the White House (Cleveland - Mayor of Buffalo) and he took a stop in Albany as Governor first.

I also would note that there is no prediction value to how "good" someone is based on their past offices. FDR, for all we might hate what he did, was a good president - he got the country feeling good about itself and saw us through a war - he spent only 2 years as Gov. of NY. Teddy Roosevelt was similar. Bill Clinton - a rather dismal failure, spent 14 years as a governor. Look what good it did him. Nixon was a disaster after spending years in Congress and 8 as VP. Kennedy spent only a few years in Congress but also captivated the people - and there are many who still idolize him.

The past is helpful in making assessments, but the talk seems to come more and more to people desiring some sort of past office litmus test. Our candidates aren't meeting the "perfect test" of being multi-term governors (which, see Clinton, is not always such a great thing). McCain is a Senator; Romney a one-term governor of a liberal state; Rudy a 2-term Mayor of one of the most liberal cities in the country (SF may give them a run for "most liberal"); Fred a former Senator. Huckabee and Tommy Thompson are multi-term govs but aren't catching fire. The rest are House members or other one-termers, or totally forgotten already.

The point - who cares what he did before or where he did it. If he has good ideas and good plans then that should be important. Rudy has a great history in NYC - I lived there through it. But what I hear of his views and know of his policies doesn't make me want to vote for him - it's not the kind of stuff that I want coming out of the White House. It was right for NYC in 1993, it's not necessarily right for America in 2008.

The primary question is: how likely is it to be elected President based on experience primarily as a Senator?

And the answer is- unlikely.

If you ask the same question about mayors, the answer is extremely unlikely. But no mayor ever faced what Rudy faced as mayor, so he's an outlier.

Fred's major assets are his gift for communication, the clarity of his positions, his name-recognition and his general plain-speaking demeanor. His Senate career is of secondary importance.

The question for the GOP primary voters re Fred - is that enough?

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

You said what I should have - the Thompson fans are not looking at his Senate career or service as the reasons they are attracted to him as a candidate. Call it the intangibles. Part of Reagan's greatness was that he was great at communicating the message to people who don't spend their lives on RedState or Kos or watching 24-hour news channels all day.

And I agree that Rudy faced something no other Mayor faced. But I will also note that his job ended on January 1, 2002, when Michael Bloomberg took the oath. Yes he got us through the day and the immediate aftermath - but he did not have to go through the tough and long-term aftermath of reviving the economy, of getting people to come back to NY. He got to be a rallying point - one that we desperately needed - and he did that marvelously. But he didn't have to stay for all the tough decisions of governance and management that came after.

So it is indeed as someone else (can't see the comment right now) said: it's about everybody saying "I want my President to be . . ."

Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Is being in the Senate the cause of the drought? I don't think that Senate service is necessarily the primary cause.

Since Kennedy won in 1960 there have been 11 elections.
Senators were the nominees of one or both parties in 1964 (Goldwater), 1972 (McGovern), 1996 (Dole), 2004 (Kerry). All faced incumbent Presidents. 1964 and 1972 saw good presidential approval and landslides. 1996 showed a lackluster candidate against a mixed bag president. 2004 was much the same. Tie goes to the incumbent.

The only times a sitting president has been ousted, it was by governors, but there were other things afoot as well. 1976 (one could argue this doesn't count but I'll include it) - one word: Watergate; 1980 - Stagflation; 1992 - Recession.

The rest - 1968 - Vietnam and neither party had a Senator candidate; 1984 - Reagan vs. a former VP who promised to raise taxes. 1988 gives counter-evidence - the sitting VP beat a state governor. 2000 the opposite - the governor beat the sitting VP.

There is no magic formula. And the post-9/11 world is totally different electorally than what we've seen. There have been former Governors that did well on the foreign stage (Reagan), and there are some that failed miserably (Carter). GHW Bush did fairly well having done all his public service at the federal level; LBJ (also a career fed) had Vietnam - a pretty spectacular disaster; Kennedy had both the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis (kind of a mixed bag there).

Get away from basing this debate on the past - what we learn from the past is that people we thought would be great turn out to be not so hot, and it doesn't seem to matter what they did before. The Presidency is a ball game unlike anything any of these people has ever played.

of animals the senate produces overall. These career prima donnas that are basically sent up there to vote yes or no on pretty clear issues and then watch them much it up and try and make it seem "courageous."

Disband the senate

Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I understand - take my antipathy to McCain. But Thompson was not a "career" Senator. He was elected in a special election in 1994 to replace Algore. He was reelected to the full term in 1996. Then he voluntarily left office - being fairly popular and from TN I'm sure he could have stayed on indefinitely had he chosen to - in order to go back to acting and his family.

All those bad habits that the Senate produces seems to be most pronounced in those that have been there the longest - the "career Senators." So I'm not quite so worried that FDT became quite the CongressCritter in his relatively brief time in the Senate.

disease quick!

Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

He's well aware that as a Republican in SC he probably has his job for life barring the revelation of any major skeletons in his closet (or cash in his freezer).

So he's probably just been practicing for later in his career.

Someone should put him out of his (our) misery via primary challenge in 2008.

I remember back when he first ran, before I knew who he was, I happened to catch a debate on C-SPAN. I didn't know which candidate was which, but I remember thinking "that guy" (Graham) must be the Democrat.

Run like Reagan!

Of the last few Senators that have run for the office, can you name even ONE that was really a dynamic figure or that really sparked a feeling of the kind of presence that Thompson seems to have generated?

McCain in 2000 maybe came close - but even then he was bombastic and somewhat off-putting to people. He also did nothing to help himself when he was demonizing the religious conservatives.

Dole and Kerry, who actually won nominations, were dreary and dull and couldn't excite anybody (excitement over both was mainly in the form of "we hate the other guy" enthusiasm).

hehehehe...

It is their violation of Haystack's 12th that forces me from the Guiliani and McCain camps.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

they will get back to you-they are way past what they expected at kickoff...the site goes up easy...managing it takes a heck of a lot more time and organization.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

as the build in safeguards put me at ease. (Like with this fellow, for example.) I'd be surprised if Henke didn't allow for that.)

Either way, if the server is secure, you'll be fine.

It's too early for me to donate to a Presidential campaign, but I think my wife's given to Fred. (She told me he ought to be President during his appearance on Hannity & Colmes shortly after September 11, 2001.)

if you ever have a problem with a product, payment or refund.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

Pam, you asked for the data to do an offline contribution.

Personally, I don't know why they do not have this data up at the web site. Then again, I don't work for the campaign, so go ask them.

I have the offline contribution info you need; I'm the FredHeads Co-Director for the state of Colorado. You can email me for it (FredHeads AT ColoradoForThompson.com).

I'm also cutting and pasting the data here, but that may not be proper for this board - its a judgment call that I leave in the hands of the moderators. So look below for the data, and if its not there, I can email it to you.

By the way, FredHeads are a grass roots ad hoc organization that is not (yet) formally affiliated with the campaign, since we existed well before the campaign, going back to April and we got seriously organized in May, setting up in 35 states, and self-organizing at the county level and down at the precincts in some places.

Note: This is NOT a solicitation for donations or funds - it is simply an informational reply to someone who requested it.

----Moderators - if this is out of place, please delete everything below, including this line.----

Here is what I have, its cut and pasted from a letter I got, as part of the "First Day" movement. .

----------

Payment Information:

To qualify as a “First Day Contributor,”
checks must be dated June 4, 2007 and be
received by June 11, 2007.

Checks should be made payable to:

Friends of Fred Thompson

Checks should be mailed to:

Friends of Fred Thompson
P.O. Box 128349
Nashville, TN 37212-8349

--------

The form below must be fully filled out and submitted with any remittances in order to comply with FEC Regulations.

The verbiage below needs to be printed out, filled out and sent in with any contributions you wish to make - its simply illegal for any candidate or candidate organization to accept money without that data. Its mostly FEC boilerplate that all the candidates use - anyone here that has donated can tell you its pretty much the same regardless of candidate.

--------

Contributions to Friends of Fred Thompson are not
tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Contributions to Friends of Fred Thompson will be
used in connection with federal elections and are
subject to the limits and prohibitions of federal
law. The maximum an individual may contribute is
$2,300 ($4,600 per couple). Joint contributions
require the signatures of both spouses. Corporate
and foreign national contributions are not permitted
under federal law.

Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to
obtain and report the name, mailing address,
occupation and name of employer for each individual
whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in
an election cycle.

______________________
Full name (and Spouse Name if joint)

______________________
Address

______________________
City State Zip

______________________
Home Phone Office Phone

______________________
Fax E-Mail

______________________
Employer and Occupation

______________________
Spouse’s Employer and Spouse’s Occupation

Check Contributions

The contribution to Friends of Fred Thompson
drawn on check # _______________ of the account
named as ____________________________________ ,
represents personal funds and is not drawn on
an account maintained by an incorporated entity.

_________________________________
Signature of Original Contributor

_________________________________
Signature of Spouse (if joint contribution)

As for "executive experience," - - Carter was a an experienced manager and administrator. Reagan (like Churchill!) was a leader. Case closed.
IMHO, Fred's primary advantages lie in who Fred IS, not so much as in WHAT HE's DONE.

First, Carter was a Navy nuclear engineer, a business man (inherited the company), a state legislator and a one term governor of Georgia. Then he was elected president.

Reagan was a radio announcer, a VERY successful actor, a union president, a TV host, a prominent public speaker for 30 years, gave a legendary address for Goldwater in 1964, a highly successful and twice-elected governor of California (the most populous state), ran an adrenaline-pumping race for president in 1976. And then he was elected president. He had to prove more than Carter ever did to get the nod and the WH.

Re your second point, the public has to judge what Fred will do for the country, not what he is.

They will have to judge BOTH, who he is and what he will do. Don't think for a moment that Reagan didn't have to prove both. Reagan had a jump on the who he was question because of his past - people knew him. He also had to prove more because he was bucking the system - the "establishment" of the party at the time was clearly Rockefellerism - see Nixon's price controls. Reagan was very much not in "mainstream" of the party structure at the time.

And if you don't like Carter, how about Clinton - after 14 years as Governor he was supposed to be a hell of an administrator - detail-oriented, blah blah blah. What did it get us? Nothing all that great.

Back to Reagan - if we had just looked at what Reagan had done in California we might not have been so keen on him - his record was by no means a conservative highlight reel. But he had a vision for the country that people signed on to - maybe because he made it so easy to sign on to it. He was sunny and positive during a pretty dismal time - he spoke plainly, he spoke from conviction, and he followed through, but was smart enough to play a little politics and compromise when it suited his ends.

All of that was equal part "What he'll do" and "What he is." What any person will do given a situation is very much wrapped up in who that person is and what qualities and personality they bring to the table every day.

Well done post.

Has anybody else noticed that Fred is the only viable candidate we have that hasn't spent most of the last twenty or thirty years enmeshed in high-power politics? I guess you could say the same for Romney. A change for the better (away from 'politics as usual') just seems more likely with either of them than with the others.

Maybe that's partly why they both appeal to me more than Rudy, although I could vote for Rudy with no misgivings.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

The Grass Roots FredHeads have a wiki site, FredThompsonFAQ.com

They address a lot of the criticisms and questions at that link. I know the fellow that runs it.

If You're With Fred - donate to him at I'm With Fred.

If you're from Colorado, visit the Colorado FredHeads.

... here is a direct link to the FAQ page.

http://fredthompsonfaq.com/tiki-view_faq.php?faqId=1

Its been there about a month already.

For more info, hit the "Fredipedia" we have going there.

http://fredthompsonfaq.com/tiki-index.php?page=Fredipedia

I did not know that. I will make a deliberate attempt to stop doing it. Thank you.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

We don't consider it bad form. We just call it imitating Kowalski, whom we love. :)

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

for some unknown reason he always hits "Post Comment" a couple of times.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

his train of thought.

Hi, K! J/K you know. :)

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

...I'll tell you that it ain't the webmaster's fault. It's the fault of the campaign manager and/or the rest of the team. The poor schmuck who's webmaster just puts up whatever content he gets fed.

I doubt that many of us know just what a webmaster does. I probably had it in the back of my mind that he was the "master of the website," but now we know it's a technical position. The earlier reference to the webmaster perhaps really meant "the person who decides and directs what goes on the website."

More knowledge is good knowledge.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

Giuliani I think, could absolutely beat Hillbama, He would be a breath of fresh air as a real fiscal conservative for a change, and a good leader.

On the other hand his views on immigration and a few social issues are less than stellar.

Fred, on the other hand is about nearly right on every single issue I can think of, But I wonder just how well he would do given the current anti-war, anti-republican climate.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

including Rudy.

I don't think this is what you were saying, but you don't want to beat a Dem by imitating them. The Republican Party is a conservative party.

conservative, but he is not conservative in a different way that Bush is not conservative. Or to put it another way, some of us are not so eaten up with the social issues and are more disgusted that we have had nearly unrestricted growth in government under Republicans who seemed more conservative, gave lip service to the social cons, but did not do much at all.

maybe its time for a l

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Yes, Rudy is indeed not conservative in a different way than Bush, but in many respects he is not conservative on some of the more important things out there today.

Face it, the welfare state is not going away - it has been around for 70 years and at every turn gets augmented and supplemented. We couldn't even reign it in during the supply side days of Reagan. To claim that we're going to find the fiscal conservative who is going to roll back the clock is fantasy. And having lived in NY I'm not sure Rudy is the guy that would be doing that anyway.

I don't think that Rudy should be the rallying point of FiscCons any more than he should be acceptable to SoCons.

but I am not sure I agree, I don't want to totally give up on fiscal conservatism without even trying, because if I ever come to believe, as you do, that there is nothing we can do about it, I will just become apolitical, and the Party will lose another voter and contributer.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I was indicating that I don't think we will be able to purge the New Deal or Great Society. Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid - they're here to stay. What we can do is work with the hand we have been dealt to make it as tolerable as possible.

But also you miss my statement on where you place your hope. I don't believe that Rudy is the kind of "fiscal conservative" that is going to even make many of those fights in the first place. I do not seem him riding the circuit making the case for means-tested Medicare or personal Social Security accounts. I don't believe that any of the entitlement reforms that conservatives hope for are going to find the kind of support in a Giuliani White House that will be needed to get them past the leftist barrage that will be hurled against them. I don't believe Giuliani is a "true believer" and will expend political capital to do it.

At best he gives us permanence on the tax cuts. But not even Bush could do that - and with a Democrat Congress the idea is DOA. Then again, just about every GOP candidate has or will likely promise to make the cuts permanent so I don't see that as a selling point for any particular horse in the race.

I seem to recall a Star Trek episode where the leaders of two worlds did that with a war. They ended up killing their own people at a horrendous rate just to 'keep the peace.' That only changed when Kirk made it impossible for them to continue to keep it "as tolerable as possible". The welfare state may not kill physical bodies, but it certainly destroys emotional and spiritual ones. So on this issue, I'm with Kirk. And Guiliani ain't.

Before Order 66, there was General Order 24.

Run like Reagan!