AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Why Conservatism Matters Most

Rush Limbaugh was back yesterday and in excellent form. He took explained why Mike Huckabee and John McCain are not Conservatives (despite they and their supporters claiming that they are such) and he also explained why Republicans should vote for Conservatives otherwise the Democrats will win the Presidential nomination and the Congress this November.

RUSH: [ … ] This question: “Who else is there?” He’s talking about Huckabee when he asks me this question. Who else is there with conservative bona fides? Let me ask the question again I just asked about Senator McCain. If somebody told you that a conservative was someone who supported amnesty for illegal aliens, who supported limiting free political speech (McCain-Feingold) who embraced the ACLU’s brief for terrorist detainees getting US constitutional rights. If someone told you that a conservative is someone who opposed tax cuts during the Bush administration, and has recently confirmed he would do it again, what would you say? Most likely you would say, “Hell no! That’s not a conservative.” Yet I just described to you several of Senator McCain’s positions over the years. Now, the idea that he’s a great conservative in this race is an affront to conservatives. The media is pushing McCain hard now, particularly the local New Hampshire media. They are just going overboard with this love that they have for McCain. In fact, let’s go back to December 3rd, I just want to show you what it means to be listening to this program and being on the cutting edge of societal evolution. I predicted that the Drive-Bys had switched from McCain to Huckabee and that they would move back to McCain. I said this on December 3rd a month ago. Listen.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Right now it is obvious the media wants Huckabee, and the reason the media wants Huckabee is because they know they’re going to, down the road, be able to portray him as a nutcase, Bible-thumping evangelical who’s going to take his religion and God into the Oval Office — and they’ll use that to incite fear among liberals and progressives and so forth. […] They built McCain up. McCain loved it when they built him up. They tripped him up over the war, and now they’re trying to revive his campaign again.

RUSH: Are they not doing so? Did I not tell you? Yes, I did! They’re pushing McCain hard now. They were waiting to see what happened. Now they’re pushing. They are willing, the Drive-Bys are willing to tolerate his position on Iraq in exchange for all of his other views: opposition to tax cuts, limiting free speech, siding up with the ACLU. These are things they’re willing to tolerate in McCain as they overlook his position on Iraq — and, really, they don’t have to overlook much because his position on Iraq isn’t all that different from Rudy or Thompson. So it doesn’t matter to the Drive-Bys, anyway. It would mean that in November, there is no conservative — quote, “real thoroughbred conservative” — running, and if we don’t have anybody on the ballot on the Republican side who is a conservative and who is willing to say he’s a conservative and espouse those principles, we are going to lose. The Democrats are going to win and win big. If our nominee is either not conservative and is pandering to the left to try to get some of their votes, or if our nominee is so afraid of his record that he’s relying on identity politics to get votes or if our nominee decides that the only way he can win is to go out and pick off some libs in the Northeast and out in the West, it’s going to be a bloodbath.

The Northeast liberal Republican elites are going to be loving the whole campaign because they think that their ideas have regained prominence and power in the Republican Party all before it goes down to defeat in a massive landslide. So the question that you ask is: “What do we want?” Now, this notion — getting back to the question asked by the guy from Grand Rapids, Michigan — who else has conservative bona fides? Ladies and gentlemen (sigh), Governor Huckabee — who might be a fine man, and is a great Christian — is not a conservative. He’s just not. If you look at his record, as governor, he’s got some conservative tendencies on things, but he’s certainly not the most conservative of the candidates running on the Republican side. There are other aspects, too, which, if I wanted to, I could spend time getting into. But I didn’t start this program today on Huckabee because I didn’t want people to think that the whole point here was to focus on Huckabee, and I’m going to keep some of the powder dry here because I don’t want to be accused of piling on. But if people are going to ask me questions, I’m not going to shirk from them and try to hem-haw around. So there you have it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to go back to the call, Rick from Kansas City. I want to play 55 seconds of his call because I did not have time to respond. Had I known more of what he was going to say, I would have delayed taking his call, because I only gave him about a minute or a minute and a half. But let me now respond to it. Here again, 55 seconds of what he had to say, just a moment ago.

(replaying of phone call)

CALLER: Okay, well, first of all, I want to ask you, priority-wise, which is a more important issue to you, the abortion issue or the tax issue?

RUSH: See, I don’t separate ’em.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: You’ve got these people, “Well, I’m a fiscal conservative but I’m a social liberal.” You’ve just described for me a northeastern Republican.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: A moderate Republican. Conservatism is what it is. You don’t pick and choose and say this aspect is more important, it’s a whole package.

CALLER: Right. Just real briefly, Rush, you know, I agree with you that if you give people the fruit of their labors, that technically this country should prosper, but I’m not a single-issue voter, but I am a priority issue voter. And to me, as someone who believes in God, I believe that if this nation allows the unfettered, wholesale slaughter of most innocent —

RUSH: Right, right.

(end phone call)

RUSH: Okay, that’s it. We had to interrupt the call. We’ve talked about abortion on this program countless times, the sanctity of life and how it is the root of many things. But in terms of electing a president, there are a couple things the president can do about abortion, one of them substantive, the other is somewhat ephemeral. The substantive thing that a president can do about abortion is to nominate judges, primarily Supreme Court justices. That’s it. Now, a president can lead, a president can try to inspire and motivate, change hearts and so forth, but, in a substantive way, there’s not much a president can do about abortion. Rick from Kansas City is a good illustration, a good example of what I mean when I describe Governor Huckabee as campaigning on identity politics. There are some people who will overlook every aspect of Governor Huckabee that is really something in total opposition to most of their beliefs, because all they will see is the Christian characteristic, particularly if it fits right with the abortion issue.

Now, my friends, I’m sorry here. I haven’t spent a lifetime, and particularly the last 23 years on radio, advocating conservative principles only to throw them away to embrace some candidate. I don’t support open borders and amnesty, as does Governor Huckabee. I don’t support the release of hundreds of criminals. I don’t support repeated increases in taxes. I don’t support national health care. I don’t care what you call it, whether it’s in the name of the children or not. I don’t support anti-war rhetoric that sounds as if it was written by Nancy Pelosi. And yet I’m being asked to put all that aside in the midst of a Republican primary. As I’ve tried to point out countless times, a primary is a time to sort these things out. Now, I, speaking for myself, am not going to put aside my principles to accommodate a single politician or campaign operative, period. Too much is at stake here. And being asked to do this, to put all this aside for any single issue is not the point.

Now, I don’t want somebody in the White House who has no problem with abortion. I don’t want anybody in the White House who thinks that it’s okay and that we ought not do anything about it. Don’t misunderstand. But I also don’t want anybody to misunderstand what a president can actually do about it and how far a president can actually take the issue. It’s about judges, if your concern is overturning Roe vs. Wade. If it’s not, if you realize that’s going to be a ways down the line and yet we want to do something about abortion prior to that then it’s about changing minds and hearts. There are several ways of going about doing that, and one of the ways is not wagging your finger in people’s faces and telling them they’re sinning or telling them they’re wrong, you’re just going to seal their resolve against you. I think we’re in the process of changing minds and hearts. I think abortion figures are falling. I think as generations grow and change, there’s a greater repugnance attached to the whole practice. It is not an 80% majority issue, pro-choice isn’t. It’s not even 50% now. Progress is being made on this. But I’m not going to sit here and put aside all of these things that I believe in and have worked for and that I know work.

One of the most frustrating things to me about this entire Republican primary is sitting out there right in front of us for all of us to see. I don’t care how far you want to go back, if you want to go back to Buckley and Russell Kirk, if you want to go back to Edmund Burke, if you want to go back to Goldwater, you can do that and you can find how conservatism has positively influenced change in this country. But all you have to do, if you don’t want to go that far back, all you gotta do is go back to 1980. Now, I realize a lot of people get sick and tired of hearing about Ronald Reagan because there isn’t another Reagan out there, Reagan was a unique individual and so forth. I’m not pining away for somebody to be Ronald Reagan. What I am asking some Republican to see is that Ronald Reagan won two landslides coming off of a Jimmy Carter four years of malaise. Following Ronald Reagan, in 1994 we took back the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, and we did this with conservative principles. What frustrates me is why the latest current crop of Republicans wants to ignore that and think that there’s a better way, when the evidence that shows progress, both economic, social, you name it, national security, defeating the Soviets in the Cold War, it’s all there. And why it is eschewed, why it is ignored, is something I’ve long told you this, in different ways, starting in the early days of this primary campaign. I’ve warned you that one of the things that concerns me most about all this is how conservatism is going to be redefined so as to fit whatever the current crop of candidates said it is. There’s a bunch of these guys running around saying they’re Reagan. None of them are. There’s not one Reagan conservative — well, I can’t say there’s not one, there may be one.

But the bottom line, the point is that the lessons are clear on whatever issue you want to raise: national security, taxes, economics, individual prosperity, domestic security. It’s all there: How to beat liberals; how to beat Democrats; how to take power from them. It’s all there. The frustrating thing to me is it’s being ignored. Or, some people are trying to redefine it. And I think I understand why, given some of the candidates here, based on the geography of their lives and where they live, it’s embarrassing to admit they’re a conservative because it causes them to be identified with a bunch of people they don’t want to be identified with when they go to parties or engage in their social life or what have you, all of which is profoundly frustrating to me, which is when I’m called an elite, I have to just chuckle. So that’s what’s frustrating to me. But I’ll tell you something else that’s frustrating to me. I’ve been behind this microphone 19-and-a-half years, behind a microphone during this type of show for 23 years, going back to 1984. And yet, identity politics, which is that politics practiced by the left, still is not seen through. Single-issue can cause people to end up choosing or supporting somebody, something, some candidate that is truly anathema to the rest of the lives that they lead. But we keep plugging away. But just don’t ask me to compromise my principles. You want to compromise yours, fine, but don’t ask me to make you feel better by joining you.

Amen to that Rush. Amen to that.

I feel the exact same way. If people like a certain candidate, fine. But I am sticking by my Conservative principles and will be voting for a Conservative. Knowing that, I am not going to fall for people trying to sway me to their guy by redefining Conservatism to fit their candidate. The only conservatives in this campaign are Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Period. And I have already chosen to support Fred Thompson. If Fred Thompson ends up having to drop out of the campaign, then the only way someone is going to convince me to vote for their candidate is if they are first honest enough to admit that their candidate is not a Conservative. Then we can go from there.

January 4, 2008 , 2:15AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Abortion, Conservatism, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh | 3 Comments

Why Does the Running Mate Matter in a Presidential Race?

I asked this question over at this post at HotAir tonight after AllahPundit posed this question:

Your exit question: Would putting Fred on the bottom of the ticket warrant a SECOND LOOK AT McCAIN!, or is there simply nothing that can scrub the stain of amnesty from his soul?

Here are some of my comments I left and the ensuing discussion:

Question: What effect does a VP have on a President’s domestic and foreign policy, other than breaking a tie in the Senate?

I ask this, because I don’t really understand why it matters who is the VP when it comes to policy. People keep saying that a conservative running mate will help a liberal nominee with conservatives. Why? Why would a VP’s stances on issues matter? The President is the Executive and makes the decisions, not the VP.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:38 AM

*****

amerpundit on January 3, 2008 at 12:39 AM

How so? I don’t know any of VP Cheney’s positions on any policy other than foreign policy.

I’ll get more specific. McCain is pro-amnesty. Let’s say he takes on a pro-immigration enforcement VP. Why should what his VP thinks matter? Is McCain going to defer to his VP when it comes to immigration? And, if that is the case, then do I really want someone who runs his campaign on one policy position, but then defers to his VP’s position when in office?

I just don’t understand why I should care whom a nominee chooses for their VP. Unless the President dies in office, what does it matter who is the VP? Was Dan Quayle anything special? Did people decide to vote (or not vote) for President George H.W. Bush based on his VP selection of Dan Quayle?

Go another route… a Thompson/Romney ticket. Am I supposed to stop supporting Thompson, because I don’t support his VP choice and should be worried that Romney’s policy positions will become Fred’s when in office?

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:44 AM

*****

Nothing, not even Tom Tancredo as his VP, could give Juan Plantation McShamnasty any credibility on “immigration”.

MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 12:41 AM

My thoughts exactly. Yet I see bloggers and political pundits all over pushing this sentiment that somehow a VP nominee with policy positions counter to the Presidential nominee is somehow supposed to matter. I don’t understand why. Unless McCain dies in office and the pro-immigration enforcement VP decides to completely switch course on Amnesty, what does it matter?

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM

*****

As a tangential issue, what does it say about Fred’s commitment to conservative principles when the man is willing to endorse McCain for president?

Nessuno on January 3, 2008 at 12:47 AM

These are my thoughts on the matter as well. Personally, I don’t base my vote on endorsements, I base them on my positions on the issues. If Fred Thompson endorses John McCain, then he goes against my positions on the issues and thus loses my support. The only endorsement Fred can give, in my opinion, if he were to drop out and to stay consistent with conservative principles is to endorse Duncan Hunter, if Congressman Hunter is still in the race longer than Fred Thompson. If not, then Fred Thompson should just drop out and not endorse anyone.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:55 AM

*****

The Fredheads are going to have ‘issues’ if this plays out.

Drew on January 3, 2008 at 12:50 AM

I won’t ‘have issues’, I will simply admit that I was wrong about Fred Thompson and move on. I’m not sure why this campaign has to be filled with people demonizing every candidate’s supporters.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 12:57 AM

*****

Issues, my ass. Thompson is doomed.

aero on January 3, 2008 at 12:53 AM

I thought the analogy put out there the last day or so about this campaign being like the guy who can’t figure out why girls aren’t going for him, when he is everything that girls say they want. The reality is that girls don’t really want what they say they want. Same thing here. All the talk among the American electorate about wanting a focus on issues and wanting a leader, not a politician, etc is just talk. When it comes down to it, the American electorate is fickle and superficial.

Fred ran a campaign based on believing that the American electorate was sincere. He has found out that the American electorate is as insincere and superficial as most of the politicians they complain about.

Oh well. We will all get what we deserve come November.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:02 AM

*****

No one is going to endorse Hunter now. He is pretty much finished this campaign.

bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 12:57 AM

I know. I was just making the point that the only way for Fred to be consistent and stick to his professed conservative principles would be to endorse the only other conservative in the race. If he endorses anyone else, I will see is as politics as usual and admit that I was wrong about Fred being a principled conservative.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM

*****

There are a lot of those hardcore types who keep telling everyone Fred’s the only conservative and Maverick is a RINO. They are going to freak out if Fred throws his support to McCain.

Drew on January 3, 2008 at 1:03 AM

Well, that describes me, except for the freaking out part.

I guess where I am different than others is that I my passion is behind my positions on the issues, my principles and my values. I support Fred Thompson, because I believe he is a leader in line with what I believe. If he strays from that though, I won’t freak. I will simply stop supporting him.

I am not loyal to the man, I am loyal to the principles, values and positions on the issues.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:10 AM

*****

This is a great question, and I for one will be very interested to see what dynamic exists for the next VP. Many consider Cheney as the most powerful VP we’ve had, I think I am in that category myself. How much input they have is dependent on the Pres pretty much.

Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 1:09 AM

I can see a VP nominee mattering if they had a lot of experience with foreign policy matters as Dick Cheney had. But as far as immigration or any domestic policies or appointing people to important positions in government agencies, nominees for the court, etc, I don’t see how the VP would matter.

Maybe having Tom Tancredo as a running mate would make people take a second look at John McCain, specifically because Tom Tancredo is so passionate about the immigration issue. But then one has to wonder who is giving up their passion? Is Tom Tancredo sacrificing his principles on immigration and supporting McCain’s position to be VP or is John McCain sacrificing his principles on amnesty and supporting Tancredo’s position to be President?

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:16 AM

*****

Historically none. Cheney has been the exception. The historic role for a VP is to break ties in the Senate, be the attack dog for the administration against their domestic foes in the other party, and check each day to make sure the president is still alive.

bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM

That’s pretty much what I thought. So why do political pundits keep pushing this talking point?

I suspect it is because they want to try to convince people that the running mate matters, so as to prop up their weak candidate.

Also, as far as breaking the tie in the Senate. Is the VP casting his vote on behalf of the President’s position on the particular vote or on behalf of his own position on the particular vote? Let’s say the VP disagrees with a major policy of the President that is up for vote in the Senate… immigration bill for example. By all this talk about the opinions of the VP mattering, am I to assume that the VP would cast a vote contrary to the President’s policy position on immigration enforcement?

I don’t see that as likely. So, again, I don’t see why it matters who is the VP on issues such as social conservative issues, immigration, appointments, nominations for the Court, etc.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:23 AM

*****

With regards to John McCain and people saying they will not vote for him based on Amnesty…

The issue is not just McCain’s position in supporting amnesty, but also his viewpoint on those who oppose it. He came across as mean and demonizing of anyone who opposed it.

I have been a part of some very reasonable discussions of the pros and cons of amnesty, where I was not insulted as being a “nativist”, “racist” or stupid or somesuch other personal attack. Anti-amnesty people were not given that respect by Senator McCain (and others, President Bush included).

So that is really the kicker for me with John McCain. It is not just his position on the issues, but his utter contempt with which he treats his opponents. If he would have been a better statesman about defending his position and trying to convince others of his position, I would be a lot more open to him right now. But after watching the contempt he has for people who disagree with him, I eliminated him from consideration a long time ago.

Michael in MI on January 3, 2008 at 1:30 AM

January 3, 2008 , 1:53AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Fred Thompson, John McCain | 1 Comment

Do I Really Want to Support a Candidate Who Lives to be President?

Excellent question. And a great post at NRO The Campaign Spot by the gentleman who is the person who asked Fred Thompson the question, which got the political pundits, mass media and political bloggers all hyperventilating (in a negative way) about Fred Thompson.

After watching the blogs and media coverage of the question, I think the question and answer were taken out of context. From the start I want to make one thing clear, I do not nor have I ever thought Sen. Thompson is lazy. No one can accomplish in a lifetime what he has accomplished and be lazy. The question really came from months of frustrations. I started looking around for a candidate early because I really wanted to be a part of a campaign. Gov. Allen from Virginia was a possibility until his election meltdown. I looked at Gov. Huckabee early, but wrote him off as not being a viable candidate this time around. Shows you what I know. I also saw some of the big government ideas the Romney camp is now pointing out.

Speaking of Gov. Romney, I looked at him as well. Something about Gov. Romney just does not feel right. There is something about him I just do not trust. He is a little to slick. His image is a little too perfect. I could care less he is a Mormon. Frankly, I think the press made too big of an issue of his faith. I can only remember one person who mentioned his Mormon faith as being an issue. Most Iowa Republicans I spoke with about Romney were more concerned about his flip-flopping on the issues, than him being a Mormon bishop.

A high school friend of mine is a lobbyist in Washington D.C. During a phone call he mentioned Fred Thompson was thinking of running for President. I remember asking “The guy from Law & Order?” I knew he had been a senator, but did not know much anything else about him. Then I started receiving emails from Lamar Alexander and his Volpac telling me he was trying to get his good friend Fred Thompson to run for president. I began to look at Sen. Thompson and his record. I got excited. Here was proven conservative with a proven track record. He was well known to people outside of the political geeks. Not mention the last time the Republicans nominated a proven conservative who was marginal actor we nominated one the greatest presidents of all time.

Then the waiting began. I was in the Ames area during the straw poll, but I did not go, because I was waiting for my candidate to get into the race. I rationalized his late entry the same way he did on Saturday, he was getting into the race when candidates use to get into the race. I kept telling my family and friends just wait until he gets into the race, it will be like a ground fire. Finally, he announced and then nothing. It was like running downstairs on Christmas morning, only to find underwear under the Christmas tree. The day arrived, but there was no excitement. To be honest, my interest waned.

A few months ago he came to Burlington. I arrived at the event site when the doors were to open and the place was packed. There was excitement. He walked into the room and spoke. He said what I wanted to hear. Finally here was my candidate. There was still something missing. He did not ask me to support him. He told me what he thought about the issues. He fielded questions from the audience. It did not feel like a campaign rally. It was more like a lecture from an outstanding political speaker. Then the questions really started to creep into my mind, does this man really want to be President? Is he running for President or Secretary of Homeland Security? We see that in Iowa. Candidates for “president” are really running for some other office. I wanted to ask him that night do you want to be my president. I found myself wanting to support Sen. Thompson, but not knowing if he wanted me to support him.

I continued to look at all the candidates, but I kept coming back to Sen. Thompson. I wanted the chance to hear him talk again and Saturday was my chance. My friend from D.C. was visiting town so we went together to hear Sen. Thompson. The room and crowd were smaller this time. The only seats left were next to a woman I know through my work with the Boy Scouts. We waited for Sen. Thompson to arrive. Rep. King of Iowa introduced him. He walked into the room and sat down at the table with one of our local radio personalities. Again his answers were refreshing. Instead of sound bite after sound bite, he gave long thought out answers. He was advocating the ideas I wanted to hear. Then the question and answer session arrived. I wanted to know does this man want to be my President? I got the last question in.

The answer was exactly what I hope it would. It was a great answer. At points during the answer I was ashamed I had asked the question. I knew the answer. Do I really want to support a candidate who lives to be President? Is that type of candidate really interested in serving the nation or serving his own self-interest? Sen. Thompson positioned himself as willing to serve, not for an enlarged ego, but out of a deep desire to serve his nation. He has desire to make our nation better for his children and grandchildren. Far from a slick Branson like presentation, he presented himself as a dedicated patriot willing to serve if we, the American people, were willing to have him do so. He refuses to be a President under false pretenses. He is not leading us into a shotgun relationship. He understands that under the founder’s concept of the social contract, both parties must be fully aware of the terms of the contract when entering into the agreement. If the American people do not want him to be President, he is not going to trick us into agreeing to him. As I said, the answer was refreshing. It was a great answer.

I went and saw Gov. Romney that night. Do not misunderstand me; if Gov. Romney is the Republican nominee for President, I will support him. His presentation was an event. His hair and teeth were perfect. He smiled. He pressed the flesh. His wife glowed as she stood next to him. Make no mistake; Gov. Romney wants to be President of the United States. Maybe that is why I do not trust him. In the end, Sen. Thompson was right, the next President should be someone who wants to serve the nation, not someone who wants to be President. Far from the press coverage that stated Sen. Thompson does not have the desire to be President, his desire is to serve the American people. He believes the best way to do that is to be President. If he is not elected President, he will not be disappointed. He will find some other way to serve the American people, just like he has throughout his career. After listening to Sen. Thompson and thinking about what he said, I can only conclude he is the best candidate for the job.

January 1, 2008 , 4:24PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Fred Thompson | Comments Off on Do I Really Want to Support a Candidate Who Lives to be President?

Why Fred Thompson Has My Vote

Just watch and listen: Fred Thompson’s Message to Iowa Voters

[Found via Bryan Preston at HotAir.com]

Fred, in his own words to Iowa voters, makes the case for why he’s the best man to America’s next Commander in Chief.

I would look forward to watching this man give speeches, press conferences and State of the Union Addresses for the next four years. I just enjoy listening to him speak about government, values and principles and our country. I certainly hope the Republican base will finally rally around Fred Thompson and make him the Republican nominee for President in 2008. I would even look forward to watching the debates this campaign season to hear him battle the Democrat candidate.

Please watch and listen and support him if you like what you hear from him. I truly believe he is the best man for the Presidency of this nation.

Also, please visit www.Fred08.com for more info on Fred Thompson’s policy positions and for the opportunity to donate to his campaign.

UPDATE at 00:18 EST on 31 DEC 2007: Peter Robinson (admitted Fred Thompson supporter) at NRO The Corner points out something that I noticed as well, but forgot to make note of: Fred Thompson appeals to disaffected Democrats who do not like the extreme leftward shift of the leadership of the Democrat Party.

In the passage I found the most striking, Thompson does something no other Republican contender has attempted: appeal to Democrats.

You know, when I’m asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn’t matter… These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.

So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It’s time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.

So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party — the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them.

This is reminiscent of Reagan’s talk to the people of North Carolina in 1976. Simple, straightforward, modest production values — just the candidate in front of an American flag and an Iowa flag — but (to use the word again) compelling. Reagan’s 1976 talk enabled him to recover after a string of primary defeats, winning in North Carolina, then going on to come within a handful of delegates of wresting the nomination from Ford. Will Thompson’s talk move voters in Iowa? Does his campaign have the money to get it on the air? Throughout the state? Or even in a few of the most important markets? Beats me. But we have here a serious man, making a serious case — and doing so in the context of a campaign that has otherwise descended into mere caterwauling.

Even at this late hour, I wouldn’t count Fred out.

UPDATE at 02:18 EST on 31 DEC 2007:  I liked this comment left at the HotAir post to which I linked above.  Summarizes my thoughts perfectly (wish I would have stated it myself!)

I suppose what it comes down to is this: Fred Thompson has said in detail what he wants to do as President and how he wants to do it. Forget everything else – his campaign style, his age, his wife, all the frivolous crap – and ask yourself if you want to see what Fred Thompson has said he wants to do if he’s elected President. If your answer is yes, then he’s your candidate.

Jimmie on December 31, 2007 at 1:39 AM

December 30, 2007 , 10:50PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Fred Thompson | Comments Off on Why Fred Thompson Has My Vote

Anybody’s Presidential Race to Win, So Why Not Fred Thompson?

I posted this in response to Jake’s post, Anybody’s Race to Win.

Here is the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll History numbers to which I was referring in my comment.

What is interesting is if you look at the shift in the last two weeks (since DEC 14), we have this:

Huckabee (-6%)
Romney (-2%)
Giuliani (N/C)
Thompson (+1%)
McCain (+4%)

I don’t really care about these polls, since I don’t decide my vote based on what some Idiots Out Walking Around in Iowa are deciding, but…

I’m no polling expert, but just looking at those shifts in the last two weeks, it seems like people are not liking the fighting going on with Romney and Huckabee, the more they each reveal about each other in the attack ads, and so are giving another look to McCain and then looking at Thompson, now that he has put more ads out there (since the mass media and most political blogs are ignoring him, except to say he’s ‘lazy’ and say ‘he has no shot’).

Rudy Giuliani has stayed pretty much the same, because people have known his pros and cons for months/years now, so there is really nothing new to discover about him. The Conservative base does not like him, since they know he is an unabashed liberal on many policies and they are probably hoping to find a Conservative alternative, so they don’t have to vote for Rudy in the general. The problem is that if the Conservative base does not find a candidate around whom to rally, this Primary may end up like the 1992 general election. Rudy may end up winning by default, as Bill Clinton did, since the Conservative vote is split among Fred, McCain and Romney.

It is really a shame that Conservatives are more concerned with beating Hillary rather than voting on Conservative principles. The onlyCconservatives in the race are Fred and McCain. But McCain betrayed Conservatives throughout the past 4 years with McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14 and leading the charge for Amnesty (and completely insulting anyone who was against his Amnesty). Not to mention his position on “torture” is weak and in line with liberal Democrats. So that leaves Fred Thompson.

For me, the choice is easy. But for everyone else, it seems that they keep harping on this “whoever can beat Hillary” nonsense. I recall Republicans making fun of Democrats about their “Anybody but Bush” campaign in 2004, during which Democrats nominated John Kerry, not because he was whom they wanted, but because they felt he was “electable”. Well, golly gee, now the Republicans are doing the exact same thing. The sad truth is that the Republican voters have now become their worst enemies. They are now as unprincipled as Democrat voters were in 2004.

It’s sad and pathetic to me.

And I have lost a LOT of respect for people in politics such as political bloggers and such, because I have learned that they are not principled people at all, they simply are “the ends justify the means” people.

Sad state of affairs in our country right now and it has nothing to do with the Democrats. I see one of our greatest weaknesses coming from the Republican Party voters, who are more intersted in “electability” than principle.

I don’t mind people nominating Rudy or Romney or McCain or Huckabee or whomever. However, as Rush Limbaugh says, don’t redefine Conservatism in the process to try to say your candidate is a Conservative. Conservatism does not need redefining. The only true Conservative in the race is Fred Thompson. In addition to that, he has charm, is quick witted and is very knowledgeable about the role of Federalism in government. He could run rings around any Democrat in debates.

I just don’t see why people are so reluctant to support him.

I will also add that another thing I am looking for in a President is someone who will defend himself from attacks by the Democrats and the media. I am sick of defending the President and Republicans from lies by Democrats, the mass media and the Left, only to have the Administration do nothing to defend themselves. The only two people among the Republican field that I can see being like that are Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. However, Rudy also defends himself bodly when he is being rightfully attacked on his corruption and bad policies. I don’t want that either.

So that takes me back to Fred Thompson again. And the only criticism he gets is that he is ‘lazy’. Only this criticism is coming from Republican voters. Funny, Ronald Reagan was attacked with that label as well. This is not to say Fred Thompson is Ronald Reagan. No one will ever be Ronald Reagan. But it is interesting to see the attacks of the Left now becoming the attacks of the Right… on their own people.

Sad state of affairs… when the Republican base decides to vote “electability” over principle.

December 29, 2007 , 1:35PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani | Comments Off on Anybody’s Presidential Race to Win, So Why Not Fred Thompson?