So my man, Fred Thompson, is out of the race officially. Between the not-so-hot finishes in Iowa and South Carolina, tending to his sick mother last week, and a mixed GOP base...I can see why things just didn't go for him this time.
Since Thompson hasn't endorsed anybody, I now have to find a new candidate to support.
Do I go with John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul? Well, let me weight them out...
Mike Huckabee...while I like the idea of the FairTax, I don't think it is something that could be implemented without serious short-term economical damage. Other than that, Huckabee doesn't have much going for him with me. His record on issues isn't very sparkling when it comes to fiscal prudence, and he's heavy on the SoCon platform, which is very divisive in today's political sphere. Factor in Huckabee's lack of real ideas on the foreign policy front, and there isn't much for me to agree with as far as I've seen. Until he shows me something different, I cannot (in good faith) support Huckabee. Not with these other candidates in the field.
Ron Paul...while I like limited government and free markets, Paul strikes me as just a tad too isolationist for my tastes, especially since we're a big part of the global economy. Paul wants to pull out of Iraq immediately, even though many Dems even agree that things are now going in our favor and we can create a better situation in that region if we continue on the current course. I like libertarian ideals, but I'm a federalist at heart, and Paul and I just don't quite click enough to work.
John McCain...I respect McCain's independent streak, and I agree with him on fiscal issues (not just tax cuts, but spending cuts are necessary). He claims to have "heard the people" in regards to immigration, but that remains to be seen. McCain has the experience, the bipartisan appeal, and the intelligence to be a good leader. However, with that comes a certain amount of unpredictability about his performance. Then again, I thought McCain would've been a good leader in 2000 over George W. Bush. 50/50 shot with McCain, here.
Rudy Giuliani...The man I originally leaned towards for President until Fred Thompson came around and inspired me to endorse him. Rudy is smart on most of the issues, but has been basically repeating the same routine for about 8 months now. However, should he win Florida, the race changes dramatically. I like Rudy, and I think he'd make a pretty good leader. However, he's been dormant for so long that I don't know what to think.
Mitt Romney...Mitt appeals to me on fiscal issues, but has changed his position on various issues to move himself further to the right from where he was as a candidate for the U.S. Senate and as Governor of Massachusetts. With the economy being the top priority for the majority of voters right now, I would believe that Romney could be one of the best candidates to bring revival to the American economy, as he (along with his father) is a model of capitalist success. Another possible pick, but I'm just not sure at this point.
Do any of you have any ideas? Here's your chance to sell your candidate to me.
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
GOP Race: DC/Maryland/Virginia May Matter...And so Will Money
That's what David Freddoso thinks. Give it a read, this primary season is shaping up to simply be the best...primary...ever. At least for historical purposes.
As many others have said, Freddoso believes that a lot of the Huckabee vote in the South (and Giuliani vote overall) hinge on how well Fred Thompson does in South Carolina.
Also, as Freddoso points out, money may become a factor if this becomes a total national slugfest. This is where Romney's ability to self-finance and raise funds will come into play, as he will be able to sustain himself much longer than most of the other candidates.
I haven't seen fundraising numbers for Huckabee or McCain, but I do know that Giuliani is in trouble (asking for campaign workers to voluntarily stop receiving paychecks), and Fred Thompson's fundraising has picked up to the point that current fundraising challenges have had their limits increase due to the fact that donations have picked up recently.
As many others have said, Freddoso believes that a lot of the Huckabee vote in the South (and Giuliani vote overall) hinge on how well Fred Thompson does in South Carolina.
Also, as Freddoso points out, money may become a factor if this becomes a total national slugfest. This is where Romney's ability to self-finance and raise funds will come into play, as he will be able to sustain himself much longer than most of the other candidates.
I haven't seen fundraising numbers for Huckabee or McCain, but I do know that Giuliani is in trouble (asking for campaign workers to voluntarily stop receiving paychecks), and Fred Thompson's fundraising has picked up to the point that current fundraising challenges have had their limits increase due to the fact that donations have picked up recently.
Fred's Debate Domination
Jim Geraghty dishes out his winner from last night's debate...
Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to “the Natural” to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background.
Commanding...such a great adjective. According to Geraghty, even the infamous Frank Luntz focus group is coming around
For once I’m in total agreement with Frank Luntz’s focus group – they loved Fred. They’re saying he showed passion.
First he dominated the last Iowa debate with his leadership skills and firm stance, then he won the New Hampshire debates by being deep and solid on the issues, and now he won the South Carolina debate by displaying his passion.
Most of the liveblogging of the debate that I've seen has noted Fred's dominance, and it couldn't have come at a better time. Other sentiments echo the opinion that Fred really took it to Huckabee and had him reeling badly from it.
In other Fred news, the "big, big" conservative endorsement came from the periodical Human Events. While a great endorsement from one of Ronald Reagan's favorite magazines, not quite as "big" as some of us thought it was. Still, it's another solid endorsement from the conservative flank of the GOP.
Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to “the Natural” to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background.
Commanding...such a great adjective. According to Geraghty, even the infamous Frank Luntz focus group is coming around
For once I’m in total agreement with Frank Luntz’s focus group – they loved Fred. They’re saying he showed passion.
First he dominated the last Iowa debate with his leadership skills and firm stance, then he won the New Hampshire debates by being deep and solid on the issues, and now he won the South Carolina debate by displaying his passion.
Most of the liveblogging of the debate that I've seen has noted Fred's dominance, and it couldn't have come at a better time. Other sentiments echo the opinion that Fred really took it to Huckabee and had him reeling badly from it.
In other Fred news, the "big, big" conservative endorsement came from the periodical Human Events. While a great endorsement from one of Ronald Reagan's favorite magazines, not quite as "big" as some of us thought it was. Still, it's another solid endorsement from the conservative flank of the GOP.
U.S. At Risk of Losing Triple-A Credit Rating Within a Decade
And guess why? It's the fact that our government is spending way to much on health care, social security, and welfare.
These are the programs the Democrats are looking to spend more money on. This is also some of Fred Thompson's best issues in terms of how we should tackle these problems.
- Create a free-market approach towards health care.
- Individualize and optionally-privatize social security.
- Increase welfare effectiveness so only those that need it get it.
- Decrease number of people on welfare through stimulating economic and employment growth.
That, in itself, would save our credit rating...which is the same rating we have held since the rating was first applied in 1917. In other words, can literally cannot afford to have a tax-and-spend, social-program increasing Democrat in office.
Fiscal prudence is key, and Fred Thompson knows it.
These are the programs the Democrats are looking to spend more money on. This is also some of Fred Thompson's best issues in terms of how we should tackle these problems.
- Create a free-market approach towards health care.
- Individualize and optionally-privatize social security.
- Increase welfare effectiveness so only those that need it get it.
- Decrease number of people on welfare through stimulating economic and employment growth.
That, in itself, would save our credit rating...which is the same rating we have held since the rating was first applied in 1917. In other words, can literally cannot afford to have a tax-and-spend, social-program increasing Democrat in office.
Fiscal prudence is key, and Fred Thompson knows it.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Something Is A-Brewin' for Fred Thompson...
According to the American Spectator, Fred Thompson is set to receive a "big, big conservative endorsement." The question is...who?
Virginia Virtucon speculates it could be the NRA. Being a frequent visitor to the AR-15 forums (143,508 active accounts as I type this) and marvelling at the simply massive size of the membership of those forums, an NRA endorsement would have quite a bit of sway in states such as, oh, South Carolina (and Michigan, too).
Virginia Virtucon speculates it could be the NRA. Being a frequent visitor to the AR-15 forums (143,508 active accounts as I type this) and marvelling at the simply massive size of the membership of those forums, an NRA endorsement would have quite a bit of sway in states such as, oh, South Carolina (and Michigan, too).
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Interesting Rasmussen Poll on Virginia Senate and Presidential Races
Virginia Virtucon posted and prognosticated about the latest from Rasmussen on the state of Virginia today. Currently, Mark Warner leads Jim Gilmore in the head-to-head Senate race matchup 53%-38%
I must note that Virtucon is dead on about the fact that Mark Warner, with all of his supposed popularity, should be doing better than 53%. Gilmore's 38%, however, isn't very good considering he is a high-profile politician in Virginia who has had plenty of national exposure.
On the immigration front, here's what Rasmussen found...
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Virginia voters believe English should be the official language of the United States. Seventy-four percent (74%) believe companies should be allowed to require employees to speak English while on the job.
In terms of election ballots, the voters are more evenly divided. Just over half (55%) believe ballots should be printed in English only, while 39% say they should printed in both English and Spanish.
So they have to speak English, but they don't have to vote in English. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the consensus, but you'd think there would be more consistency with those poll numbers, especially on the election ballot issue.
Speaking of Virginia, here's some head-to-head matchup polling for the Presidential race from Rasmussen...
McCain 49%, Clinton 38%
McCain 45%, Obama 43%
Romney 44%, Clinton 43%
Obama 47%, Romney 41%
This is an indicator of how the independents feel. They like Obama and McCain (yes, that's stating the obvious). However, it seems that people are warming back up to McCain a lot, even in this state.
Even I'm beginning to warm back up to McCain...not enough to abandon Fred Thompson, who I think is the best candidate. However, should Fred leave the race, it's either McCain or Romney for me right now. I began to see reasons to support McCain when I saw that, during their overlapping Senate tenures, Thompson and McCain voted the same way 81% of the time.
Maybe Thompson and McCain will be running mates, given how well they've worked together in the past. Who knows.
I must note that Virtucon is dead on about the fact that Mark Warner, with all of his supposed popularity, should be doing better than 53%. Gilmore's 38%, however, isn't very good considering he is a high-profile politician in Virginia who has had plenty of national exposure.
On the immigration front, here's what Rasmussen found...
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Virginia voters believe English should be the official language of the United States. Seventy-four percent (74%) believe companies should be allowed to require employees to speak English while on the job.
In terms of election ballots, the voters are more evenly divided. Just over half (55%) believe ballots should be printed in English only, while 39% say they should printed in both English and Spanish.
So they have to speak English, but they don't have to vote in English. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the consensus, but you'd think there would be more consistency with those poll numbers, especially on the election ballot issue.
Speaking of Virginia, here's some head-to-head matchup polling for the Presidential race from Rasmussen...
McCain 49%, Clinton 38%
McCain 45%, Obama 43%
Romney 44%, Clinton 43%
Obama 47%, Romney 41%
This is an indicator of how the independents feel. They like Obama and McCain (yes, that's stating the obvious). However, it seems that people are warming back up to McCain a lot, even in this state.
Even I'm beginning to warm back up to McCain...not enough to abandon Fred Thompson, who I think is the best candidate. However, should Fred leave the race, it's either McCain or Romney for me right now. I began to see reasons to support McCain when I saw that, during their overlapping Senate tenures, Thompson and McCain voted the same way 81% of the time.
Maybe Thompson and McCain will be running mates, given how well they've worked together in the past. Who knows.
Hope for Fred in SC
Hunter Golden said it best...
I think the ONE guy who could sneak into the mix is Thompson, with Romney now completely sunk, I think you're going to see some defections to the Thompson crowd. If he takes the conservative stance, he can do well in South Carolina. I think while Huckabee and McCain are essentially playing to the same crowds.
This has actually been part of Fred's campaign strategy as of late. Get 3rd in Iowa, ignore New Hampshire for obvious reasons, and make the push in South Carolina. A 2nd place, or better, finish in SC will provide the shot in the arm to Fred's chances. The defection from Romney to Thompson has been predicted by other prognosticators, as well.
Good news for Fred.
I think the ONE guy who could sneak into the mix is Thompson, with Romney now completely sunk, I think you're going to see some defections to the Thompson crowd. If he takes the conservative stance, he can do well in South Carolina. I think while Huckabee and McCain are essentially playing to the same crowds.
This has actually been part of Fred's campaign strategy as of late. Get 3rd in Iowa, ignore New Hampshire for obvious reasons, and make the push in South Carolina. A 2nd place, or better, finish in SC will provide the shot in the arm to Fred's chances. The defection from Romney to Thompson has been predicted by other prognosticators, as well.
Good news for Fred.
N.H. GOP Primary: McCain's Win Anti-Climactic, Romney's Still Got a Chance
Anyone else feel that John McCain's win in New Hampshire was not nearly the surprise that some have made it out to be?
Sure, he's come back from being nearly dead in the water 8 months ago. However, for about 2 weeks now, we've pretty much known that McCain would overtake Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and win. McCain has been surging for 2 months now, and is actually starting to take away Mike Huckabee's heat (thank God).
Many are already counting Mitt Romney out, but be careful about that kind of prognostication. If McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani trade victories all over the United States, Romney seems poised to come in 2nd or 3rd in all of the primaries. He still will collect plenty of delegates even if he gets mostly silver-medal finishes.
With Huckabee's popularity pretty well isolated to evangelicals and other social conservatives, and McCain being a "boom or bust" candidate whose boom or bust depends on the state, Romney could be the most consistent "delegate-collector" of all the candidates.
With the possibility of a contested convention in September, and no one candidate really breaking away to collect enough delegates to win on the first ballot, Romney may put himself into a very advantageous position by winning a few states, and getting a lot of 2nd place finishes.
Honestly, as wide open as this race is...I can definitely see the possibility that no GOP candidate reaches the magic number of 1,191 delegates by the time this thing is over.
After New Hampshire, CNN has the delegate count as follows...
Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, Fred Thompson 6, Ron Paul 2, Giuliani 1, Duncan Hunter 1. While it's still REALLY early, we've got Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida coming up before Super Tuesday.
Fred Thompson is making his "Last Stand" in South Carolina. Smart move to hedge his bets there, as that is the next "big focus" primary, and the site of the next debate. This is his best shot to get back into this thing.
Sure, he's come back from being nearly dead in the water 8 months ago. However, for about 2 weeks now, we've pretty much known that McCain would overtake Mitt Romney in New Hampshire and win. McCain has been surging for 2 months now, and is actually starting to take away Mike Huckabee's heat (thank God).
Many are already counting Mitt Romney out, but be careful about that kind of prognostication. If McCain, Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani trade victories all over the United States, Romney seems poised to come in 2nd or 3rd in all of the primaries. He still will collect plenty of delegates even if he gets mostly silver-medal finishes.
With Huckabee's popularity pretty well isolated to evangelicals and other social conservatives, and McCain being a "boom or bust" candidate whose boom or bust depends on the state, Romney could be the most consistent "delegate-collector" of all the candidates.
With the possibility of a contested convention in September, and no one candidate really breaking away to collect enough delegates to win on the first ballot, Romney may put himself into a very advantageous position by winning a few states, and getting a lot of 2nd place finishes.
Honestly, as wide open as this race is...I can definitely see the possibility that no GOP candidate reaches the magic number of 1,191 delegates by the time this thing is over.
After New Hampshire, CNN has the delegate count as follows...
Romney 30, Huckabee 21, McCain 10, Fred Thompson 6, Ron Paul 2, Giuliani 1, Duncan Hunter 1. While it's still REALLY early, we've got Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida coming up before Super Tuesday.
Fred Thompson is making his "Last Stand" in South Carolina. Smart move to hedge his bets there, as that is the next "big focus" primary, and the site of the next debate. This is his best shot to get back into this thing.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Romney Wins Wyoming GOP Caucus, Fred Comes in Second
In a caucus that was widely ignored until the last 2 days before it occurred, Mitt Romney picked up 8 delegates in the Wyoming Caucus. Fred Thompson finished second and picked up 2 delegates, and Duncan Hunter finished a surprising third and picked up his first delegate of the primary season.
Romney now leads Mike Huckabee for total delegates, so far, and should widen that lead as he is expected to do much better in New Hampshire tomorrow than Huckabee is.
Wyoming only had a handful of delegates at stake due to the fact that the GOP stripped them of half of their delegates as a penalty for holding the caucus so early.
Romney now leads Mike Huckabee for total delegates, so far, and should widen that lead as he is expected to do much better in New Hampshire tomorrow than Huckabee is.
Wyoming only had a handful of delegates at stake due to the fact that the GOP stripped them of half of their delegates as a penalty for holding the caucus so early.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
"New Hampshire" = "Nasty Heat" for Candidates
These were the best debates, so far. Charles Gibson did a good job moderating the debate, and the format was much more of a "debate" and less of a "question and answer" session. Kudos to ABC, and the "unity" moment of having all the candidates from both parties greet each other onstage between debates was a nice touch.
Diane Sawyer, though, really seemed out of place in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, on to my thoughts.
On the GOP side...
- Fred Thompson had an excellent debate, and even George Stephanopoulos said so in his post-debate comments. He put Romney on the spot without attacking him (and forced Romney, on one occasion, to completely waffle on a question), handled Ron Paul like nobody else has done, and had a generally good overall performance. He seemed very comfortable in this debate, was on-point with his policies, and answered questions directly. Also, I noticed that more candidates said "Yes, Senator Thompson is right..." and would go on to repeat Fred's words. That's because Fred is correct.
- Mitt Romney was attacked by everyone on stage in some way, shape, or form. I must say that Romney handled most of the criticism well, considering the bombardment of attacks from many sides, especially from John McCain. McCain, while having some good quips, seemed more intent on spitting out a "zinger", then flashing a silly grin right before they cut away from him. His performance was a bit forced, in my opinion.
- Huckabee was almost non-existant for long stretches, playing the "let them knock each other out" card. Good job by Charles Gibson not to allow that to go on forever. Giuliani had a relatively strong performance. He made his stances fairly clear, pointed to his record of law enforcement and economic turnaround in New York City, and deflecting criticism for being more liberal in his policies in the past.
- Ron Paul did a good job espousing his views, but also took more heat than normal, probably because he's a more serious threat than most of the other candidates realized. He got burned by Fred on the "money-printing/Iraq War/health care" tie-in that Paul stretched to make.
On the Dem side...
- All 4 candidates had relatively decent nights, nobody had a "bad" night. However, if anyone should come out of this looking better than before, it's Bill Richardson. He was on a much more level playing field in terms of speaking time, and made good use of it. Richardson will probably give Hillary more problems than Obama and Edwards, and Richardson appeals to the "experience" base of the Democratic Party.
- Obama is really pushing for the Independent/Republican cross-over vote. He made a point to address them as necessary to create a majority consensus for his policies. Unless someone like Huckabee gets nominated, I don't see many Republicans crossing over.
- As usual, more "anti-Republican" sentiments from the Dems than "anti-Democrat" sentiments from the GOP. In fact, the only time the GOP addressed the Dems was when they were asked to compare themselves to Barack Obama. The Dem candidates had a habit of bringing up "those horrible Republicans" when they needed a rallying point...instead of rallying around what they stand for.
- Hillary had a stronger debate than the previous few debates she took part in. However, Obama was solid and Edwards also had a stronger-than-normal debate. None of which helps her in the long run.
Diane Sawyer, though, really seemed out of place in the whole scheme of things. Anyway, on to my thoughts.
On the GOP side...
- Fred Thompson had an excellent debate, and even George Stephanopoulos said so in his post-debate comments. He put Romney on the spot without attacking him (and forced Romney, on one occasion, to completely waffle on a question), handled Ron Paul like nobody else has done, and had a generally good overall performance. He seemed very comfortable in this debate, was on-point with his policies, and answered questions directly. Also, I noticed that more candidates said "Yes, Senator Thompson is right..." and would go on to repeat Fred's words. That's because Fred is correct.
- Mitt Romney was attacked by everyone on stage in some way, shape, or form. I must say that Romney handled most of the criticism well, considering the bombardment of attacks from many sides, especially from John McCain. McCain, while having some good quips, seemed more intent on spitting out a "zinger", then flashing a silly grin right before they cut away from him. His performance was a bit forced, in my opinion.
- Huckabee was almost non-existant for long stretches, playing the "let them knock each other out" card. Good job by Charles Gibson not to allow that to go on forever. Giuliani had a relatively strong performance. He made his stances fairly clear, pointed to his record of law enforcement and economic turnaround in New York City, and deflecting criticism for being more liberal in his policies in the past.
- Ron Paul did a good job espousing his views, but also took more heat than normal, probably because he's a more serious threat than most of the other candidates realized. He got burned by Fred on the "money-printing/Iraq War/health care" tie-in that Paul stretched to make.
On the Dem side...
- All 4 candidates had relatively decent nights, nobody had a "bad" night. However, if anyone should come out of this looking better than before, it's Bill Richardson. He was on a much more level playing field in terms of speaking time, and made good use of it. Richardson will probably give Hillary more problems than Obama and Edwards, and Richardson appeals to the "experience" base of the Democratic Party.
- Obama is really pushing for the Independent/Republican cross-over vote. He made a point to address them as necessary to create a majority consensus for his policies. Unless someone like Huckabee gets nominated, I don't see many Republicans crossing over.
- As usual, more "anti-Republican" sentiments from the Dems than "anti-Democrat" sentiments from the GOP. In fact, the only time the GOP addressed the Dems was when they were asked to compare themselves to Barack Obama. The Dem candidates had a habit of bringing up "those horrible Republicans" when they needed a rallying point...instead of rallying around what they stand for.
- Hillary had a stronger debate than the previous few debates she took part in. However, Obama was solid and Edwards also had a stronger-than-normal debate. None of which helps her in the long run.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Wonderin' Bout Wyoming
As many bloggers have pointed out, the GOP Caucus in Wyoming is today. While most are ignoring it, a few are paying attention.
From what I understand, the three names to watch in Wyoming are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and possibly Ron Paul.
3 men who all need momentum.
From what I understand, the three names to watch in Wyoming are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and possibly Ron Paul.
3 men who all need momentum.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Results and Fallout
Dem Caucus
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Fred Address Iowa Voters
Check this out, courtesy of Shaun Kenney, and tell me Fred Thompson does not come across very "presidential" in his appearance, and strong in his statements.
To use some acting terminology, which is applicable given Fred's past as an actor, it's almost like watching a dress rehearsal for a future "address to the nation". Just trade the background for the Oval Office. ;)
Go Fred!
To use some acting terminology, which is applicable given Fred's past as an actor, it's almost like watching a dress rehearsal for a future "address to the nation". Just trade the background for the Oval Office. ;)
Go Fred!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Fred Thompson: "Setting The Record Straight"
I'm going to let Fred's words speak for themselves on this one, as it is refreshing to listen to someone speak that isn't consumed by ego...
"Setting The Record Straight" - Fred Thompson
Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today’s technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.
Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.
Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn’t even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.
In referring to me, she reported “he doesn’t like modern campaigning, isn’t interested in running for President, and will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win.
Below is a transcript of what I actually said in response to a question by a local Burlington resident which was the basis of the reporter’s story.
It is clear that there are those in the media who will exact a high price for candor and from those whom they consider to be insufficiently ambitious. But it is with increasing amazement that we see that those who are willing to slant or leave out important parts of a story to make their point.
If a candidate succumbs to this he will be reduced to nothing more than a sound bite machine.
As for me I am going to continue to say exactly what is in my heart and is on my mind and give straight and honest answers to those who ask straight and honest questions.
Incidentally, the audience in Burlington broke into applause in the middle of my answer. The reporter wouldn’t know that because she wasn’t even there.
The transcript is below the fold . . .
Q: (Courtesy ABC News) My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?
That is a very good question, not because it’s difficult to answer, but I’m gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.
In the first place, I got into the race about the time people normally get into get into it. The fact of the matter is people get into it a lot earlier than they used to. For some of them, they were juniors in high school.
The first place, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t be doing this. I grew up in very modest circumstances. I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I figured to be clean, you’ve got to cut everything off. I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show. I had a contract with abc radio…and so forth. A man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing if he didn’t want to do it.
I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.
When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better form a distance.
But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ain’t going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide it’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.
I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president.
Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.
I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything that I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. I’ve never had an acting lesson. I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me…
When I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little more laid back than most. I’m only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.
If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the united states, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy. So I hope I’ve discussed that and didn’t talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself.
(h/t United Conservatives of Virginia)
"Setting The Record Straight" - Fred Thompson
Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today’s technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.
Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.
Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn’t even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.
In referring to me, she reported “he doesn’t like modern campaigning, isn’t interested in running for President, and will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win.
Below is a transcript of what I actually said in response to a question by a local Burlington resident which was the basis of the reporter’s story.
It is clear that there are those in the media who will exact a high price for candor and from those whom they consider to be insufficiently ambitious. But it is with increasing amazement that we see that those who are willing to slant or leave out important parts of a story to make their point.
If a candidate succumbs to this he will be reduced to nothing more than a sound bite machine.
As for me I am going to continue to say exactly what is in my heart and is on my mind and give straight and honest answers to those who ask straight and honest questions.
Incidentally, the audience in Burlington broke into applause in the middle of my answer. The reporter wouldn’t know that because she wasn’t even there.
The transcript is below the fold . . .
Q: (Courtesy ABC News) My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?
That is a very good question, not because it’s difficult to answer, but I’m gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.
In the first place, I got into the race about the time people normally get into get into it. The fact of the matter is people get into it a lot earlier than they used to. For some of them, they were juniors in high school.
The first place, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t be doing this. I grew up in very modest circumstances. I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I figured to be clean, you’ve got to cut everything off. I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show. I had a contract with abc radio…and so forth. A man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing if he didn’t want to do it.
I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.
When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better form a distance.
But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ain’t going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide it’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.
I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president.
Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.
I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything that I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. I’ve never had an acting lesson. I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me…
When I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little more laid back than most. I’m only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.
If people really want in their president super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the united states, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy. So I hope I’ve discussed that and didn’t talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself.
(h/t United Conservatives of Virginia)
Friday, December 28, 2007
Iowa Polls: Huck and Mitt Still Lead, Fred Entrenched in 3rd Place
Courtesy of Real Clear Politics, here are the latest Iowa polls.
LA Times/Bloomberg (12/20-12/26)
- Huckabee 36%, Romney 28%, Thompson 10%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 1%
Research 2000 (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 27%, Thompson 11%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 8%
Strategic Vision (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 29%, Romney 27%, Thompson 15%, McCain 14%, Giuliani 4%, Paul 4%
Interesting, even though all 6 candidates place in the same general order, some conclusions can be drawn from these polls.
First, while Huckabee leads in all 3, his amount of support wavers quite a bit between the 3 polls. Romney seems to have the steadiest base of support. Fred's numbers go up 4-5 points from pre-Christmas to post-Christmas. McCain has spotty, but all-over-the-place support. Giuliani has no hope in Iowa, and Ron Paul goes from 1% to 4% to 8%...which one is it?
Nonetheless, I'm coming to the conclusion that Huckabee/Romney will be a 1-2 finish either way, but the coveted 3rd spot (which candidates need to carry momentum past Iowa) should go to the now-resurgent Fred instead of John McCain, who seems to be betting on New Hampshire as his true launching point.
LA Times/Bloomberg (12/20-12/26)
- Huckabee 36%, Romney 28%, Thompson 10%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 1%
Research 2000 (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 27%, Thompson 11%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%, Paul 8%
Strategic Vision (12/26-12/27)
- Huckabee 29%, Romney 27%, Thompson 15%, McCain 14%, Giuliani 4%, Paul 4%
Interesting, even though all 6 candidates place in the same general order, some conclusions can be drawn from these polls.
First, while Huckabee leads in all 3, his amount of support wavers quite a bit between the 3 polls. Romney seems to have the steadiest base of support. Fred's numbers go up 4-5 points from pre-Christmas to post-Christmas. McCain has spotty, but all-over-the-place support. Giuliani has no hope in Iowa, and Ron Paul goes from 1% to 4% to 8%...which one is it?
Nonetheless, I'm coming to the conclusion that Huckabee/Romney will be a 1-2 finish either way, but the coveted 3rd spot (which candidates need to carry momentum past Iowa) should go to the now-resurgent Fred instead of John McCain, who seems to be betting on New Hampshire as his true launching point.
Fred Thompson's "Red Truck Challenge"
The Fred Thompson "Red Truck Challenge" is winding down, and it has been a success so far as all but one objective has been reached, money-wise.
If you want in-depth, common sense leadership in the White House, click on the "Fred 08" link on the right sidebar of this blog and donate what you can. $25, $50, $100...whatever you can spare.
Support Fred and support honesty and common sense in politics
If you want in-depth, common sense leadership in the White House, click on the "Fred 08" link on the right sidebar of this blog and donate what you can. $25, $50, $100...whatever you can spare.
Support Fred and support honesty and common sense in politics
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Romney vs. Huckabee
An article by Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes at the Wall Street Journal's website discusses the difference between the two GOP frontrunners in Iowa, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.
They are very contrasting figures. Romney is a northern-bred fiscal conservative who comes from a business and political background, has a carefully polished image, and relies on many tactics of the business world (PowerPoint presentations and the like) to accentuate his points.
Huckabee, in comparison, is a southerner (born and raised) who was raised in a working class family, wears his faith on his sleeve due to his past as a Southern Baptist minister, and uses "good ol' boy" humor, southern charm, and biblical references to make his case to the public.
Interestingly enough, I can identify with both men on a personal level. I'm the son of a firefighter and grew up middle class, just like Huckabee. However, much like Mitt Romney, I am more of a northerner by birth, I tend to keep my religion to myself unless it's brought up by someone else, and I like a good suit.
While Huckabee says things in a down-home, folksy manner that appeal to the common man, Romney has experience and leadership advantages over
If asked to choose between the two, Romney would be the man I would vote for. He's produced results in the business world and the political realm by using sound fiscal prudence and intelligent decision-making skills.
Huckabee, in my opinion, has not proven himself to be a fiscally prudent executive based on his record as Governor of Arkansas and may continue to expand government, which is the opposite of the true solution. His foreign policy knowledge and stances are rather weak, as is his stances and history on illegal immigration.
But alas, outside of Iowa, I don't think the Huckster's momentum will carry him to many more victories. Between Romney and Giuliani's strength in other states, and the resurgence of John McCain and Fred Thompson, Huckabee needs some meat behind his campaign talk...relying on religion and the FairTax alone does not make one a qualified candidate, in my opinion.
They are very contrasting figures. Romney is a northern-bred fiscal conservative who comes from a business and political background, has a carefully polished image, and relies on many tactics of the business world (PowerPoint presentations and the like) to accentuate his points.
Huckabee, in comparison, is a southerner (born and raised) who was raised in a working class family, wears his faith on his sleeve due to his past as a Southern Baptist minister, and uses "good ol' boy" humor, southern charm, and biblical references to make his case to the public.
Interestingly enough, I can identify with both men on a personal level. I'm the son of a firefighter and grew up middle class, just like Huckabee. However, much like Mitt Romney, I am more of a northerner by birth, I tend to keep my religion to myself unless it's brought up by someone else, and I like a good suit.
While Huckabee says things in a down-home, folksy manner that appeal to the common man, Romney has experience and leadership advantages over
If asked to choose between the two, Romney would be the man I would vote for. He's produced results in the business world and the political realm by using sound fiscal prudence and intelligent decision-making skills.
Huckabee, in my opinion, has not proven himself to be a fiscally prudent executive based on his record as Governor of Arkansas and may continue to expand government, which is the opposite of the true solution. His foreign policy knowledge and stances are rather weak, as is his stances and history on illegal immigration.
But alas, outside of Iowa, I don't think the Huckster's momentum will carry him to many more victories. Between Romney and Giuliani's strength in other states, and the resurgence of John McCain and Fred Thompson, Huckabee needs some meat behind his campaign talk...relying on religion and the FairTax alone does not make one a qualified candidate, in my opinion.
Monday, December 24, 2007
IHT's Early Odds on the Presidential Candidates
A lot of BS being shucked around in this one, but worth a look anyway. This is the International Herald Tribune's odds on who will be the 44th President of the United States as of right now.
Hillary Clinton: 3-1
Barack Obama: 7-2
Mitt Romney: 5-1
John McCain: 8-1
Rudy Giuliani: 10-1
John Edwards: 10-1
Mike Huckabee: 12-1
Fred Thompson: 20-1
All Other Republican Party Candidates: 25-1
All Other Democratic Party Candidates: 40-1
Hillary Clinton: 3-1
Barack Obama: 7-2
Mitt Romney: 5-1
John McCain: 8-1
Rudy Giuliani: 10-1
John Edwards: 10-1
Mike Huckabee: 12-1
Fred Thompson: 20-1
All Other Republican Party Candidates: 25-1
All Other Democratic Party Candidates: 40-1
What Did I Tell You?
The "reverse migration" of illegal immigrants has already begun.
I was advocating this "solution by attrition" over at Daily Whackjob in a heated discussion I was having with others over illegal immigration. I stated that if you take away the jobs/handouts available to illegal immigrants, and that if you make them believe that we're going to actually get serious as a nation on immigration control, they'll start to leave on their own.
Now, the article admits that part of the reason is the slowdown of economic growth has some illegals worried that the number of jobs available are going to shrink. This, combined with states cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, does not make many places that were once safe havens for illegal immigrants very appealling anymore.
Want to know who else has stated this theory as part of the solution to the illegal immigrant problem? Fred Thompson, of course.
I was advocating this "solution by attrition" over at Daily Whackjob in a heated discussion I was having with others over illegal immigration. I stated that if you take away the jobs/handouts available to illegal immigrants, and that if you make them believe that we're going to actually get serious as a nation on immigration control, they'll start to leave on their own.
Now, the article admits that part of the reason is the slowdown of economic growth has some illegals worried that the number of jobs available are going to shrink. This, combined with states cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, does not make many places that were once safe havens for illegal immigrants very appealling anymore.
Want to know who else has stated this theory as part of the solution to the illegal immigrant problem? Fred Thompson, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
