Fred Thompson will be in the Virginia primary ballot, having collected the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify.
Actually, they collected 15,549 signatures, and I had heard from quite a few of those "in the know" that they surpassed the 10,000 signature mark a few weeks ago.
Congratulations to the Thompson grassroots workers in Virginia, your efforts have paid off!
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Faith and the GOP
I read this earlier, and I saw Sic Semper Tyrannis had posted part of it, but it bears repeating.
In a column today, Peggy Noonan talks about how a candidate's faith has risen to such levels of importance to some voters.
Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.
But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.
She also asks the question of if Reagan would survive in today's GOP climate...
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.
You know, this actually hits at the heart of what I've been saying for a long time. It's always a good thing when someone has strong morals and has their own religious beliefs, and it's even better when they're generally accepting of others beliefs or non-beliefs, as Reagan was. The belief that someone has to reach a certain level of Christian purity to be President is a bit much, in my honest opinion.
There are much more important things going on in this nation that require more than just a particular religious faith that falls within a narrow definition for a specific bloc of voters.
In a column today, Peggy Noonan talks about how a candidate's faith has risen to such levels of importance to some voters.
Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.
But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far.
She also asks the question of if Reagan would survive in today's GOP climate...
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.
You know, this actually hits at the heart of what I've been saying for a long time. It's always a good thing when someone has strong morals and has their own religious beliefs, and it's even better when they're generally accepting of others beliefs or non-beliefs, as Reagan was. The belief that someone has to reach a certain level of Christian purity to be President is a bit much, in my honest opinion.
There are much more important things going on in this nation that require more than just a particular religious faith that falls within a narrow definition for a specific bloc of voters.
Quin Hillyer: "Fred Ain't Dead"
I was reading Quin Hillyer's column for the American Spectator. He had written a column that was to be posted today, but finished it Tuesday, one day before the Iowa GOP Debate. His column was to talk about how Fred wasn't quite out of the running for the GOP nomination yet, and speculated as to how Fred could get into the running.
Then came Wednesday's debate, and Hillyer HAD to address the effect it has had on the whole race for the GOP nomination, and he addressed it in a pre-column memo to the readers...
"With his superb performance in Wednesday's debate in Iowa, Fred Thompson has made a monkey out of me. By early afternoon on Tuesday, the column that appears below, one which posits that Thompson's presidential campaign might still find a way to win, was ready in exactly the form it appears here. But I thought the column would still remain exactly on target throughout the week, so (for various reasons) I aimed for a Friday release. At the time, I thought that until Thompson began his Iowa bus tour on Monday the 17th, my contention that he "ain't dead" yet would seem noteworthy for its boldness.
Then Thompson ruined it all by so clearly running away with the laurels in Wednesday's debate -- and in particularly Reaganesque fashion. Just as Reagan did at the famous Nashua, N.H. debate in 1980, Thompson used the unfairness of the debate moderator as a foil in a way that justly earned the candidate plaudits as a no-nonsense kind of guy. Now everybody is taking a second look at Thompson's chances. Deservedly so.
But of course a debate performance like that should not have been a surprise. As my column reports, pollster Frank Luntz said even before Wednesday's debates that Thompson was hitting his stride and connecting with audiences at earlier debates.
Anyway, without further ado (but with more commentary afterwards), here is my column as originally written -- in what I thought would seemed a fairly bold analysis, but which now seems unremarkable -- as an object lesson for those of us who think we understand political timing. Just as pundits, myself included, were having a high old time criticizing Sen. Thompson for the timing of his efforts in this campaign, he somehow succeeded in stealing a march on us. Maybe Good Ol' Fred knows what he is doing after all."
Somehow, I'm inclined to agree...I think Fred knows exactly what he's doing. He's simply decided to "be Fred", and that may be the greatest asset to his campaign.
Then came Wednesday's debate, and Hillyer HAD to address the effect it has had on the whole race for the GOP nomination, and he addressed it in a pre-column memo to the readers...
"With his superb performance in Wednesday's debate in Iowa, Fred Thompson has made a monkey out of me. By early afternoon on Tuesday, the column that appears below, one which posits that Thompson's presidential campaign might still find a way to win, was ready in exactly the form it appears here. But I thought the column would still remain exactly on target throughout the week, so (for various reasons) I aimed for a Friday release. At the time, I thought that until Thompson began his Iowa bus tour on Monday the 17th, my contention that he "ain't dead" yet would seem noteworthy for its boldness.
Then Thompson ruined it all by so clearly running away with the laurels in Wednesday's debate -- and in particularly Reaganesque fashion. Just as Reagan did at the famous Nashua, N.H. debate in 1980, Thompson used the unfairness of the debate moderator as a foil in a way that justly earned the candidate plaudits as a no-nonsense kind of guy. Now everybody is taking a second look at Thompson's chances. Deservedly so.
But of course a debate performance like that should not have been a surprise. As my column reports, pollster Frank Luntz said even before Wednesday's debates that Thompson was hitting his stride and connecting with audiences at earlier debates.
Anyway, without further ado (but with more commentary afterwards), here is my column as originally written -- in what I thought would seemed a fairly bold analysis, but which now seems unremarkable -- as an object lesson for those of us who think we understand political timing. Just as pundits, myself included, were having a high old time criticizing Sen. Thompson for the timing of his efforts in this campaign, he somehow succeeded in stealing a march on us. Maybe Good Ol' Fred knows what he is doing after all."
Somehow, I'm inclined to agree...I think Fred knows exactly what he's doing. He's simply decided to "be Fred", and that may be the greatest asset to his campaign.
LTE: "Fred Thompson for President"
I wrote this out to several papers, but it's a brief synopsis of why people should vote for Fred Thompson.
There are certain qualities one must possess to become the leader of the free world.
Honor, dignity, intelligence, communication, experience, and sensibility. These are words that are frequently thrown around as labels and descriptions, but are often misapplied incorrectly or applied with great indifference. While there are multiple candidates on both sides of the aisle that possess a number of these qualities, or can claim to possess them all, one candidate stands out above the rest.
That man is Fred Thompson.
The Democrats came into the Congressional majority in 2006 riding a wave of anti-Iraq sentiment and accusations that the Republican majority was nothing but a "culture of corruption". One year later, we have seen the Democrats continue to wave the white flag despite the incredible progress that has been made in Iraq. Also, we have seen corruption and underhanded tactics from the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate.
If Washington is going to "clean up it's act", we need to elect a leader with a proven record of going after corruption and waste in government. Fred Thompson has shown no partisanship in his pursuits of cleaning up Washington, from serving on the Watergate Committee that investigated and eventually brought down Richard Nixon to being a key part of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that investigated the campaign finance controversy of Bill Clinton's regime in 1996, Thompson has long stood for the elimination of corruption in politics.
Thompson stands for efficient government that does not waste taxpayer dollars. He has detailed plans on issues ranging from immigration to Social Security reform.
Most importantly, he believes in federalism, which was also a guiding light of ideology for the founding fathers of our nation. Thompson's federalist beliefs will actually lead to better representation of the people.
For instance, Thompson's federalist beliefs state that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are best left to the states to decide their legality...as it allows the people of each state to decide whether or not they want it to be legal.
Federal government should only exercise its authority on issues that affect most, if not all, Americans. That's another one of Thompson's strengths, as his strong stances on national defense, lower taxes for American citizens, and the economy are some of the most detailed and plausible of any candidate for President within the past two decades.
He supports the War on Terror, but also knows that military force alone cannot win this war. He plans to use diplomacy and negotiation, as long as it is still a reasonable option, to deal with those who harbor anti-American interests.
If you support sound foreign policy, smart economic practices, lower taxes, strong stances against illegal immigration, and cleaner government that works more efficiently...then you have to look no further than Fred Thompson for President.
There are certain qualities one must possess to become the leader of the free world.
Honor, dignity, intelligence, communication, experience, and sensibility. These are words that are frequently thrown around as labels and descriptions, but are often misapplied incorrectly or applied with great indifference. While there are multiple candidates on both sides of the aisle that possess a number of these qualities, or can claim to possess them all, one candidate stands out above the rest.
That man is Fred Thompson.
The Democrats came into the Congressional majority in 2006 riding a wave of anti-Iraq sentiment and accusations that the Republican majority was nothing but a "culture of corruption". One year later, we have seen the Democrats continue to wave the white flag despite the incredible progress that has been made in Iraq. Also, we have seen corruption and underhanded tactics from the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate.
If Washington is going to "clean up it's act", we need to elect a leader with a proven record of going after corruption and waste in government. Fred Thompson has shown no partisanship in his pursuits of cleaning up Washington, from serving on the Watergate Committee that investigated and eventually brought down Richard Nixon to being a key part of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that investigated the campaign finance controversy of Bill Clinton's regime in 1996, Thompson has long stood for the elimination of corruption in politics.
Thompson stands for efficient government that does not waste taxpayer dollars. He has detailed plans on issues ranging from immigration to Social Security reform.
Most importantly, he believes in federalism, which was also a guiding light of ideology for the founding fathers of our nation. Thompson's federalist beliefs will actually lead to better representation of the people.
For instance, Thompson's federalist beliefs state that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are best left to the states to decide their legality...as it allows the people of each state to decide whether or not they want it to be legal.
Federal government should only exercise its authority on issues that affect most, if not all, Americans. That's another one of Thompson's strengths, as his strong stances on national defense, lower taxes for American citizens, and the economy are some of the most detailed and plausible of any candidate for President within the past two decades.
He supports the War on Terror, but also knows that military force alone cannot win this war. He plans to use diplomacy and negotiation, as long as it is still a reasonable option, to deal with those who harbor anti-American interests.
If you support sound foreign policy, smart economic practices, lower taxes, strong stances against illegal immigration, and cleaner government that works more efficiently...then you have to look no further than Fred Thompson for President.
Wow, Bob McDonnell's Got Some Support!
They really let it be known that the current Attorney General of Virginia and probable Gubernatorial candidate (I say probable, as he's all but guaranteed a run), is their man for Governor in 2009. My comments section had quite a few McDonnell supporters providing me reasons why McDonnell is a better choice for the Republicans than current Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling.
One post in the comments section suggested that Bolling will try to keep the LG's seat in 2009. A bit odd to assume that, since usually LG's want to move beyond that post once they've ascended to that position.
However, I have to assume that despite the respect both men hold in the eyes of the GOP, Bob McDonnell is the definite early favorite for the GOP nomination. The reason, from the McDonnell supporters, seems to be that McDonnell has stepped up and been a leader and more vocal about his stand on issues, whereas Bolling has not been has vocal and upfront on his various stances and has not shown as much in the way of "leadership" qualities to many people.
One post in the comments section suggested that Bolling will try to keep the LG's seat in 2009. A bit odd to assume that, since usually LG's want to move beyond that post once they've ascended to that position.
However, I have to assume that despite the respect both men hold in the eyes of the GOP, Bob McDonnell is the definite early favorite for the GOP nomination. The reason, from the McDonnell supporters, seems to be that McDonnell has stepped up and been a leader and more vocal about his stand on issues, whereas Bolling has not been has vocal and upfront on his various stances and has not shown as much in the way of "leadership" qualities to many people.
Rasmussen: Good News for Bush, Common Sense, War, and Society
- Bush's approval rating for the overall month of November was 37%, which is not great but is an improvement from the low-30's he was pulling several months ago. It's been a slow climb upward for the President.
- 54% of Americans believe that the individuals who borrowed more than they could afford are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis...only 25% blame Wall Street investors. This 54% includes 42% of Democrats (surprisingly, only 37% of Dems blame Wall Street), 52% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans. Interesting, since the mainstream news tends to place blame on Wall Street for this problem.
- 47% of Americans believe we are winning the War on Terror, the highest level of support in 35 months on Rasmussen and 4 points higher than a month ago. This is also up 13 points since early January.
- Here's an interesting one...62% of Americans would prefer a government that offers fewer services and lower taxes, only 25% say the opposite.
- 54% of Americans believe that the individuals who borrowed more than they could afford are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis...only 25% blame Wall Street investors. This 54% includes 42% of Democrats (surprisingly, only 37% of Dems blame Wall Street), 52% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans. Interesting, since the mainstream news tends to place blame on Wall Street for this problem.
- 47% of Americans believe we are winning the War on Terror, the highest level of support in 35 months on Rasmussen and 4 points higher than a month ago. This is also up 13 points since early January.
- Here's an interesting one...62% of Americans would prefer a government that offers fewer services and lower taxes, only 25% say the opposite.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
National Press Teeing Off on Dems
Mostly over their failed attempts to push their agenda and inability to get anything done because of infighting in the Democratic Party.
- USA Today states that the Democrats are "lost in time" and are a big part of the reason why America is not fully capitalizing on the success of the surge, and that this is time to seize the moment in Iraq and end this whole ordeal in a positive manner for America and for Iraq.
- The WaPo points out that the Dems are pretty much doing a lot of finger-pointing between their party's members of the House and Senate, including some shots between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Chuck Rangel. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) summed up the GOP's enjoyment of this intra-Democrat meltdown by saying "Just let 'em stew for a while." Part of the reason the GOP enjoys this is because they had similar problems with intra-party disputes between the House and Senate many times during their recent 12-year run as the majority party.
- The Wall Street Journal chides the Dems for allowing intraparty squabbles to become a bigger contributor to gridlock than the GOP's attempts to stall the Dem agenda.
- The Hill notes that Dems in both the House and Senate recently "backed down from a spending showdown" with the President. Part of the problem...Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support for the elimination of earmarks from spending bills was strongly opposed by many high-ranking House Democrats. The main contention point is that President Bush has set a strict limit on the omnibus spending bill of $933 billion, and is forcing Senate and House Dems to find a way to fit the contents of the bill under that number, but the Senate and House Dems can't agree on how to do it.
Looks like the Dems are in for even tougher times as their first year of majority power draws to a close.
- USA Today states that the Democrats are "lost in time" and are a big part of the reason why America is not fully capitalizing on the success of the surge, and that this is time to seize the moment in Iraq and end this whole ordeal in a positive manner for America and for Iraq.
- The WaPo points out that the Dems are pretty much doing a lot of finger-pointing between their party's members of the House and Senate, including some shots between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Chuck Rangel. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) summed up the GOP's enjoyment of this intra-Democrat meltdown by saying "Just let 'em stew for a while." Part of the reason the GOP enjoys this is because they had similar problems with intra-party disputes between the House and Senate many times during their recent 12-year run as the majority party.
- The Wall Street Journal chides the Dems for allowing intraparty squabbles to become a bigger contributor to gridlock than the GOP's attempts to stall the Dem agenda.
- The Hill notes that Dems in both the House and Senate recently "backed down from a spending showdown" with the President. Part of the problem...Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support for the elimination of earmarks from spending bills was strongly opposed by many high-ranking House Democrats. The main contention point is that President Bush has set a strict limit on the omnibus spending bill of $933 billion, and is forcing Senate and House Dems to find a way to fit the contents of the bill under that number, but the Senate and House Dems can't agree on how to do it.
Looks like the Dems are in for even tougher times as their first year of majority power draws to a close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
