GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
While Fred Thompson is not leading the polls, Thompson does have a majority of endorsements from prominent conservative bloggers. Here are some of the higher profile conservatives on the Internet who have come out and endorsed or support Thompson (H/T to Josh Painter):
Pejman Yousefzadeh on Red State
Rick Moran of rightwingnuthouse and the American Thinker
David Hinz (The Hinzsight Report)
Alo Konsen (Brainshavings.com)
Gamecock (Race42008.com and The Hinzsight Report)
John Hawkins (Rightwingnews)
Jonathan Adler (NRO and the Volokh Conspiracy)
TraderRob (Opinipundit)
Haystack (hick politics, Redstate)
Erik Erickson (Redstate)
There are many more, but not enough space or time to mention them all. Blogger endorsements obviously don’t have a large impact on the actual voting process, but what is important is that all of these pundits follow the race and the candidates closely, and make up their minds not only on soundbytes, but on substance and record. Some of these bloggers have been on board since the beginning, while others have only endorsed Thompson recently.
Well, it is time to officially add my name to the list. Of course, our readers here are well aware of who I support and I even work with the campaign, but I realized I have never really officially said “I endorse (insert candidate’s name) for president).” I’m not in the same league as some of these prominent bloggers, but this site has its share of readers and we hold our own against many on the web.
So, now it is time to officially announce that I, Tommy Oliver, contributor to Race42008.com and a member of the Federalist Society, will throw my endorsement and support behind………….
No surprise………. Fred Dalton Thompson for President of the United States.
How did I come to this decision? Well, since I actually have supported Thompson from the beginning of the draft campaign in March, it wasn’t a very hard decision. My endorsement is based on this criteria (in no particular order): philosophy, trust, policy, and the ability to appeal across the board to conservatives. However: before today, I thought that since everyone who reads my posts on the internet would obviously have a pretty good idea of which candidate I supported and I didn’t see any point in saying anything official, but today Rick Moran said that the bloggers who have a good size audience need to stand up and make your pitch explaining why they support Thompson, if they haven’t done so already. Time is running short, and this post is not only for our regular commenters here, but for those who just read this site for updates and those who might just be passing through.
Let me explain why Thompson is the candidate that measures up the best to my standards:
Philosophy:
My personal philosophy is deeply rooted in federalism. I am a member of the Federalist Society, and that principle is what guides me politically. Fred Thompson is supported by a majority of the founders of the Federalist Society, and for good reason. He is the most conservative viable candidate for the nomination, and there is little dispute of that. He has been a voice for federalist principles long before he decided to run for President this year. His views on the role of government have been consistent since the early 1960’s. Although his book, 1975’s At That Point in Time, was not necessarily about political ideology, one could have an understanding of his beliefs after reading it. From the time he was elected to the Senate in 1994 until he left in 2002, he was always guided by his principles. He was the author of the Federalism Accountability Act, which he introduced in 1999. He was the first to introduce a bill for defining term limits for members of the House and the Senate in 1994. In 2000, Thompson was the recipient of the “Restoring the Balance” Award from the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is awarded to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators. The following is from the press release announcing the award:
Thompson’s dedication to the principles of federalism and sound government policy has resulted in the Committee’s advancement of the Federalism Accountability Act, and Senate passage of the Regulatory Right to Know Act, the Federal Financial Information Assistance Management Improvement Act, the Truth in Regulating Act, and revision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
In 2000, Thompson authored a report that was aimed at specifically reducing the size of government and wasteful spending in DC.
On his website, Thompson wrote at length about the need for federalism in today’s atmosphere:
When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities - above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.
We saw some improvement in the post-1994, “Contract with America” takeover of Congress - strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But in recent years we’ve seen backsliding.
And
It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge - meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents - is to answer these questions together.
Out of the viable candidates for the Republican nomination, this is one area where Thompson is clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the field, with the exception of Ron Paul. No other candidate has outlined a clear set of principles that would guide their presidency, and among some of them, those principles that guide them are not exactly clear. After Thompson, Rudy Giuliani probably has spoken about the need for federalism the most and spoke at the Federalist Society Lawyers Convention, but he was not a known believer in federalist principle during his time in office, and didn’t claim to be at the time. John McCain’s beliefs are rooted in federalism and when he has voted on the issue in the past, more often then not, he came down on the right side of the argument. McCain has a record that, more often than not, strengthens his case. At the same time, McCain is famous for his maverick tendencies, which makes it harder to pin him down to a consistent set of beliefs. Mitt Romney has spoken about federalism during his run for the nomination, but Romney is also a pragmatist and a manager. While there are obvious advantages to that type of experience, it doesn’t necessarily lend itself well to identifying a philosophy that guides a politician. Romney is a candidate who would likely govern conservatively, but what his definition of conservatism is cannot be readily identified. Mike Huckabee’s candidacy is not based upon the need for federalism, and though that is not a negative in some areas, it is at odds with my values. Ron Paul is a strong, principled candidate, but there are too many areas of concern for him to be my pick.
Trust:
This is another area where I feel Thompson is the best representative of the Republican nominees. Thompson has become known for his refusal to pander or fudge on his facts. If one checks factcheck.org after every debate, Thompson is the one candidate whose facts check out each time. He is not afraid to tell the truth about what is going wrong and what he believes is the best remedy to fix the problem. His policy proposals are strong and firm. Even those who do not support Thompson for the nomination don’t question his substance. With Thompson, what you see is what you get, and his word is firm. He doesn’t weasel his way around an issue, for he has shown that he will tackle the toughest problems head on. No other GOP candidate has touched an issue as politically dangerous as social security besides Thompson, and he has done it repeatedly throughout the campaign. According to NumbersUSA, Thompson introduced the toughest immigration proposals, and although he didn’t recieve Tom Tancredo’s endorsement, the majority of Tancredo’s staff has gone with Thompson, as has Steve King, the immigration hawk from Iowa.
Policy:
Once again, when it comes to conservative policy proposals, Thompson comes out on top. Thompson has been the leading voice for reducing the size of government (with the exception of Ron Paul). For a more detailed outline on Thompson’s policies, check out his proposals on his website here, and read this article from NRO:
Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to.
…
It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead.
Later, I will follow up with more reasons that I support Thompson on substance. One last thing I will mention in this post where Thompson has the advantage over his rivals is that he is the one candidate that can unite the base. Every other candidate either has issues with certain segments of the base, or has questions that remain unanswered. Rudy Giuliani would have real problems uniting the social conservatives. John McCain has angered many on the right, making it more difficult for him to enjoy universal support inside the party. Mitt Romney has been saying the right things, but the questions about his movement towards the right remain. Mike Huckabee has a very strong base of support among social conservatives and the Religious Right, but has real problems outside of his core support. Ron Paul? I like the guy, but he can’t realistically unite the GOP around his candidacy. In the end, all of the candidates have their strengths, and each one is strong in their own right, but only Fred Thompson has the ability to unite the conservative movement completely behind his candidacy.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Tommy, great well-written endorsement for Fred. My decision of whom to support came down to McCain and Thompson. My father is also the chairman of Thompson’s social policy committee (everyone in my family is Republican, but have very diverse views on whom the best nominee is). Best of luck to Fred, he’s a good man.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Does it bother you that he seems to be a little too laid back, lacking ‘fire in the belly’, or being downright lazy? I’m asking this not belittle him as a candidate, but rather because he would be my #2 candidate if I could rid myself of him not wanting it badly enough, or not having the energy to act as if he did? I’d like to hear your comments and others on this, cause I like Fred in many ways…Thanks….btw, I’m for Mitt!! I think they are alike in ways, but obviously there is an energy differential!
December 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Tommy obviously you are free to support whoever you want but there is literally no chance that Fred can win.
So why waste your time?
He comes 3rd-5th in Iowa and probably 6th in NH.
No-where to go from there my friend.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Fred is my #2. He has no chance in hell but he’s still my #2.
If there is a brokered convention and the convention will not pick either of the 2 possibilities I would be okay with Arthur Branch being crowned the consensus convention candidate.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Tommy,
If Fred was the current or former Governor of Tennessee and his record as governor matched his rhetoric I’d find it much easier to get behind him. That said, he’s a likeable guy and you’ve done a good job explaining your support for him. Also, the class and honor with which you conduct yourself on this site makes you a very credible spokesman for your candidate.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
It would have been funny if Tommy had endorsed Duncan Hunter.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Thomas Alan. . .I swear I was thinking the exact same thing hahaha.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Philosophy and principles don’t balance budgets. They don’t tackle the issue of illegal immigrants in your streets.
Giuliani, Romney, others with executive experience, even McCain who showed that he attempts to take on real issues, even with unpopular solutions, have all demonstrated that they can lead.
Thompson is not unlike a favorite columnist who writes things with which you agree. He may earn your respect for right thinking but he hasn’t earned any right to be the decision maker on life and death and war and peace and every other real issue that faces a President.
He came to the race with high expectations but proved a mirage in actually running. That failure is his. A similar performance as President would be disastrous to us all.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Tommy, you are awesome! So faithful to your candidate of choice - right to the end. That’s why I pray that I find a companion like you — faithful, able to see the qualities that are attractive vs. the things that others criticize, but all in all, I must agree with the above commenters — Thompson is a great guy, with great ideas (like the favorite columnist Opinionated mentioned) but with little to no energy to carry them out.
The job of POTUS seems like an extremely strenuous job. It requires eternal vigilance. It requires someone who loves, I mean LOVES to work.
I know I don’t love to work. (I’d rather play around on the Internet all day, reading and making comments on great sites like this, than doing the work I need to do ;).
Fred Thompson is a great American and a great Conservative, but the job of POTUS requires more, and I think he’s shown us that he really isn’t ready to take it on.
And that’s okay!!
Have a Merry Christmas, Tommy! You know we all love and respect you!
December 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Tommy your immaturity and inexperience is showing you FOOL.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Billy,
Thanks. John McCain is also a great man.
Illinoisguy,
No. That is in the eye of the beholder or the press. I’ve witnessed Fred run for office twice before this campaign, and he was an exceptional campaigner. The MSM have chosen to call him lazy, and that’s their pitch. It doesn’t bother me at all.
mac,
I appreciate it. My opinion is different. Novak said in his autobiography that the “executive thing is overrated” when it comes to the presidency, and I share that view. I think we need a change, and I feel it is time to bring in somebody who has a clear and fundemental understanding of the law and the workings of the federal government from a legislative view.
beth,
Thanks for the kind words.
I hope everyone has a safe and Merry Christmas/holiday.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
To #2. I agree with you on the Mitt vs Fred comparisons on energy.
It is true that Mitt has had to spend much more energy working harder than Fred trying to explain all his numerous flip flops. It sure looks like hard work.
To #3, the heath bar
No chance to win? With all the baggage the other candidates are carrying around with them, Fred has as good a chance as any of these guys. All they can say is “he’s lazy.” Real thought provoking there!
Wasn’t it Lincoln who said something like “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”?
If I were you, I’d think about that the next time you comment here. LOL
Looks
December 25th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Minor correction to my article: I’ve actually supported FDT for president since 1994. Of course, this is the only time he’s actually run for it.
December 25th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Very true beth. My break on Sen. Thompson (I never supported him, but I wasn’t overtly opposed for a long time) came when his staff kept falling apart in the months leading up to his announcement and he failed to seize on the opening his entry into the race created.
To me that meant two critical things:
1. Sen. Thompson is a pretty lousy politician. Given his huge poll numbers without even trying he should, by all rights, be in the driver’s seat today and only worrying about who would come out of New Hampshire to challenge him outside the south. His chances of winning a general election aren’t good even against a weak candidate like Sen. Clinton.
2. Probably more importantly than that, if Sen. Thompson can’t run a campaign without it looking like a slow-motion trainwreck, how is he possibly going to handle the most difficult executive office in the entire world. Yeah, being good on policy is wonderful and al (my only quibble with him there is his misunderstanding of federalism) but, as a country, we need a surehanded executive. Of all the candidates, Sen. Thompson is probably the least impressive on that front.
December 25th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Tommy, I’m not as articulate and experienced as many of the writers on here. But, neither am I easily spun!! I don’t think we were talking about any previous campaigns; that was then, this is now..he was younger then…possibly more energetic.. possibly healthier, who knows? But I don’t think many people on this site would pretend that he has ran a good campaign, especially in terms of the amount of effort he has put into it. Like I said earlier, I like Fred, and I definitely will support him if he were to pull this thing out, but I think his lackluster performance on the campaign trail at the very miminum should tell us that he is not the best candidate we have running.
December 25th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Tommy,
If Fred becomes the next POTUS and governs in a manner even close to the Federalism he espouses it would indeed be a change, hopefully, a change for the better. However, as a so-con, I recognize that there are issues, some of which our founding fathers never fathomed, that would likely break both ways.
Regarding Fred’s ability as an executive, I guess we’d have to hope that you and Novak are correct, but I still wish he’d have mixed in a term as governor or some other leadership role in his 65+ years.
December 25th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
i want a romney/fred ticket. fred as vp.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Thompson gives me the impression that he is genuinely interested in returning the government to its intended purposes. The problem is that many republicans may say they are federalist, but their policies are contrary. Anyone supporting a marriage or life amendment is not a federalist. Nor is it a proper response to say amendments are needed to counteract federal judges. The answer would be to either impeach those offending judges or nominated federalists. The attack on the judiciary is therefore unsound.
I agree that executive experience is overrated because the president doesn’t actually manage anything. He hires managers. The presidency is about leadership and communication. This current crop of candidates is a mixed bag. Huckabee takes the prize as communicator and Giuliani is a natural leader with executive experience. The rest fall a little short.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Tommy, I appriciate your fair mindedness. Im a Mitt supporter, and appriciate you sticking up for him on some issues, especially his faith. I like Thompson, but I 2nd the comments of Illinois guy. I would love to support him. But if you look at previous posts (by MattC I think) he illustrated that Romney has done 5 times more campaign events than Fred (when his post came out). Washington Post had a tracker that showed events in 4Q that showed similar numbers. The “lazy” tag might be true. He is a great guy, and right on many issues, but I dont think he has worked at retail politics and on the stump nearly as hard as McCain, Rudy, and especially Romney. Like it or not, that will matter in winning in 08. Fred a good guy, you are a great guy, but Mitt’s still my guy.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
John Galt, I dont see Romney or anyone picking someone as old as Fred to be VP. The GOP would want a younger face to take over in 8 years. Also, since I think Obama will get the Dem nod, I suspect they will need a youthful look to challenge, now and in the future.
December 25th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Nonesense. You’ve fallen into the same simplistic trap that Sen. Thompson has on the matter.
There’s nothing inherently against federalist principles to use the Amendment process to take certain issues out of state hands. There are several powers reserved for the federal government within the Constitution. If we, as a nation, decide to add to those powers through the legally prescribed method, federalism as a principle is silent on the issue.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:58 am
i agree with everything in this post, so shouldnt it make it that much more tragic to the Fred supporters that Fred decided to do everything his way, and it probably cost him the nomination?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Well Tommy,
Thompson would be a shoo in if only he had Reagan’s drive and energy.
His policy statements have been the best of any candidates in their specifics and solutions.
He might win in a squeeker over Hillary. Might,but up against an Obama or Edward’s youthfullness and vitality,I doubt it.
John McCain is 6 or 7 years older and shows more vitality, determination,and fire in his belly than Fred. That’s what is keeping him alive in this race.
I wish Fred had as much. If so, this nomination battle woud be over by Florida.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:21 am
SHOCKER TOMMY!!!
Seriously though . . . I know we’ve had our heated arguments here (several weeks/months ago), but I think we’ve come to understand that our two candidates (Fred and Romney) are the best hopes for maintaining the conservative coalition that Reagan started. I think we’ll need to stick together as all this unfolds. It will be interesting to see it all play out. Fred’s a good guy and great on the issues.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:03 am
#21 You should actually read the constitution sometime because it is not silent. There are powere and issues that are not just reserved to the states , but inherently so. Marriage is such an issue.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Tommy, Our observations about “fire” are personal ones. Whenever anyone tries to bring it up, you conveniently blame it on the MSM. My opinion about Fred does not come from the MSM. It comes from personally investigating him as a candidate. It comes from watching/listening to him speak. It comes from his knowledge on current issues and policies and his consistent lack of ability to reply on the spot. I have no doubt that his principles are sound, that they, for the most part, appeal to me. On many issues, he is spot on. It isn’t enough for POTUS. His personality, his charisma, his charm, the way he conveys himself and communicates seem like great Tennessee Senator attributes but are not Presidential. Having said that. I’m glad for the platform he is running on. I respect your position.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Only a Senator could think up a bill that expands federal bureaucracy in the name of “federalism.”
December 26th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I am a Romney supporter, but Fred is a close #2. It’s too bad that his campaign has fumbled so much and now he is so low in the polls. Sometimes we forget that we are voting for the best potential president and not the best campaigner. Sure, he does not have the executive skills or experience of Romney, but he is right on all the issues. Fred would do far less damage than Huckabee, Mccain, or Giuliani to the implementation of conservative principles.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I support Fred Thompson because he stands on the principles that shaped his life early on. Those same
principles carried him through two terms in the U.S. Senate. Fred’s decisions, and his stance on the
issues are based upon these solid, consistent, conservative principles. He walks and talks as a firm
statesman. He is the man I want sitting across the table from our adversaries.
Fred may not choose to do everything I think he ought to; but I know he will do what is in my best
interest and in the best interest of our nation. God bless America - give us Fred Thompson.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
[...] Tommy Oliver, race42008.com: So, now it is time to officially announce that I, Tommy Oliver, contributor to Race42008.com and a member of the Federalist Society, will throw my endorsement and support behind…………. [...]
December 26th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
It’s simple really.
If you are a real conservative you will vote on principle. That leaves you with 2 choices: Fred Thompson has been a conservative since the 1960’s, while Mitt Romney has been a conservative for a few years. All the others have MAJOR problems with “conservatism”.
Now being a Cub fan I know what loyalty is and loyalty doesn’t mean I go buy a Red Sox hat during spring training. So help me God I will vote on principle during the primary. I’m also a Reagan fan so I know what winning is and every time real conservatism is tried it WORKS!!!
Now go ahead and pick either Fred or Mitt. I’m a meat and potatoes guy so I’m picking Fred. If you like fancier food pick Mitt.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Tommy, you are correct. Fred is the only real conservative in this race, and the only candidate who can unite all three pillars of the Republican party, namely, fiscal conservatives; national security and defense conservatives; and religious conservatives. The Republican party, given that the nation is divided, cannot afford to alienate any of these pillars, or they will lose in the general election, as a sufficient number of the alienated pillar’s constituency will simply not cast a vote for president in the voting booth. This is not a threat, but merely a recoginition that there are certain conservative voters who simply will not violate their own principles and vote for someone they have fundamental disagreements with, or do not trust. For example, Governor Romney, has not provided a satisfactory answer in the minds of many religious conservatives in his efforts to explain the change from pro-choice to pro-life. They want to know the motivation, and need to be convinced that it was not political. This matter is remains unresolved, and thus alienates a proportion of religious conservatives who would otherwise support him as the party’s nominee - regardless of his own religious persuasion. Mayor Guiliani also has a similar problem with religious conservatives, given his personal position on abortion, and promising to appoint strict constructionist judges will not vitiate the conflict with pro-life constituents. Religious conservatives will not vote for a pro-choice republican nominee - even if it means electing Senator Clinton president. They will not violate a moral conviction. They will simply adopt the attitude - God’s will, and maintain their conviction. Governor Huckabee alienates fiscal conservatives as a result of his tax and spend policies as during his tenure in Arkansas. Senator McCain, terminally severed his relationship with a proportion of national security conservatives through his aggressive support of the proposed comprehensive immigration agreement, which failed as a result of a citizens’ uprising against this legislation.
Senator Thompson, has none of the foregoing problems. He is strong on defense of the nation during a time of war and has already committed to a substantial increase in the size of our military to fight the enemny threatening our survival; will seal the border, and reverse illegal immigration through attrition; will maintain the current tax policy and reduce taxes by instituting his proposed voluntary flat tax system with only two rates, one at 10% with no deductions; and the other 25% maximum with current deductions maintained. He will also lower the corporate tax rate to ensure US Corporations are operating at the same tax rates as foreign corporations. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is the only candidate to assemble a plan to address the impending social security system crisis - the “third rail” of American politics. The Senator is acceptable to religious conservatives as well, given his strong and long-standing pro-life position, which explains why he was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization, and many similar state organizations. As to the “fire in the belly” complaint - which would you rather have? Fire in the belly, or the following leadership characteristics? Personal integrity; moral conviction; courage; perseverance; boldness; humility; analytical intelligence; calm and deliberate; decisiveness; understands historical context and timing; committment; and vision. In short,the Senator will show more than adequate “fire in the belly” when he demonstrates to those attempting to destroy our beloved nation a backbone of iron and the fury of an adversary who will unleash a conflagration, if necessary, to preserve our sacred liberty. One must guard against being deceived by cliche terms such as “fire in the belly,” in the middle of a media driven political campaign, when there are substantially more important and higher priority characteristics needed in the President of the United States, and leader of the free world.
For Republicans to win the White House, they must be united and have a large voter turnou among all three of their voting pillars, that is fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious conservatives. Senator Thompson, is the only candidate not alienating any of these voting pillars, and thus can galvanize their support. Accordingly, he is the best hope for Republicans in the 2008 national election. Indeed Senator Thompson can win the general election, and rest assured the other party knows it for the same reasons articulated herein; to wit: he unites the Republican constituencies and assures a large conservative voter turnout in the 2008 election.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I am for Fred because unlike what the Republican voters of today are saying they will settle for anyone that they think can win over Hillary. I refuse to give up the conservative values and most importantly, everyone but Fred will give in to the amnesty for illegals. The Republican candidates all have a record of where they stand. Now they want to flip flop and be President they have changed their position on immigration but it will never happen. Immigration, Tax cuts (waterboarding will be replaced by please don’t hurt us) and tax hikes will happen. I am sorry you have all given in to liberal ideas in exchange for conservatism. Time will prove what you are settling for. Hope for the best that is what most seem content to do. Your real fight has gone but mine won’t. God bless the Military they are still fighting for us.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:34 am
[...] Dyer of Beldar Blog, Nate of Irate-Nation, William Teach of Pirate’s Cove, Tommy Oliver from Race 4 2008, Ray Robison, Frank J. at IMAO, Michele at Reformed Chicks Babbling, and The Discerning [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 9:10 am
I am saddened by those posters who continue to say they love Thompson’s policies and that he has always been a conservative…yet, they will not support him because they don’t believe he can win.
I hope and pray a they are never told by a doctor that a family member only has a 25% chance of living…Lord knows these people would go ahead and toss the dirt on them.
Unbelievable…stand up for what is right…polls are for Clintons
December 27th, 2007 at 11:20 am
[...] Dyer of Beldar Blog, Nate of Irate-Nation, William Teach of Pirate’s Cove, Tommy Oliver from Race 4 2008, Ray Robison, Frank J. at IMAO, Michele at Reformed Chicks Babbling, and The Discerning [...]
December 31st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Friends,
I’m listening to a replay of Fred on FNS from yesterday morning and when Chris Wallace asks him, “Straight out, do you think Mike Huckabee is prepared to be Commander and Chief?� I can clearly hear someone (not Fred or Chris) say, “No.� I’m listening on headphones to the post on RCP, part two of the posting at 1:15 into the video (http://www.redstate.com/blogs/ugadawg/2007/dec/30/fred_in_his_own_words).
When I first heard it I thought I was mistaken so I listened again. It’s there! Please get out your headphones and see for yourself and let your readers know what’s going on.