Michael Barone has a new piece over at the American titled “The GOP’s Real Problems for 2012″. He writes:

Nonetheless I still think Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a strong presidential nominee in 2012, as I reflect on their difficulty in doing so in 2008. For as I look back on that Republican nominating contest, it seems to me that none of the Republican candidates had a good strategy for winning the nomination. And if a candidate does not win the nomination, it does not really matter how strong he (or she) would be in the general election.

Sensible enough huh?  He then lays out 5 implications for 2012, based on each of the major candidates’ 2008 runs. 

1.  (From McCain):  you can’t hope to win by waiting for every other candidate’s strategy to fail unless you have an in with Lady Luck.

2.  (From Rudy):  You cannot wait too long to compete. If you bypass New Hampshire, you must compete in Iowa, or vice versa, or very soon thereafter.

3.  (From teh Fred):  Either compete strongly and early enough in Iowa to make a good showing in the straw poll or stay out of Iowa altogether (as John McCain did, to not significant detriment, in 2000 and effectively did, to no significant detriment, in 2008).

4.  (From Huckabee):  Huckabee or a candidate with a similar profile can corner the votes of evangelical and born-again Christians and, starting with Iowa, can round up a significant number of delegates…But otherwise he is in the position of Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic contests, able to run a significant second or third thanks to strong support from one of the party’s core constituencies but unable to run first.

5.  (From Romney): Run as yourself. Emphasize your strengths and avoid contests that are not suited to them. This will not guarantee victory, but it will make a victory in the battle for the nomination worth more in the general election, since you will not have to visibly pirouette from appealing to a relatively narrow primary electorate to the much broader (and potentially expandable) electorate you will face in the fall.

This is all pretty good advice, but I worry about the underlying argument; that Republican possibilities are likely to be weak general election candidates because they ran poor primary campaigns.  In the first place, I’m not sure Barone is right about his individual criticisms (and read the whole article to see exactly what he has to say).  It’s obvious, of course, that Rudy shouldn’t have held everything til Flordia.  It’s more obvious in retrospect, but it wasn’t exactly hard to figure out even then.  Plenty of folks who wished Rudy no ill (myself included) pointed out the strategic flaw months before everything broke down.  Still.  His strategy was, in large part, dictated by his circumstances.  When you’re a gun-control supporting, pro-choice, city-dwelling, hawk, you’re bound to struggle in Christian Iowa or dovish, libertarian New Hampshire. 

Clearly Romney’s attempt to position himself as THE conservative floundered, and left him wearing two scarlett F’s on his neatly tailored suit.  Still.  When you’re a Massachusetts Mormon in a party dominated by Southern Christians, playing the moderate isn’t exactly a great long-term strategy. 

Undoubtedly Mike Huckabee was hurt by the narrowness of the pastor tag.  Still.  He was a pastor.  Even when he dropped the Onward Christian Soldier stuff, and adopted the Friendly Neighbor Looking Out for the Little Guy schtick, he was still seen as Pastor Mike. 

A lot of these criticisms are not examples of flawed campaigns, but rather of flawed candidates.  No matter how you rolled the Massachusetts Mormon dice, in 2008, in the Republican Party, you just weren’t likely to hit a 7 or 11.  While candidates aren’t slaves to their environment, they can’t simply re-write their careers and lives to fit a new situation. 

So in one sense Barone is right enough: we simply don’t have many potential candidates who are in a good position to naturally do the sort of things necessary to both win over the current Republican electorate, and put together a campaign strategy which gels with the moment.  Retreads like Huckabee and Romney and Palin may be slightly better fits in 2012, but it ought to be clear by now that they won’t be perfect fits.  Heading into 2012, we need to look for a candidate who’s already, more or less, where he needs to be to meet the moment.  Our success, or lack thereof, on that front will dictate both our campaign strategy and our “problems”.

One past GOP candidate and one possible future candidate both spoke out this week about the success or failure of our current Commander in Chief:

Bobby Jindal:

Speaking to a conference of Republican leaders, Mr. Jindal, a man who many believe has an eye on the White House in 2012, said it is appropriate to hope the president fails if it means the president’s policies will jeopardize the nation’s security and stability.

“My answer to the question is very simple: ‘Do you want the president to fail?’ It depends on what he is trying to do,” Mr. Jindal said.

The popular governor criticized the media and Democrats for trying to stifle debate on some of the president’s most controversial policies by requiring Republicans to support Mr. Obama’s policies or get stung by the establishment.

“Make no mistake: Anything other than an immediate and compliant, ‘Why no sir, I don’t want the president to fail,’ is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience or political obstructionism,” Mr. Jindal said to a crowd of about 1,200. “This is political correctness run amok.”

Mr. Jindal’s criticism came at a time when Republicans are working to regain the credibility the lost over the past two election cycles. The Democrats’ far-reaching taxing and spending policies have created an early Republican resurgence.

“It’s time to declare our time of introspection and navel-gazing officially over,” Mr. Jindal said. “It’s time to get on with the business of charting America’s future. So, as of now, be it hereby resolved that we will focus on America’s future, and on standing up for fiscal sanity, before it is too late.”

Fred Thompson:

Republicans, however, charged Democrats with deliberately trying to make the debate about Mr. Obama, rather than his increasingly unpopular economic policies.

“I want his policies that I believe take us in the wrong direction to fail,” former Republican U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson told CNN yesterday. “If he takes us down the road of tripling our national debt in 10 years and making us vulnerable to higher interest rates and higher inflation, and things of that nature, I want all those policies not to succeed.”

Mr. Thompson stressed Republicans are willing to work with the president, but said he must show some willingness to meet Republicans halfway.

Speaking about cutting the rising costs of entitlement spending, Mr. Thompson said, “If he wants to do that, I will join with him. I’ll do everything I can to make him succeed with regard to that because that’s the whole ball game in terms of our fiscal future in this country.”

Out of power in both houses of Congress and the White House, one would think that like the Republican Party, the Pro-Life Movement is in the wilderness and without leaders. However, this couldn’t be further from the case… In fact, the Pro-Life Movement is more united then ever. Case in point: the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner held earlier this month in Washington, D.C.

In case you are unfamiliar with the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), founded in 1994, it is EMILY’s List, except the opposite: it elects Pro-Life women to Congress or Pro-Life men running against Pro-Abortion women.

This past election cycle, its connected PAC bundled and earmarked over $1 Million into key races across the country. Besided electing pro-life candidates, it mobilizes over 150,000 pro-life activists nationwide to lobby Congress on critical life issues, and even helped form the Pro-Life Women’s Caucus for the women it helps elect. It also trains future generations of activists by conducting training academies on college campuses.

Unlike many Pro-Life organizations, SBA was not left in the dust by technology, as it has a very clean, cool website. SBA also has over 1,000 friends on Facebook, is active daily on Twitter and has its own “SuzyB” blog.

SBA founder and president Marjorie Dannenfelser and former chairman Jane Abraham, with the help of Jeri Thompson, were the braintrust behind the wildly successful Team Sarah Ning website of over 60,000 members which helped defend Sarah Palin against attacks during the general election.

But, back to to the dinner, which was held at the historic Willard in downtown Washington. The dinner was so packed that there was barely any room to move around in the biggest ballroom the hotel had to offer.

To show how united the Pro-Life Movement is in the face of a White House and Congress lead by Obama and Pelosi, there were all sorts of factions of the Pro-Life movement present.

I saw many of its Catholic leaders, many of its Protestant leaders. I saw one of the leaders of the troops on the ground, 40 Days for Life founder David Bereit. I saw some of its leaders in Congress, such as Cong. Trent Franks, Cong. Jean Schmidt, Cong. Marsha Blackburn, Cong. Joseph Cao, and Cong. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who gave a fantastic speech centered on her baby boy with Down syndrome. I saw Romney backers, I saw Brownbackers. I saw Thompson backers, which was easy since Fred and Jeri Thompson headlined the dinner. I saw Ken Blackwell, I saw Michael Steele staffers. I saw past members of Congress, such as Sen. Spence Abraham, Cong. Mike Ferguson, and Cong. Bob Livingston. I also saw future pro-life members of Congress, such as Rob Wasinger, who is a candidate for Congress in Kansas.

The mood wasn’t what you’d expect: instead of being depressed about the number of babies that will be aborted due to Obama’s anti-life policies or the millions of tax dollars that are being funneled to Planned Parenthood, the mood was… wait for it… of hope. All the speeches were about looking forward, about pro-lifers taking back Congress.

This was especially evident when SBA gave out their annual Susan B. Anthony List Trailblazer Award, which is given to young women who are making a difference in the battle to end abortion. It was especially a proud moment for my family, as my sister, Christina, was given an award for her work in the pro-life movement (she got her start in the movement as SBA’s first intern long ago). However, the climax of the night was when Lia, a very bright 12 year-old girl, received the award for a very compelling and persuasive speech on abortion to her class (which of course, school administrators tried to censor) that was put up on YouTube and has been viewed by over 500,000.

SBA also used the occasion to announce its new, groundbreaking project, “Votes Have Consequences,” a program that will target members of Congress who vote out-of-step with the pro-life views of their district. The project is being headed up by former Cong. Marilyn Musgrave, and will start targeting members in Fall of this year, well ahead of 2010 elections.

Overall, the night was a smashing success for the Pro-Life Movement. It strong, is here to stay, and isn’t going anywhere until every unborn child is welcomed into the most prosperous nation on Earth and women are protected from the horrors of abortion.

Billy Valentine is vice president of Students for Life of America and can be reached at billyvalentine(at)gmail.com

Susan B. Anthony List Trailblazer Awardees with Jeri Thompson and Marjorie Dannenfelser at the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner.

12-Year Old YouTube Star Lia with Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH)

As I am sure you all know, Kansas is a real hotbed for politics for the 2010 election season, with both the governorship and a U.S. Senate seat completely open. In Republican nomination for Governor, Senator Sam Brownback and Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh are squaring off for support. In the race for Brownback’s open seat, you have two current Congressmen, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt duking it out.

However, the race that has received the most attention so far, both locally and nationally, is the open Congressional seat in the “Big First,” which is being vacated by Cong. Jerry Moran. The Big First is absolutely massive, encompassing over half the state and 69 counties. It is also as Republican as they come — Democrats don’t stand a chance in the Big First, meaning that the Republican primary is the real race.

So far, four Republicans have jumped into the race. Below is information on each candidate and you’ll quickly see how hot this race already is.

1. Rob Wasinger of Hays is former chief-of-staff to Senator Brownback and has served as an aide to then-State Senate Majority Leader Jerry Moran, and also to former Governor Bill Graves. Rob grew up in Hays as the son of a truck driver and a public school cook. During his sophomore year of high school, a teacher and mentor asked Rob to apply to a boarding school in Massachusetts, which he did. He got in on full scholarship, and boarded a plane for the first time in his life and went. He then went on to Harvard, thanks to grants and scholarships. Immediately after college, he returned to Kansas and the rest is history. Rob’s opponents have unjustly accused him of carpetbagging, but clearly this isn’t the case… he has served Kansas all his life.

Rob has received some major endorsements, including Fred Thompson; major conservative and evangelical leader David Barton; Bobby Schinder, the brother of Terri Schiavo; and has received statements of support from pro-life leaders Fr. Frank Pavone (Priests for Life); Doug Johnson (National Right to Life); Marjorie Dannenfelser (Susan B. Anthony List); and Rick Valentine (fmr. dir. of Americans United for Life).

In terms of the money game, Rob raised over $100K in the 4th quarter of 2008 fundraising. He has already signed on Kansas’ top media firm, and just today announced a 69-county tour and a launched a blog run by his wife, Meghan.

Rob’s opponents have already been caught playing dirty, including taking pictures of his home in Cottonwood Falls, and of his children at the local public school (he has nine children). The photos were posted on a blog run by the Tim Huelskamp campaign (see below). The Huelskamp campaign also trashed Fred Thompson, saying “he has about as much liveliness as my 90 year old grandmother on a Monday night” following his endorsement of Rob, which is certainly an interesting political strategy. To discourage such tactics, Rob signed a Clean Campaign Pledge and sent it to his opponents… which none of them have signed as of today.

I strongly support Rob in his race, as I am sure many of you know I worked with him on the Brownback campaign. He has been a behind-the-scenes leader in Congress, especially as an expert on bioethics issues including stem-cell research and cloning. Furthermore, as a personal testament to Rob, he is adored by his nine kids, and has a loyal following of the people who have worked with him over the years.

2. Tim Huelskamp is currently a state senator in Kansas and is from Fowler. Like Rob, Huelskamp is Catholic and is the father of four adopted children. Behind Wasinger, Huelskamp pulled in close to $75k in the 4th quarter of 2008 fundraising. He has also brought in some big guns, including endorsements from Mike Huckabee, Ken Blackwell, and Concerned Women for America.

Huelskamp plays dirty on the “Huelskamp Herald,” a blog run anonymously but clearly from the Huelskamp campaign (and a blog that is humorously convinced that I am after them).

3. Tim Barker is a businessman from Pratt and has yet to make a big splash in the race. He launched a website and a blog, but the blog hasn’t been updated. He is trailing financially, reporting raising $30k with $25k cash on hand. He also tried to make a corporate contribution from his own company to himself, which is a no-no. Barker’s family is involved in the ethanol business.

4. The latest candidate to enter the race is Sue Boldra, a longtime educator and realtor from Hays, Kansas. Boldra has had a rocky entry into the race, having been greeted by a blog called “Draft Sue Boldra,” which claims that she is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. The Huelskamp campaign claims it was the Wasinger campaign, which claims it was the Huelskamp campaign, etc… When the media picked up on the blog, Boldra said it was full of lies, but did say that the issue of abortion has been settled by the Supreme Court. It is unclear if Boldra has opened up a fundraising committee, and obviously trails the other three candidates in the money game.

It is certainly going to be a competitive race, especially with national sluggers getting involved this early, as the primary isn’t until August of 2010. Kansas is going to be a hotbed for politics this cycle. While I’ll be in the trenches, sit back and watch the fireworks!

First off, please allow me to express my deep embarassment at not commenting on the “Please Don’t Call it a State of The Union” address and the follow up by Vice Pre…I mean…Governor Bobby  Jindal. There are two reasons for this:

1) The internet connection at my house is busted.

2) I fell asleep in the middle of the President’s speech (not sure if that was due to content or simple sleep deprivation…but it happened). And as I am now operating out of a noisy coffee shop and don’t have any headphones, I still haven’t heard the whole thing – though I did manage to watch most of the Jindal speech this morning.

Hence, I’m going to avoid the subject entirely other than to advise Gov. Jindal never to wear that candy-cane tie ever again. I’m not terribly into fashion, but that thing was so bright that it actually distracted me while he was talking.

Instead, I’d like to return to Nate Silver’s chart plotting potential 2012 contenders onto an ideological grid (thanks Aron). Personally, I find his analysis very interesting and relevant, though I disagree with some of his placements. While I would like to see at least one more axis added (either a libertarian-communitarian scale or an insider-outsider scale to separate those terms from the technocrat-populist axis), I think he’s definitely onto something.

If this chart is to be used as a guide to the 2012 race, however, I think there are two more elements that need to be added to what Sherman refers to as a “galaxy” of Republican leaders. First, any stargazer must be familiar with the movement of the stars and planets; and second, astronomy is much easier when the stars are organized into constellations. Let me show you what I mean:

This is far from complete, and I’m sure there are multiple ways that people could draw it, but these are the dynamics of the galaxy as I see it right now.  The arrows indicate directions that I think the “stars” are moving (or are likely to move in the near future), while the solid lines forming “constellations” indicate alliances that seem to have formed or are almost certain to form in the future. These will be very important, as it obviously impossible for all of these people to run for President simultaneously, and many of the lesser stars are likely to become the top surrogates for the bigger ones. We’ll come back to what the dotted line means in a minute.

As you can see, I think there are two significant constellations developing. One is centered on Sarah Palin and connected to Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani – as I think both of these men are likely to become epicenters of Palin support in the next few years. Thompson is almost certain, as his wife Jeri has been a big player in “Team Sarah”. This alliance will likely be key if Palin is to solidify her hold on the Conservative-Populist quadrant against a Huckabee challenge. Giuliani could become even more key, as Palin seems to have struck a chord with him. Should he line up behind Sarah, he will give her an unexpected toe-hold in the Moderate-Technocrat quadrant (where even I will admit she should not draw many votes).

The second constellation I’ve put together forms an axis of moderate governors, all of whom who stood with McCain in the 2008 primaries – so they seem rather homeless in 2012. It is possible that they could band together to back one of their own (likely Pawlenty), but I’m not sure if they have enough collective “oomph” to shoot a candidate into the top tier by themselves. However, there is serious potential here if the big star labeled “Romney” decides to float in that direction.

This brings us to the question on everybody’s mind after last night…what do we do with the big star labeled “Jindal”? Now, I will be the first to tell you that I have no clue, but I have and idea on what I think might be a likely scenario if Jindal and Palin are both smart enough to pick up on it.

It seems clear after last night that Jindal is best suited to move more in the “technocrat” direction. Despite the Southern accent and compelling biography, he’s really a wonky, eggheaded Rhodes Scholar who is only mildly gifted in the charisma department – so it’s time we stopped trying to sell him as a southern-fried populist.  That’s not to say he couldn’t be a compelling candidate for President, but it could make it hard for him to compete in a primary with three high-wattage personalities (Romney, Huckabee, and Palin). The “galaxy” diagram also shows that his situation could be further complicated by the fact that he is probably fighting Palin (and maybe Huck) for control of his current quadrant – and would be fighting Romney if he moved upward.

What I don’t think most people have considered is how an alliance between the Jindal and Palin camps would affect the race (that’s my dotted line). If you think back to last year, Jindal and Palin were almost always mentioned in the same breath, as both were rising stars that took on entrenched, corrupt establishments. However, their narratives have since diverged…as it has become clear that Palin needs a little help in the policy wonk department and that (after last night) Jindal needs a charisma transplant. Still, they are still remarkably close to each other ideologically. If they were to form some sort of alliance before the 2012 race, I think they could be unstoppable. The deal would look something like this: Jindal stays out and endorses Palin in exchange for first dibs on the Vice Presidency – and Palin’s promise to return the favor in 2016 should she lose to Obama. This gives Palin two things she needs: a high-level intellectual conservative in her corner and the ability to expand her base into that Conservative-Technocrat quadrant currently known as “Romneyland”. It also gives Jindal some benefits. For one, he gets a win-win situation in 2012. If Palin wins he’s either in the veep slot or the Cabinet job of his choice (with the understanding that Palin clears the field for him in 2020). If Palin loses, he gets Palin’s backing in 2016 and becomes a prohibitive frontrunner. He also gets spared the trouble of running as an underdog in 2012, and he can dispense with the attempts to be more populist and become the intellectual technocrat that he was always meant to be (I think we can all agree that Palin has enough folksiness for both of them).

Now, this is not a certain arrangement, but I think it’s a good one. It is possible that Jindal could instead work an alliance with Romney, but I would avoid this if I were Mitt (he’s better off with Jindal in the race to siphon Palin votes). So, feel free to rip this up, and draw your own versions if you like.

FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver has peered into his telescope and discovered a rather fascinating Republican galaxy just a few political light years away.

Silver splits the prospective Republican presidential candidates into four quadrants:

Conservative Insiders/Technocrats

This is a very crowded space, although it could become more or less so depending on the behavior of two individuals: Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal.

I think Romney has wasted an awful lot of time over the past couple of years trying to run as a social conservative, chasing voters he’s unlikely to obtain because they don’t trust either (i) his faith or (ii) his track record (and subsequent reputation for flip-floppery) as governor of Massachusetts. To the extent there’s any early indication about Romney’s direction for 2012, he seems inclined to continue playing to the right, having recently used his PAC to donate to stimulus opponents. Then again, that strategy wouldn’t be mutually exclusive with a campaign based on fiscal conservativism and social moderation, which is what everyone but Mitt Romney seems to think they’re getting from Mitt Romney, no matter what Mitt Romney says or does.

Because of his fundraising prowess, Romney should have the first mover advantage in deciding how he wants to position himself; everyone else will have to follow. But there would seem to be more open space to his left than his right if he is bold enough to go there. The one wild card is Jeb Bush, who seems cut from the same sort of cloth as Romney, but even Jeb would probably have to defer to the Mittster.

The whole appeal of Bobby Jindal is that he can play the part of both the technocrat and the populist, a fact perhaps symbolized by his Cajun-fried heritage. The question is whether Jindal will at some point have to decide between the two. Going the populist route would lead to an eventual high-stakes confrontation with Sarah Palin, either early in the primary cycle or perhaps even sooner. Jindal’s alternative is becoming the choice of the conservative cognoscenti, which could cut off oxygen from alternatives like Newt Gingrich, John Thune, Eric Cantor and to a lesser extent Kay Bailey Hutchison. Gingrich is the only one of those alternatives who might exert enough gravity on his own to alter Jindal’s strategy, although it’s a unclear how Gingrich would position himself in the event of an actually running, rather than merely threatening, a campaign.

Conservative Outsiders/Populists

This is Palin Country, and the ‘Cuda would appear to have a free ticket to the semifinals unless she is challenged aggressively on her populist credentials by Jindal or perhaps by Mike Huckabee (although I think that Palin and Huckabee can co-exist until a fairly advanced stage of the process). The other potential candidates in this category, such as Fred Thompson, are mere nuisances to Palin, and are probably just hanging around hoping she goes supernova. Mark Sanford and Haley Barbour also seem inclined to move in this direction following their threatened rejection of stimulus monies, but they are poorly-defined candidates in a field with plenty of name recognition, the Doddering Richardsons of the GOP hopefuls.

Moderate Outsiders/Populists

This quadrant is generally sparely populated by the GOP, whose liberal wing owes its heritage to the highly wonkish traditions of the Rockefeller Republicans. Several candidates, however, brush up against its fringe, most notably Huckabee, whose Main Street economic populism creates differentiation with almost every other candidate in the Republican field.

Tim Pawlenty fits vaguely into this category (especially if one believes that having a mullet gives you populist cred). But I’ve also never particularly understood what Palwenty’s appeal is supposed to be: he got a fair amount of free airtime during the Republican veepstakes last year and didn’t leave much of an impression.

This is also probably where Ron Paul belongs, although really Paul is in a sort of libertarian hyperspace that few of us can hope to understand. Fellow traveler and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who endorsed Paul in 2008, could provide for a more credible version of the libertarian message, but is probably too unorthodox a candidate for a party that lacks self-confidence and is groping to find a leader.

Moderate Insiders/Technocrats

This is supposed to be Charlie Crist’s space, but I just don’t get the sense that Crist is particularly serious about running, having cozied up to Barack Obama while teeing off the Republican establishment. If Crist does not run, or waits until 2016, that could vacate this space for Utah Governor John Hunstman, who perhaps sensing his opportunity is moving hard and to the left on issues like civil unions and the stimulus. A reform-minded candidate like Mitch Daniels could potentially fill this space, as could a recycled one like Rudy Giuliani; this is also where a wild card from the business or the military communities might wind up fitting in. But it will be filled by somebody, as it’s a valuable space to own in a year where the other party won’t be hosting competitive primaries, leaving independents and Democrats free to weigh in on the GOP contest. The Republicans could wind up with a moderate nominee on accident.

So, What Happens Next?

I don’t know. Ask me again in a year or so. But I think it’s not too early to be talking about this stuff, because the primary wars are also a proxy war for the future of the party.

HT to Aron Goldman…

Fred Thompson returns in primetime… The Fred Thompson Show debuts on March 2nd, from 12pm-2pm eastern time 5 days a week (different air times in different markets). From Westwood One:

“Of all the radio talkers out there, how many can say they’ve debated in the Senate; campaigned for President of the United States; had a successful TV career on Law and Order and shared the screen with Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, Robert De Niro and Sissy Spacek?” said Bart Tessler, EVP Westwood One News & Talk Programming. “Thompson is as unique as they come and that will make for exceptional radio.”

“This will be the biggest talk radio launch since Bill O’Reilly,” said Dennis Green, Westwood One EVP Affiliate Sales. “We have not even hit the air and radio stations from coast to coast are ready for Fred Thompson to speak to their audiences about the issues that matter.”

Former US senator and 2008 presidential candidate, Fred Thompson will share his views on politics, topical issues, pop culture and water cooler stories, as well as welcome guest interviews and take listener calls. The Fred Thompson Show will be a two-hour daily talk show and will air live Noon-2pm, Monday – Friday from the Westwood One studios in Washington DC. Westwood One will hold all broadcast and digital rights to The Fred Thompson Show including its official website.

No hands shows allowed…

Good interview from Glenn Beck’s Show:

This is the type of thing that made people view Fred as someone they’d like see as President. He about says it all.

I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading lately (which somewhat explains my increased output over the last few days) and I’ve read a bunch of articles about how one wing of the party will be ditched in favor of another wing of the party and so on… and I don’t know if it will be possible to find a way out of this spot the GOP now currently finds itself in anytime soon.

Earlier today, I was doing a Google search about the latest libertarian vs. so-con knockdown/dragout, and I came across this post on a blog called mytake, which linked to my rather enrage-fueled tirade from the other night about Mike Huckabee. Other than the fact that the blogger (Larry) didn’t notice that I wrote a follow up explaining that I was unaware that Huckabee had been in Georgia when the post was published, I have to admit that he makes some good points.

It appears that there are two kinds of people when it comes to Mike Huckabee. You either really like him or you really don’t. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of middle ground when it comes to his political aspirations. I have tried to be objective about the man, even though I did support him in his campaign and fully expect to support him in 2012, if he decides to run.

This may be one of the smartest things I’ve heard since I started blogging, and definitely one of the most objective points made by a staunch Huckabee supporter about Mike Huckabee that I’ve come across.

This Post Is Not Really About Mike Huckabee

I’m using this particular piece because it struck to the heart of why I’m not sure the party can get out of this mess by 2010 or 2012. I understand where Larry is coming from and that is why I feel his post is a good example of what I’m getting at.

See this example, which was published last December in Human Events:

There are mutterings in the ranks of social conservatives. For nearly thirty years, those who joined to Republican party primarily to stop the slaughter of the innocents — but also to support traditional marriage, fight pornography, oppose judicial activism, and protect Second Amendment rights — have been good soldiers.

They have voted by the millions for candidates who were first and foremost economic conservatives, even libertarians, contenting themselves with a few rhetorical crumbs. They have embraced candidates who have had a change of heart on the life issues, such as Bush Senior. They have even gone along with candidates who have suddenly announced that they have had the political equivalent of a death-bed conversion–an election-year epiphany on the evil of abortion.

Now one of their own, Governor Mike Huckabee, has sprinted into the lead in Iowa. And some economic conservatives, their supposed allies, are savaging him for-of all things — not being conservative enough.

I can completely understand why some social conservatives feel like they are being verbally abused by the rest of the GOP. I agree that some of the rhetoric has gotten way out of hand on both sides of the issue. They revolted against the establishment when they felt like they were being force-fed candidates whom they had no real faith in. They felt many in the GOP establishment, George Will comes to mind, were trying to force them to sacrifice their own deeply held convictions and support Rudy Giuliani were he to win the nomination.

Now, I happen to like Rudy Giuliani, and although he wasn’t my choice for the nomination, he was a candidate I would’ve enthusiastically supported. However, as most who are familiar with my opinions will realize, my personal convictions are deeply rooted in federalism, and I abide by the principle of philosophy to shape my views in most every case. I’m personally socially conservative, but I will be the first to admit that my own interpretation of conservatism as being defined by the federalist principle re-introduced through Goldwater, disqualifies me from being a true Social Conservative, since I usually oppose actions made by the federal government that intervene in morality. While I may not agree with the social conservatives angry over Giuliani, I can understand why they were adamantly opposed to him. Personally, I happen to think that the Mayor would’ve made a fine president, had he been the GOP’s nominee. For most of 2007, he was my number two candidate, and if his downfall had not happened at precisely the same time as my personal choice for the ticket, I would’ve come out and supported him. In the end though, he probably wasn’t the best choice to lead the GOP, at this particular point in time, because he would’ve splintered the party.

The problem was that the idea of Giuliani as the nominee royally ticked off a significant portion of the base of the party and it inadvertently led to the rise of Mike Huckabee’s campaign. Their opinions of the other alternatives came up short. Whether their opinions were ultimately fair or not, they didn’t feel that Mitt Romney had earned their trust as a social conservative, and they felt that Fred Thompson didn’t live up to what they had hoped for. I happen to think they were wrong, but in the end, it is their right to feel as such. They found in Governor Huckabee someone whom they could undoubtedly trust on matters such as life and faith. Throw in the militant FairTax supporters, and you’ve got yourself some serious political weight. In the end, it was their lack of faith in Romney and Thompson and their belief in Mike Huckabee led to John McCain’s victory. His support was unenthusiastic, but he was the only candidate left standing that maintained a small base of support within each element of the GOP.

They found a candidate they could believe in after they felt like the rest of the party had turned their backs on them, and they fought for their candidate.

Both Sides Failed

The struggle the GOP now finds itself in is grounded in very deep rooted philosophical debates, whether it be the social conservatives versus the fiscal conservatives or the new blood versus the old blood. It was the failure of the party to come to any sort of understanding in their disagreements, or to listen to any sort of reasoning that the other sides had to offer. Both sides tried to silence the other, creating animosity and ill will among the rank and file voters who the GOP counts on to help deliver electoral victories.

Ultimately, both sides failed and that is why the GOP is stuck in the depressing situation it now finds itself in. As I outlined above, many of the fiscal conservatives failed the party because of their unwillingness to listen to the social wing’s protests, and they failed the party by isolating those voters from the rest of the party.

The purely-Social Conservative wing of the party (many of whom are in the Huckabee camp) is every bit as guilty as those whom they have deemed their opposition within the party. They need to understand that it’s not their views on social issues that many of the fiscal conservatives are so upset about, it’s that the person whom represents them is out on his book tour vocally trashing libertarian viewpoints within the party, and his grassroots bash anyone who does not agree with them (witness the Huckabee Army’s trashing of Gary Bauer).

Larry is right, Mike Huckabee is a candidate who people either love or hate. The problem is that it takes a lot more than the support of one wing of a party to succeed. In Huckabee’s case, one wing really loves him, and the rest of the party can not stand him. Many bring up charges of elitism, but that has really nothing to do with it.

After his rhetoric directed towards the libertarian and Goldwater wings of the party, any chance he had of garnering universal support within the GOP is gone. I hate to harp on Reaganisms and I don’t want to turn this into another thread specifically about Huckabee, but when one person specifically attacks a wing of the party that Reagan described as vital to the survival of the GOP, then that person does not have the full understanding of what it would take to lead the party by trying to identify themselves with someone who they have fundamental differences on ideology.

Compare Mike Huckabee’s statement to that of Reagan…

Here’s the now near infamous quote from Huckabee, from his book which was released this week:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and health care, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message.

Now, compare that what Ronald Reagan said on the exact same topic:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

-Ronald Reagan
July 1975

Let me repeat that one more time in bold print… “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

The Problem With No Real Solution for America

Conservatism, in it’s modern form in American politics, is a philosophy that does not become outdated. It is one that cannot be redefined or changed to fit the times, nor can it be updated to meet the times one lives in. It is a set of values and principles that are applied to the problem, not an economic philosophy, or a social theory. Conservatism is limiting the functions of the federal government, not fixing it. It is a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.

Goldwater said, “The time will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given.” It is the first principles, and it is the final principles that the United States has strayed from. The aim of conservatism is not to streamline the government with policies or repair to make it more efficient, but to reduce it in size.

The only way for this party to re-unite is to end this tug of war over the direction which the party will be pulled, and to re-embrace what is at it’s philosophical core.

Although I still got a little sidetracked by the Huckabee debate in this post, it is not intended to argue over the finer points of the former governor’s philosophy or positions.

The Human Events article which I posted above states that the Social Conservative wing became a relevant force within the party because they were dedicated to “stop the slaughter of the innocents — but also to support traditional marriage, fight pornography, oppose judicial activism, and protect Second Amendment rights.” The author is correct when he states that they have been “good soldiers.” They definitely don’t deserve the harsh treatment they have received from the likes of Kathleen Parker.

However, the only way to fix what is broken is to find leaders the entire party can embrace enthusiastically (meaning all the relevant wings). Sometimes, that means letting go of candidates who we care a great deal about.

In the end, one does not have to be president to be an important piece of the overall puzzle. In the case of Mike Huckabee, he is a fine voice for the socially conservative movement, but if the 2/3 of the party feels completely alienated by him, then he is not the right person to lead the party out of the mess it is in.

The GOP needs to find common ground on both social and fiscal issues, without alienating either segment of the party.

Author’s note: Discuss freely, but please refrain from declaring that only candidate X is the answer. That means you, ACTBlog.

There have been a couple of things I have wanted to post over the last few days, but I haven’t had any free time, and to be honest, I don’t have a lot of time to put into this post either, but I felt I needed to clear up some facts.

There is no connection between Fred Thompson’s RNC bid and Sarah Palin’s 2012 connection. Most of the articles that were linked to are old news, and it should come as no surprise that thenextright’s Jon Henke has been talking up the idea behind the scenes, since he worked on the Fred Thompson campaign last year (which incidentally, I took my marching orders directly from him, as he was the head of the comm outreach).

When I posted the information that Quin Hillyer received from inside the campaign last week, which stated that “Fred does not have a dog in the fight,” it was the same information that I had, except Hillyer’s information was coming straight from Thompson’s advisors… where of course mine came from somewhere down the foodchain a bit, kind of like the dog digging being fed scraps by the second shift trashman. However, it was the same story that we both got.

What so amusing about all these “Draft Steele,” Draft Newt,” or Draft Fred” efforts for the RNC chair is that it is actually pretty pointless, as is a lot of the debate over who the next RNC chair would be, since the public does not really have much of a say in deciding that particular position. It’s why I have been hesitant to enter into a debate over who would be the best candidate to fill the job. It’s not like choosing the party nominee.

If one were to dig deeper, it’s not that difficult to discover what is going on behind the scenes in this case. And in either case, it likely won’t be Steele.

Ever start to put two and two together and…

I was updating my bookmarks and I was surprised to see Team Sarah was still actively advocating for Governor Palin.  No mention of 2012, but their efforts were obvious.  In recent weeks Team Sarah’s most vocal advocate and leader has been Jeri Thompson.  You can watch some of Jeri’s performances here.  As many of you are aware, Jeri is not just a political spouse, she is a political operative.  Jeri worked at the RNC.

Both Thompson (Fred) and Palin have been very silent on their future roles in the GOP, but I am beginning to notice a trend.  What appears to be a subtle movement(s), is actually a full-scale assault and I believe that Mrs. and Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Palin are actively working together to ascend to the leadership of the GOP.

This is of course is mostly a hunch, but we need to keep our eye on the connections and subtleties.

———

On Thompson, Matt Lewis from Politico (Townhall) has the story;

During his short-lived 2008 presidential run, Thompson often seemed a better advocate for others than for himself. After dropping out of the presidential race, he served as one of Sen. John McCain’s most eloquent, hard-hitting and effective surrogates. With his Hollywood ties, he’s also a pretty good fundraiser. As RNC chairman, he could continue in that role without the pressure to become president himself (which, frankly, didn’t seem to appeal to him).

—–

There are already three “Draft Fred” sites on Facebook.  View them here, here and here and the conservative blog world seems to be slowly moving in the direction of Thompson, including his idea of a shared chairmanship.  Some have even hinted that John McCain is on board.  The Tennessean published an extremely interesting article on the subject, including what appears to be some behind the scenes conversations that show the ‘Fred for RNC’ movement may be a little further along then what the press and public have been informed of.

“I’m extremely excited that he’s considering it,” said Scooter Clippard, a Middle Tennessee businessman who spearheaded national fundraising for the Thompson and McCain campaigns. “It’s time for a change. Fred Thompson would be the absolute best person to articulate that message for the party.”

Thompson has not said anything about the RNC chairmanship publicly, but the prospect has his supporters intrigued. Even former Republican presidential nominee John McCain is in on the speculation.  “I was talking with John McCain today … Fred Thompson’s name came up, and we both talked about whether he would run for the chairmanship,” Clippard said.

—–

This week has also produced the launch of what is probably going to be the largest “Draft a Pol” movement in American history.

Paul Streitz designed a great site for the 2012 Palin movement.  Paul has a ‘MASSIVE’ distribution list and networks of supporters and volunteers across the nation.  Politico has the details on the ‘Draft Palin for President’ movement.  Paul was a leading activist against the Bush immigration bill (frequently seen on Lou Dobbs) and Paul is the founder of www.americafirst2008.com.  This movement will soon have the resources and nationwide network similar to a national leadership campaign.

David L. Kelly, the group’s Treasurer and Colorado coordinator, sent a mass email today that hit at least one Iowa GOP vet.

“Since forming our committee last week, we now have State Organizers in ten states and thousands from across the nation who have signed on as supporters,” writes Kelly. “We feel that for Conservatives to be successful again, we must get back to the core principles of Conservatism. Sarah Palin’s popularity and her Conservative values that she embodies will be the catalyst that will resurrect the Conservative base and reform the Republican Party of the near future.”

I guess, as this site’s self-appointed reference to all things Fred, that I should make a few comments on the front page regarding his possible bid for the RNC chair. As I stated in late October, I was aware of a possible Thompson RNC bid, but wasn’t sure if it was just supporters talking it up or if he personally was interested.

I don’t want to turn this into a debate over whether Michael Steele or Fred Thompson would be a better choice to chair the RNC because I have openly stated that I would be happy to see Michael Steele at the RNC. However, I do support Thompson for the chair.

I must state up front that I think Steele is an articulate and fine man, and do not oppose him.

However, after once again reading through the comments, I do feel the need to make a couple of points about what Fred would bring to the table, when compared to Steele.

First of all, Steele, for all of his obvious talents, had little success as the head of GOPAC the last two years. There was not a lot of success under his leadership. As Quin Hilyer points out:

…GOPAC, which Steele has headed for the past two (?) years, has been a mere shadow of its former self while under Steele’s leadeship.(Trusting to somebody e;se’s math:) As of October 15, they had raised $77,135 this year, which combined with the $33,541 they had on hand at the beginning of the year, put them at $110,676 total.

The total disbursements for the year are $76,543. They currently have (as of October 15), $34,132 on hand.

In terms of candidates, it looks like GoPAC only gave $29,250 to candidates the entire year, $5000 of which went to Steele’s own campaign in Maryland.

By comparison, Fred Thompson’s PAC gave $41,900 to candidates and PACs in the first half of the month of October alone.

Another advantage of having Fred as the head of the RNC is that he is not interested in pushing his own personal ambitions, nor is he a stalking horse for another candidate. As opposed to other candidates, Thompson is in it to help the party, without a preconcieved bias that would be aimed at helping himself, or a candidate of his liking, in an effort to achieve higher ambitions. More from Hilyer:

“Fred isn’t looking to run for national office again. He is looking to rebuild the party and help elevate the movement and its principles . When conservatives run on conservative principles they win. We know that. He would be an honest broker because he is not seeking national office again; he doesn’t have a dog in this fight. Everybody else who seems to be running seems to have an eye on helping a presidential candidate.”
“Katon Dawson for Mark Sanford.”
“Jim Greer for Charlie Crist.”
“David Norcross and Saul Anuzis with an eye toward Romney.”

“These guys are stalking horses for others.”

The quote Hilyer refers to goes on to state that:

“Why are we essentially handing over the keys to the party to individuals who have an agenda for a particular person?
It’s important for the grassroots to have a voice in this. We needs honest brokers concerned about the party and the movement rather than a particular candidate. That’s how we will be best served.”

Hilyer also notes that Chuck Yob as co-chair is one, but not the only, person under consideration.

Michael Steele has a definite eye on his own future within the party, and the RNC position is one in which he likely views as a stepping stone to higher office. I can understand that line of thought. However, I’m not sure that, when it comes to a grassroots refocusing, that it is the best solution.

It should be noted that Thompson would serve as a General Chairman, which in contrast to recent years, was quite successful during the 1980’s, and worked well during Reagan’s era with Paul Laxalt as General Chairman:

The General Chairman usually provides overall direction and philosophical moorings, and acts as the public face of the party doing media and speeches, etc., and also is available probably for big-money phone calls and events — but the Chairman, with an Executive Director under him, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the RNC.

Like I said before, I have little desire to get into a heated debate over whether Michael Steele or a team with Fred Thompson at the head is a better choice. While some (at least here in the comments on this site) have brought up the argument that Thompson is lazy. I understand the hesitance some may have after watching Thompson’s campaign. One must remember though that Thompson, along with Romney and Giuliani, spent an enormous amount of time on the campaign trail fighting for the 2008 GOP races, and by all accounts, did an excellent job.

I will say that I do believe direction and re-igniting conservative ideas are an integral part to who should head up the RNC, and in this regard, there is little doubt over the principles that Fred Thompson would fight for.

As Kavon stated on November 5th, here at this site:

The reasons I would be ecstatic with FDT in this spot are that he is an effective and eloquent spokesperson for Conservatism, he possesses the native intelligence to succeed in a bottom-up/top-down reorganization of the Republican Party, and it would send a message to the grassroots that the GOP is returning to its “First Principles” as well as communicate that the upper echelon of the party has an optimistic view of our future.

With Michael Steele, one is not sure what to expect. There are many positives that he would bring to the table. One must consider, along with the fact that his time at GOPAC hasn’t been that successful, that Steele is still a relative unknown when it comes to his personal philosophy.

However, without going into a full debate over his own views, I feel that it is my job to point out the following because I am not sure that many are completely aware of where Michael Steele stands on issues that many on this site, and the grassroots in general, take very seriously. When taking a closer look at his overall philosophy, there is a conservative tilt, but one is not completely sure with what they are getting with him.

Michael Steele would make a fine spokesman as the RNC chair, and I think Fred Thompson would too. I am one of many voices out there begging for the infusion of new blood into the party. That does not mean, however, that there is not a place where someone like Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy, or whoever could not serve in a position of leadership and a voice for the GOP in a time where there is an obvious void in direction and leadership. This particular position is one where I would like to see a familiar, and trusted face.

What I really find to be exciting about this possible run is that he would be in a position to help other’s achieve their goals, as opposed to working behind the scenes to ensure his own political future. That’s exactly the type of position that I want to see the old guard in… helping the new blood rise to the top.

Update: MattC points out what I only alluded to, in the cited links above, in his post much more clearly.

Huge development in the RNC Chair race:

The fight for the Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC) seems to have more players on the field than a football game. However, a few serious contenders are emerging from the field such as Katon Dawson and Michael Steele.

In a new twist today former Presidential candidate and United States Senator Fred Thompson is poised to enter the race with a partner, Michigan National Committeeman Chuck Yob, as his co-chairman. Thompson would be the public face/spokesman of the RNC while Yob run the Party’s operations.

This partnership of Thompson and Yob could be the winning combination. Already they seem to be gaining momentum. As of tonight Oklahoma Republican Chairman Gary Jones has endorsed the ticket. “We have an extremely large task ahead of us and Senator Thompson has the art of message. When he speaks people listen,” stated Jones. “Chuck Yob is a strong grassroots organizer. As a businessman Chuck will be able to manage the resources of the Party. It is an attractive combination.”

Certainly there is more than enough work in rebuilding the GOP that it might take co-chairmen to get the job and change the direction of our party. Keep your eye on this ticket.

Following up on Kavon’s earlier post, Michael Steele is another name being thrown about for possible RNC chair, and one I could easily support. On the other hand, neither Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are not interested in the job, as reported by K-Lo.

Why is it wrong for me to dream of Fred Thompson ascending to RNC Chair next year?

[Update] I should have expounded on exactly why I think FDT would be a terrific choice.

The reasons I would be ecstatic with FDT in this spot are that he is an effective and eloquent spokesperson for Conservatism, he possesses the native intelligence to succeed in a bottom-up/top-down reorganization of the Republican Party, and it would send a message to the grassroots that the GOP is returning to its “First Principles” as well as communicate that the upper echelon of the party has an optimistic view of our future.

Newt and Mitt would also be excellent choices. However, both are running for POTUS in 2012 which likely means they would not even consider the position in the first place.

Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Legal Editor for The Minority Report
______________________________________________________________

Polls, poll talk and prediction never mattered. Voting matters.

Admit it now, what good were all the pre-election polls, poll obsessing and/or personal predictions for the past 23 months?

None, unless your goal was to suppress GOP turnout, elect Farrakhan’s Messiah or keep alive a nerdy desire to give one’s life five seconds of meaning by being “right” in a guess based on other people’s guesses, after which you can base the next 25 months of your life on the polls on the races for 2010 and 2012 that begin after MLK Day 2009.

Was anyone elected based on talk to pollsters? Or did I miss the inauguration?

Even the liberal media is now in the “turnout” phase, seemingly shocked every 2-4 years that people must actually move more than their lips in order to actually cast a ballot to elect a mere dog catcher, much less the Leader of the Free World.

And speaking of the free world, you could make worse closing arguments than to remind legal by lazy registered Hillarycrats and disgruntled republicans of words of the Joe “No Interview for you” Biden (think and watch Seinfeld Soup Nazi) who whispered to fellow leftists that the election of his fellow cloistered from the press for weeks running mate would “generate” a test from evildoers abroad in order to test him.

The test? Make sure Obama is as weak as his own party-toasts for terrorist apologists on stag films at the LATimes; moral equivalence between Russia and Georgia, not to mention Israel and Hamas/Hezbos and meet with out preconditions, Iran’s Mullahs and their unshaven MembersOnlyJacket-ijad-clad front man; and like the rest of his party since 1972 (save for Zell, Joe L. and sometimes Bill).

Skanderbeg report’s that even Pravda equivalents pray for McCain’s election.

Don’t waste your time trying to change what passes for minds of followers of The One. No. There are only two categories you can, and should try, to persuade:

a) Obama haters of the Hillary supporter variety, and

b) Disgruntled with mavericks republicans who seek the cowardly shelter of the mocker and the temptation of pride that throw up their hands and declare no difference between the choices and themselves above it all (to hide their laziness as they face long lines).

One disadvantage republicans always face is the default donkey default position of so many raised in a nation dominated during so much of its history by the World’s Oldest Party.

Remind of the late 70s and of Reagan’s remedy.

You might want to remind, as Ryan Mauro of World Threats recently did, of Palin-McCain attentiveness to arresting the 30-year Democrat Party and Obama affirmed energy self suicide and who would be more likely to launch a Huckabee-Manhattan-like, “Lexington Project.”

Remind them of 911, what the economy was like after 911. Ask them what another 911 during the present crisis would do to 401Ks and then spring Biden’s words and three more facts on them:

We have had no more 911s since 911, no thanks to Obama and the Democrats, with much thanks to Bush and McCain.

Elections are always ALL ABOUT TURNOUT.

As if?

But you wouldn’t know it from the time consumed by so many of the pajama clad and couch potatoes.

So, quit reading guesses by non-nostradami and start calling that good looking second cousin that you know loves to keep her paycheck and see terrorists blown to smithereens.

And penultimately, as the rooster awaits the dawn of The Day, my recent pep talk to Redstate’s beloved Fearless Leader,, now in D.C., E.E., in response to his Battle with the Washington Beltway Post sirens:

Erick, if the Washington Post asked you to publish a prediction on your son’s sport’s team would you publish it if you predicted a loss knowing he would see it? Of course not. And you have a TEAM in this fight, some of whose members facing long lines and losing income tomorrow while in line, could use as an excuse to not vote. Moreover, does your self worth depend on overtures from WashPo? I hope not. You are more than a married 30something, but not because people think you writing matters and can influence. You are more (not that being married is chump change) because you stand for truth: Conservative, Judeo-Christian values patriotic truth and one final truth, You don’t SEE anything re the outcome. No one can. People can read polls and watch tv and have anecdotes, but any fool can get elections right half the time flipping a coin. What we know is that TURNOUT is ALL that matters. Focus on getting your team to turn out. luv ya

And one more thing.

If you see acorns on the floor at your precinct, report the Obamasquirrels to the authorities.

__________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Former Senators Fred Thompson and George Allen Monday will spend Monday crossing the Harrisonburg region, Tri-Cities, Norfolk and Richmond, in a last minute get out the vote effort for John McCain.

-Go to blogsforjohnmccain for complete video-

On the final Meet the Press before Tuesday’s election, McCain called on Fred Thompson to make the case for his campaign (as John Kerry appeared for Obama). Here’s what Thompson said to Tom Brokaw about the choice to be made by voters on Tuesday:

…the American people have got to decide. If they want to turn to a — an eloquent young man who is totally untested, totally untried, who has never stood up to authority, who has never stood up to power, who has never bucked the party leadership, who has avoided trying to take positions on tough votes his entire career.

And when he had to take them he took the most liberal position that was available to him under the circumstances and followed the party leadership.

Barney Frank wants to cut the military 25 percent. He and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid , if they get the numbers that they want, will take this country down a road toward — toward a liberal welfare state, European-style policy like we’ve never seen before or accepted in this country.

H/T: Jamison

Nuclear Tests (from the Associated Press)

Iran has recently tested ways of recovering highly enriched uranium from waste reactor fuel in a covert bid to expand its nuclear program, according to an intelligence assessment made available to The Associated Press. The alleged tests loosely replicate Saddam Hussein’s attempts to build the bomb nearly two decades ago.

Iranian Nuke Scientist: Weekend Quake was a Nuclear Test

A weekend 5.0 Richter earthquake in Iran was actually a nuclear bomb test, says an Iranian nuclear scientist claiming to be working on the project.

Iran building naval bases along Sea of Oman coast

The new bases will extend from Bandar Abbas, a major Iranian seaport on the Strait of Hormuz, to Pasa Bandar near the Pakistan border, Iran’s Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari was quoted as saying. “The new mission of the Navy is to establish an impenetrable line of defense at the entrance to the Sea of Oman,” Sayari said, adding the new bases will be constructed rapidly.

“If the enemy goes insane, we will drown them at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman before they reach the Strait of Hormuz and the entrance to the Persian Gulf,” he vowed.

On Monday, Iran’s Armed Forces also inaugurated a new naval base in the strategic port of Jask, east of the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran. Iran’s Deputy Army Commander Brigadier General Seied Abdolrahim Moussavi said Tuesday that the aircraft carriers of the enemy, “like the elements of the computer games,” are under the gaze of Iran’s Armed Forces.

Iran Has Potential WMD Capabilities, Reports Say

“An Iranian missile force known to be armed with chemical warheads – even less effective unitary warheads — would give Iran a rapid way of deploying a form of weapon of mass destruction that would almost certainly have a major impact on how its neighbors view the risk of supporting U.S. military action and might have a deterrent impact on Israel,” the report states.

—–

Obama victory = US/Israel strike against Iran’s nuclear program?

Anyone wonder why the Obama campaign has sent in the “heavy hitters” like former President Bill Clinton when Pennsylvania is supposedly wrapped up? Fred Thompson asks that very question, from the Victory Bus Tour:

Clinton urged the Harrisburg crowd to keep working.

“These elections have a way of tightening up in the last week. They almost always do,” Clinton said.

Republicans said Clinton’s appearance proves the state is still up for grabs.

“I wonder why he’s here today,” said former Sen. Fred Thompson, the one-time presidential candidate and star of NBC’s “Law & Order.” He stumped for McCain in York and Lancaster on Wednesday.

“I thought Pennsylvania was supposed to be dark blue on the electoral map,” Thompson said.

The Republican National Committee has announced the formation of the Pennsylvania Swing Of Victory Bus Tour 2008, headlined by former Senator Fred Thompson. From the newswire:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) today announced the Pennsylvania swing of the “Victory 2008″ bus tour. RNC Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli, former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), actor Robert Davi, Attorney General Tom Corbett, U.S. Representative Joe Pitts, U.S. Representative Jim Gerlach, candidate for Pennsylvania Auditor General Chet Beiler, Chairman of the Republican Committee of Lancaster County (RCLC) Dave Dumeyer, and Chester County Republican Party Chairman Skip Brion will host grassroots events in Lancaster, York, and Berks County, and King of Prussia.

The trip also includes a “Guns & Religion” rally with Sen. Thompson keynoting the event.
Lancaster, PA
WHO: Frank Donatelli, RNC Deputy Chairman
Fred Thompson, Former U.S. Senator
Robert Davi, Actor
Tom Corbett, Attorney General
Joe Pitts, U.S. Representative
Chet Beiler, Candidate For PA Auditor General
Dave Dumeyer, Chairman Of RCLC
WHAT: Lancaster County GOP Luncheon
WHEN: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. EDT
WHERE: Lancaster Host & Resort
2300 Lincoln Highway East (Route 30)
Lancaster, PA
York, PA
WHO: Frank Donatelli, RNC Deputy Chairman
Fred Thompson, Former U.S. Senator
Robert Davi, Actor
WHAT: “Guns & Religion” Rally
WHEN: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. EDT
WHERE: York County Victory HQ
2210 E. Market Street
York, PA
Berks County, PA
WHO: Frank Donatelli, RNC Deputy Chairman
Fred Thompson, Former U.S. Senator
Robert Davi, Actor
WHAT: Berks County Victory HQ Drop By
WHEN: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. EDT
WHERE: Berks County Victory HQ
5001 Perkiomen Avenue(Business Route 422)
Exeter, PA
King of Prussia, PA
WHO: Frank Donatelli, RNC Deputy Chairman
Fred Thompson, Former U.S. Senator
Robert Davi, Actor
WHAT: Chester County GOP Reception
WHEN: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. EDT
WHERE: 260 Mall Boulevard
King of Prussia, PA
King of Prussia, PA
WHO: Frank Donatelli, RNC Deputy Chairman
Fred Thompson, Former U.S. Senator
Robert Davi, Actor
Jim Gerlach, U.S. Representative
Joe Pitts, U.S. Representative
Skip Brion, Chester County Chairman
WHAT: Chester County GOP Fall Dinner
WHEN: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. EDT
WHERE: 260 Mall Boulevard
King of Prussia, PA
Paid for by the Republican National Committee.

Any idea on the recent surge of connections the between the RNC and Fred Thompson? He sure has been front and center as their point man recently. Hmmm… interesting…

Hat-tip: Nyc1456

Mav’s statement:

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis. I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Oh, Mav outrageous, emotive unpredictability can lead to some very bad moves, but it can also lead to some very wily decisions. I’d guess this is the latter.

Update: A few tips for McCain. Don’t talk about this after the statement. Get your surrogates off the TV; don’t give interviews about your decision to put Country First. Pull your ads. Pull Palin. This can very easily be spun as a cynical campaign ploy and you folks have been known for overselling things of late (all that absurd sexism nonsense).  If you oversell this, you might as well end your campaign. Folks who really put Country First don’t need to talk about it all the time and voters intuit that. Just quietly go back to DC and get to work. The media will be forced to pick it up, without your prodding.

Over the last few months, I have spent very little space or bandwidth discussing my candidate after his exit from the race, but I’m finally going to let down my defense and stick a final middle finger in the direction a lot of those in the media (Roger Simon comes to mind) who spent so much time bashing Thompson that they didn’t take the time to know that the candidate who gave that speech last night did show up over the last months of the campaign- but they were to busy commenting on other details to notice.

From the WaPo

it was former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) who stole the show with a stemwinder that mixed a heartfelt recounting of John McCain’s life with several sharp-edged attacks on the Democratic nominee.

Thompson is, and always has been, a commanding presence. At 6′5″ tall and with a deep baritone voice, he looks like a president. And yet, during his short-lived presidential bid earlier this year, he was often a listless and unpredictable presence on the campaign trail — seemingly unwilling or unable to show the sort of charisma that had attracted many people to his candidacy in the first place.

Last night, Thompson showed why so many people thought he could be the next president of the United States. He powerfully recounted the torture McCain had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, testified to the character of his friend and also castigated Barack Obama for his alleged lack of experience and lack of readiness to take over the job of commander-in-chief.

It was a master stroke from Thompson and caused a number of GOP strategists to wonder where he had been hiding that sort of speech during his presidential campaign.

The media can bite me. And they can bite ole’ Fred too.

Here’s a little zinger from last week’s Wall Street Journal guest editorial page. Of course, I’m a little late on this, but it’s still good reading.

The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated
By FRED D. THOMPSON
Page A13

Recent congressional losses, President George W. Bush’s unpopularity, and bleak generic ballot poll numbers have conservatives fearing the “liberalization” of America – a move toward secularization, the growth of government, stagnation, mediocrity and loss of freedom.

Yet there is still a way to revive the conservative cause. Doing so will require avoiding the traps of pessimism or election-year quick fixes. Conservatives need to stand back for a moment and think about our philosophical first principles.

Conservatives value the lessons of history and respect faith and tradition. They are skeptical of mass movements, perfect solutions and what often passes for “progress.” At the same time, they recognize that change is inevitable. They also know that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things and is meant to be free in an unfettered market of ideas, not subjugated by a too-powerful government.

These were the principles relied upon by our Founding Fathers, and which paved the way for a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among its branches, and further diffused its power through a system of federalism. These principles led to a market economy, the primacy of the rule of law and the abolition of slavery. They also helped to establish liberal trade policies and to meld idealism and realism in our foreign and military policies.

The power of conservative principles is borne out in the most strong, prosperous and free country in the history of the world. In the U.S., basic constitutional government has been preserved, foreign tyrannies have been defeated, our failed welfare system was reformed, and the confiscatory income tax rates of a few decades ago have been substantially reduced. This may be why the party where most conservatives reside, the Republican Party, has won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.

Still, a lot of the issues that litter the political battlefield today put conservatives on the defensive. What are we going to do to fix the economy, the housing market, health-care costs and education? Some conservatives try to avoid philosophical confrontation with liberals, often urging solutions that would expand the government while rationalizing that the expansion would be at a slightly slower rate.

This strategy simply has not worked. Conservatives should stay true to their principles and remember:

- Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. There are no short-term fixes without longer term consequences.

- In a free and dynamic country with social mobility, there will be great opportunity but also economic disparity, especially if the country has liberal immigration policies and a high divorce rate.

- An education system cannot overcome the breakdown of the family, and the social fabric that surrounds children daily.

- Free markets, not an expanding and more powerful government, are the solution to today’s problems. Many of these problems, such as health-care costs, energy dependency and the subprime mortgage crisis, were caused in large part by government policies.

It’s not that conservatives today no longer believe in the validity of these principles. They just find it difficult to stand strong when the political winds are blowing so hard against them. To be sure, standing by conservative principles does not always guarantee success at the ballot box – it did for Ronald Reagan, but not for Barry Goldwater. But abandoning these principles doesn’t ensure victory either. Circumstances often play the deciding role. Is there any doubt that the Carter administration’s misery index and the Iranian hostage crises allowed Reagan to prevail in 1980?

In this unpredictable world, conservatives should adhere to their fundamental ideals. These ideals have brought our country much success, and may well win the day again. Conservatives must have faith that, more often than not, Americans will make the sacrifices necessary to preserve national security and prosperity.

A political party that adheres to conservative principles should have continuing success – especially if its leadership believes in those principles and is able to articulate them.

Mr. Thompson, a former U.S. senator from Tennessee, was a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

Note to readers: No, I’m not pushing for Thompson to be on the ticket because the only place that would happen is in Tommy’s Perfect World. Since we live in a place called reality where political matches are made by convenience, there is no point in making any case for such a ticket because it’s not going to happen.

I will continue to occasionally post on Fred when it is relevent, and though I wasn’t planning on doing another FDT update today, Aron Goldman directed my attention to Thompson’s latest post, and I think it’s subject is relevent- relevent to the positions and arguments that I hope the McCain ticket will take.

Here’s the serious text. For the complete analogy, follow the link to read his full post:

Ladies and gentleman, I give you the California supreme court majority and their recent opinion in the same-sex marriage complaints filed by multiple San Francisco gay couples.

On a more serious note, this decision follows “judicial lawmaking” on the subject by courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, and Iowa (though many other state courts have heeded their limitations), and causes supporters of the rule of law and the will of the people to rally in response. Those in California say that they will fight for a constitutional amendment. This response highlights the invidious effects of this kind of judicial activism, which reverses the way things are supposed to work in our legal system. These courts, with the stroke of a pen, are now, in effect, amending their constitutions and placing the burden of changing it back (usually a very difficult task), on the people.

Nationally, as a result of this case, there will undoubtedly be renewed calls for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Conservatives should resist the temptation to support such a remedy. States must solve this problem for themselves. They cannot and should not be saved from themselves or absolved of the responsibility that they have, a responsibility protected against federal intrusion by the Tenth Amendment.

In the first place, playing the game of judicial activists, and leaping to the federal-constitutional-amendment remedy every time judges misread the constitution and change the law, is a fool’s errand. Passing two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures has proven to be an impossible hurdle for the marriage amendment and many other proposed constitutional amendments, even when Republicans controlled Congress.

More fundamentally, the issue presented is not whether conservatives will get their way on the issue of same-sex marriage. The issue is, in our system of government, determining the appropriate place for this issue to be decided. For over 200 years marriage and related issues have been the province of state, not federal law. That is where it should remain. States, acting within their appropriate and constitutionally vested realm, should be free to have laws that even you and I disagree with as long as they do not violate established constitutional principles.

For years, legal critics clamored for federal tort reform, which for most of them meant the overriding of state law. After years of unsuccessful efforts by reformers, states finally started accepting their responsibility. State after state passed tort-reform legislation, and maintained their rights to fashion their reform measures as they saw fit with the happy byproduct of lower insurance rates and an influx of new businesses. Those states which do not act, or act unwisely, face a competitive disadvantage with other states …as they should. This is called – say it all together – federalism. It is an important part of our constitutional framework, based upon our founders’ abhorrence of too much centralized power.

So, more power to the people of California in their uphill battle for an amendment to their state constitution. But the real, long-term solution in the future for supporters of the rule of law is ensuring the selection and election of good judges, judges who know their role in a constitutional republic, in the first place, and holding them – and the politicians who appoint and confirm them – accountable.

His post primary exile is over. Fred’s new column over at Townhall:

Spending some time on the campaign trail has confirmed a couple of thoughts I’ve had before I entered the Republican primary race.

First, conservatism is alive and well in America; don’t let anyone tell you differently. And by conservatism, I don’t mean the warmed-over “raise your hand if you believe …” kind of conservatism we see blooming every election cycle. No, I’m speaking of the conservatism grounded in principles based upon enduring truths: an understanding of the importance of human nature in the affairs of individuals and nations. Respect for the lessons of history, the importance of faith and tradition. The understanding that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things when not subjugated by a too-powerful government. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers, and resulted in a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among the branches of government and further diffused governmental power by a system of Federalism.

Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance. In fact, from Burke to Buckley, there has been an acknowledgement that change in the political arena is inevitable and necessary, and we in the U.S. tend to experience it in regular, 2, 4 and 6 year intervals, so 2008 is hardly our first rodeo. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.

Our nation has some serious issues to work through for today … and for the next generation. Now isn’t the time for conservatives to be looking for a tailored message or a politically expedient route to victory if the end result is going to be the inevitable slide toward the liberalization and secularization of America, and the growth of government and loss of freedom that inevitably ensues. For us conservatives it must be about principles and policies that are grounded in freedom, free markets and the rule of law. That’s what I’ve been talking and writing about for the past few years, and that’s what I want to talk write about here on Townhall and in the new Townhall Magazine.

I joined Townhall and am writing exclusive commentaries for Townhall Magazine because I see them elevating the discourse on issues based on these principles — smaller government, individual liberty, standing for common values that have become all too uncommon, a strong national defense and, most of all, an optimism and belief in America.

I’m glad to be back here in familiar territory, and we’ll be talking to you soon.

The first interview back.

I saw little of Fred’s supposed “charisma” and “gravitas”  during the first 75% of the campaign, but he absolutely oozes it in this interview.  He seems incredibly comfortable.  I’ve reconciled myself to McCain, but I’m getting a Fred! nostalgia here.

BEVERLY HILLS (AP) – After a failed run for president, Fred Thompson is getting back to pretending to be commander in chief.

Hollywood’s high-powered William Morris Agency announced this week that it has signed the actor/politician, signaling a return to the screen for the former senator from Tennessee. Link

There was a time when I considered Thompson the best alternative to Mitt, should Mitt falter. Now I see that people were right to say he wasn’t really serious in his bid.