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.

Given that one man with courage makes a majority as God spews the lukewarm out of his mouth, how was this rooster so blind to his maverick kinsman standing there all along?

How could I lean to an upstart Mitt, take the late Fred train only to lean to Mitt once more (lukewarms all), when a perfectly hot war hawk/cold on spending John McCain was at all times available?

I suspect this former Democrat for 18 years, won over to the GOP in 2000 based on the conservative principles best embodied by Ronald Reagan, felt entitled to have him (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) delivered up to facilitate my repentance for lacking the courage and wisdom to embrace the real thing when he walked the Earth.

Reality intervened with a conservative epiphany after a nose-holding vote for Gore, but after the post-Super Tuesday reality check the moment Mitt Romney suspended his campaign, I will breathe freely and happily when proudly casting my vote for the senior senator from Arizona for President of the United States on Election Day 2008.

The moment Mitt resigned I was relieved as the scales fell from my eyes and I saw my man McCain in full for the first time, after only having glimpses before.

The glimpses were when the maverick would stand up to the MSM on THE issue.

The War.

After all, while I revere President George W. Bush for his character, tax cuts and judges, it is his steel spine on the war that elevates him in my mind to heroic status.

John McCain, already a hero since his POW years in Vietnam, also has a steel war spine.

You say you want CHANGE? How about a war hawk with attitude instead of the “new tone” usually of silence we have endured the past seven years.

John McCain will be anything but silent. Rather, his old tone many of us resented at times when directed at us, will very soon and for his entire presidency, be directed at the MSM sycophants that are turning on their cable and network co-star as we speak.

It is going to be sweet to watch as McCain becomes the vessel for liberal attacks on conservatism. We will bond to him as he is unjustly attacked due to his age. The man we have so often seen as a jerk will now be our jerk.

And we will love him for it.

This country desperately needs to re-learn what patriotism is.

John McCain embodies patriotism. His mere presence demands respect. Enemies of the United States that pray for a weak democrat will not be tempted to test our champion.

Yes, we have our policy differences with McCain, but McCain has been making some promises with regard to many of those issues.

And John McCain keeps his promises.

After a bitter fight with then Governor Bush in South Carolina in 2000, he campaigned tirelessly for his election and re-election. McCain promises to secure the border first. He will fight to make tax cuts he originally opposed permanent.

We should not require an “uncle” from our nominee. We already have Uncle Sam, and whenever our common uncle wanted John McCain, he answered the call.

From now till Election Day, our love for America must equal that of John’s, which will require that we not only vote with a hands free nose but also give our full-throated support before we pull that polling booth curtain.

On issues with which we disagree, we can fight him and Congress through the courts (McCain-Feingold) or via Rush Limbaugh and our conservative brigades (global warming/amnesty). But let us now and forever disabuse ourselves of the notion that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between McCain and either Hillary or Obama. Let us eschew the notion that we could win (for the conservative of republican cause) by losing.

Poppycock to all that!

He is ready to mop the floor with either Nurse Ratched or the Obamanation, and is ready to protect this country on Day One.

There are three kinds of change to choose from. We can become the children of a Europe-like nanny state writ large with no America to protect us from ourselves or we can embrace a change that seeks to reduce government and embrace America exceptionalism.

Just as in 1981, in Reagan’s words, we are the change.

The Rooster is crowing as he eyes a new dawn of patriotism led by a true American hero.

So get your hands off your noses and/or beaks and proudly cast your vote for a great man.

Where have you been John McCain?

Just under Gamecock’s beak. I see clearly now.

Feels right!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

From the Washington Post:

Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain, calling on the party to “close ranks” behind the presumed nominee.

“This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain,” Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

Thompson’s endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain.

The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years, is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.

From my friend, prolific blogger, and fellow Tennessean, Bob Krumm:

I just caught a couple minutes of Ralph Bristol’s radio show this morning. He was interviewing local Congressman Jim Cooper. Cooper is the only member of the Tennessee House delegation to have voted against the stimulus package. He thinks that adding another $150 billion to the deficit isn’t how you stimulate the economy. He’s right.

Rep. Cooper has been a spending hawk during his second stint in Congress. He is deeply disappointed at the presidential field, saying that the only candidate who was even talking about the cuts needed in entitlement programs was Fred Thompson, and “You can see what that got him; people don’t want to be told the truth.”

What makes Cooper’s favorable remarks about Fred even more notable was that Jim Cooper was the six-term Democratic Congressman and son of a popular former Tennessee Governor who in 1994 blew a 20-point lead to a novice candidate running for his first elected office: Fred Thompson.

On a side note, I continue to be more and more impressed with my current senator, Bob Corker. I am man enough to admit when I was wrong, and in his case, I was. Corker has turned out to be a fine representative of conservative values. Senator Corker, I salute you. You have earned my respect and support.

Interesting perspective from Jeffery Anderson over at Townhall.com:

Thompson Supporters Should Back Giuliani

Even with their candidate out of the race, Fred Thompson’s supporters can make a big impact in Florida. They should do so by supporting Rudy Giuliani.

More than any other candidate, Rudy matches Thompson’s conservative credentials in the three most important areas: he offers a conservative economic policy, an explicit promise to nominate only “strict constructionist” judges, and a strong dedication to national security. On the economy, social issues, and defense, a Giuliani presidency will take the nation in a clearly conservative direction-and he can actually beat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in November. With a win-or a strong showing-in Florida, Rudy will be positioned to do very well on Super Tuesday a week later, when New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California (all strong states for Rudy) all vote. And Thompson supporters can greatly enhance Rudy’s chances in Florida.

It may be surprising to think of Giuliani as the candidate who is closest to Thompson, given their disagreement over abortion. But the Supreme Court long ago took this issue out of representative legislatures’ hands-in a plainly unconstitutional ruling. So a candidate’s position on this issue is now dwarfed in importance by his commitment to appointing judges who will abide by the Constitution and thereby return this issues to legislatures. And Rudy, more than John McCain or Mitt Romney, has firmly committed to appointing law-abiding judges. That is why prudent, pro-life conservatives, like Dennis Prager, have endorsed Rudy.

For all of his noble qualities and his commitment to reform, McCain is a maverick whose breaks from conservatives-on campaign finance, illegal immigration, etc.-are almost always in a left-leaning direction. No Thompson supporter could truly feel confident about the judicial nominees McCain would present to his former Senate colleagues. Romney is less of a maverick than McCain, but he is every bit as unpredictable. Without being unfair, one thing that can surely be said about Romney is this: one can rarely quite pin down what he thinks or what he’ll do. Giuliani, meanwhile, is committed to nominating a particular type of judge-the law-abiding rather than the law-making kind-and Rudy is a man true to his word. If he weren’t, he would have changed his position on abortion before the campaign.

On national security, no one can question Rudy’s credentials. No one can question his proven record of executive leadership in arguably the second-toughest executive position in America-a city whose metropolitan-area population is greater than all but three states (New York included). Rudy took on crime, he took on Democrats, and he transformed a crime-ridden metropolis into the safest large city in America. His record of successful executive leadership is something no other candidate can match. George Will called his tenure in New York “the most successful episode of conservative governance in the past 50 years.”

On the economy, there can be no doubt Rudy is the most conservative candidate. In New York, he consistently cut taxes and balanced budgets. Romney raised taxes 8% during the span of his tenure in Massachusetts,[1] imposed a government-mandated healthcare plan, and received a “C” from the small-government-minded Cato Institute. McCain voted against the recent Bush tax cuts, and he seems to have a limited commitment to limited government. Mike Huckabee increased taxes 19% during the span of his tenure in Arkansas, increased spending 65%-more than Bill Clinton did-and received an “F” from Cato.[2]

On the other hand, Rudy’s tax cut would be the largest in American history. His Fair and Simple Tax (FAST) form-similar to Thompson’s proposal-would allow Americans to complete their taxes on one page. He would cut corporate taxes from 35% to 25%, capital gains from 15% to 10%, and allow tax-free private savings accounts for general savings, retirement, education, and access to affordable, portable, private healthcare.

Rudy was recently praised by the Wall Street Journal, which asserted that he and Thompson have proposed the best tax plans and are the best “at explaining how taxes affect the economy.”[3] Steve Forbes writes that, “With Fred Thompson now having dropped out…there can no longer be any question which candidate is offering the best tax plan.”[4] Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Nordquist calls Rudy’s plan “a monumental leap forward for the American taxpayer and the U.S. economy,” and the Club for Growth calls it “a bold and innovative proposal that will…promote economic growth for Americans across the economic spectrum.”[5]

There’s a reason the New York Times, the nation’s liberal paper of record, just eschewed Giuliani and endorsed McCain. The Times could instead have endorsed Romney, but the Times, like everyone else, presumably can’t really tell where Romney stands. So they decided to go with the candidate who sometimes breaks with conservatives, rather than the one who consistently avoids taking positions. (If a candidate is to be characterized by slipperiness, the Times prefers that the candidate be named Clinton.) Thompson’s supporters should migrate to the man the Times wants nothing to do with, the man who ran New York as a conservative, is true to his word, and will clearly lead America in a conservative direction on social, defense, and economic issues: Rudy Giuliani.

McIntosh most recently served as a senior policy adviser to former Republican presidential candidate Senator Fred Thompson, and is founder of the Federalist Society:

“I am proud to make today’s endorsement. Governor Romney has the vision to bring true conservative change to Washington and strengthen our economy. As President, he will advance a pro-growth agenda that strengthens our economy, encourages innovation and creates jobs. From business and the Olympics to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Governor Romney is the proven leader we need in Washington today. I also am convinced that Governor Romney will appoint judges who will exercise judicial restraint, respect the rule of law and appreciate the Constitution as written,” said David McIntosh.

McIntosh will serve as a Co-Chair of the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts with Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, former constitutional legal counsel to President Ronald Reagan. He replaces Professor Mary Ann Glendon who was recently appointed to be U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See.

Announcing McIntosh’s support, Governor Romney said, “As a founder of the Federalist Society, David McIntosh is a highly respected conservative leader with an extensive career of public service. It is an honor that he has joined our campaign to strengthen America. As a valuable addition to our legal advisory committee, I look forward to working with him and having his counsel on the important judicial issues confronting our country today.”

I have never been a huge fan of Bob Novak. Since his days on Crossfire where he looked like a useless pawn, to his weekly Evans-Novak reports that appear to be more gossip than anything, I have never quite figured out why he gets so much credit. Generally as a rule, nearly everything he tells us seems to come up wrong. I know he had some glory days in ‘76 covering the elections with Brit Hume, but basically I don’t think he offers really anything too useful, other than the opportunity to say, “Bob Novak said….” when it’s good for someones candidate.

So with that fair and balanced framing I offer you this quote from his latest article on Florida:

Private overnight polls after Fred Thompson’s withdrawal from the presidential race Tuesday showed a bump for Sen. John McCain in Florida’s Republican primary Jan. 29.

Thompson did not endorse McCain, even though the former Senate colleagues are on close terms with each other. Nevertheless, McCain appears to have picked up much of Thompson’s Florida voter support and now leads Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in the last primary before Mega Tuesday Feb. 5.

Bob, time to put down the peace pipe. I don’t care what McCain’s internal polls say, he does not lead Romney in Florida polls taken after Thompson’s withdrawal. Take a look Bobby:

• SurveyUSA 01/23 - 01/24 550 LV 30 28 McCain +2.0
• Rasmussen 01/23 - 01/23 675 LV 23 27 Romney +4.0
• Mason-Dixon 01/22 - 01/23 400 LV 26 30 Romney +4.0

(McCain numbers on left, Romney numbers on right)

If you included the numbers that Insider Advantage had with just republicans (It’s taken without the Dems and indies- it is a closed primary people!)…

• Mitt Romney: 30%
• John McCain: 23%

…you would get this average after Thompson drops out:

• Romney 28.8%
• McCain 25.5%

Romney +3.3%

If you take the five polls between NV/SC and Thompson dropping out (from the 20th- 22nd) you get these averages:

• McCain 22.6
• Romney 22.2

McCain +0.4

If you take the 7 polls between NH and SC/NV you get this average:

• McCain 23.7%
• Romney 17.9%

McCain +5.8

Some points:

1. Novak doesn’t look at polls, only McCain campaign press releases (half joke)
2. McCain lost momentum after SC/NV (he ticked down 1.1%) and Romney gained momentum (He ticked up 4.3%)
3. Both Romney and McCain have gained after Fred leaving. I am guessing that Romney gets the bulk of Fred’s supporters, while McCain gets some as well, but really what McCain is picking up are former Rudy supporters who are sensing trouble on the Good Ship Giuliani.
4. Romney has gained 11 points in FL since losing NH. Tell me, did any of you political junkies think that was possible?

[Update] When I wrote this I didn’t have the new Zogby numbers from the post below mine. In fairness, if you add those numbers, Romney now has a 2 point lead amongst Republicans in all polls after Thompson withdrew from the race. If you want to take the Insider Advantage poll out which I included the Republican only part of the poll (which makes since to include since this is only a Republican primary and Insider Advantage is a legitimate polling company), you would have Romney up by one point over McCain. As a matter of fact, I guess we could keep taking out all the polls that have Romney ahead and lo! McCain’s ahead! (half joke again).

Ladies and gents… We’ve might’ve found ourselves a new frontrunner!!! … eh, for 2010? DAMNIT, there goes my political retirement after this year!!!

From Jim Geraghty over at NRO:

I just spoke to one of the Thompson Associates - who is in good spirits, considering the circumstances.

He offered a very intriguing nugget, although I wouldn’t want to make too much of it too soon. This Associate said that when an elected official runs for president, and experiences the day-in, day-out relentlessness of making their case and articulating their ideas, they tend to recall why they got into politics in the first place. This Associate said that in the last six weeks or so, Thompson really enjoyed campaigning, and began to express how much he enjoyed campaigning in Tennessee.

This Associate then suggested that Thompson is interested in getting into another race someday, and “the calendar and where things are” made the most likely possibility the next governor’s race in Tennessee, which is in 2010.

Some thoughts… First of all, this is a big “if.” Every time the TN Governors is up for election, Thompson’s usually the dream candidate that the TN GOP hopes will show some interest, so I’m not convinced he’s going to run, at this point.

Although I’d REALLY not want to have to deal with not having to vote for the re-election of a Republican Commander in Chief in 2012, who knows? Governor Fred Thompson would be a lot different than just Former Senator Fred Thompson.

Probably just a little overexcitement on my part, but heck, I could use some cheering up!!! Still, Thompson would still be younger than McCain is this year…

Since Sen. Thompson dropped out of the race, the ongoing question has been, “Who will Fredheads now support?” While many Fredheads have yet to make up their minds, and some have gone to McCain and a few to Giuliani and Huckabee, it’s undeniable that Romney has been the recipient of a vast majority of them. A couple points would be the latest Mason Dixon Poll, that has Romney inching up while McCain remains steady and the long list I posted today of the many judicial advisors from “Lawyers for Fred” who have now hopped on the Romney boat. Now we have this coming out of Team Romney:

New Georgia State Legislators Supporting Governor Romney:

* Senator John Douglas, Social Circle, Senate District 17
* Senator Lee Hawkins, Gainesville, Senate District 49
* Senator Cecil Staton, Macon, Senate District 18
* Representative Tim Bearden, Villa Rica, House District 68
* Representative Steve Davis, McDonough, House District 109
* Representative Earl Ehrhart, Powder Springs, House District 36
* Representative Johnny Floyd, Cordele, House District 147
* Representative Doug Holt, Social Circle, House District 112
* Representative Billy Horne, Newnan, House District 71
* Representative John Lunsford, McDonough, House District 110
* Representative Tom Rice, Norcross, House District 51

and this…

MORTON BLACKWELL ENDORSES GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY

Boston, MA – Today, Morton Blackwell, President of the conservative Leadership Institute, announced his support for Governor Mitt Romney and his candidacy for President of the United States. Morton Blackwell is a leader in the conservative movement and the long-standing Republican National Committeeman from Virginia.

“The only way conservatives are going to beat the Democrats this year is if we unite the major elements of our coalition. Governor Romney is the only candidate who can bring conservative change to Washington now and maintain the conservative coalition so many of us helped Ronald Reagan build. I am proud to support Governor Romney,” said Morton Blackwell.

Welcoming today’s announcement, Governor Romney said, “Across this country, thousands of conservatives have been inspired by Morton Blackwell’s leadership. The conservative movement is stronger because of him. It is an honor to have him as part of our team as we work to bring conservative change to Washington and build a stronger America.”

These new additions can be attributed to a few things:

1. Romney’s Conservative Message
2. The Strength of Romney’s Campaign
3. The fact he didn’t pour some cold water on Fred when he dropped out like Huck did

While Huck was busy claiming he would be the natural choice for Fredheads right before personally attacking Fred and his campaign; Romney was extending the hand of friendship to both Fred and his supporters. Now we have the Romney campaign coming out with these web buttons for Fredheads to put on their site:

I think one of Romney’s hallmark’s of both his public and private life is his ability to build groups of people with different views and get them behind a common cause. I think his ability to attract so many of the former Fredheads, and even support them in keeping the affectionate title of “Fredhead” is something in the direction. Fred is a great a conservative, and many of his supporters still support him, despite his leaving the race. You can still be a “Fredhead,” and support Romney. One need not give anything up.

You can view and download these embeddable buttons here.

From a Team Romney Press Release:

Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney announced new additions to the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts. This group, chaired by Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, former constitutional legal counsel to President Ronald Reagan, has been advising Governor Romney on the important legal issues confronting the country today.

Joining Romney for President after having served as National Co-Chair of Lawyers for Fred Thompson, Victoria Toensing said, “Appointing strong judges is one of our President’s most important responsibilities. The next President will make a number of appointments, and I am confident Governor Romney will nominate judges in the mold of President Bush’s nominees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. I am proud to work with Governor Romney and this outstanding group of legal minds.”

Also joining the Advisory committee from Lawyers for Fred Thompson are Lizette D. Benedi, Rachel L. Brand, Reginald Brown, Charles J. Cooper, Joseph E. diGenova, Michael R. Dimino, Viet D. Dinh, Noel J. Francisco and Eileen J. O’Connor.

Eugene Scalia, who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, has also joined the committee. “Governor Romney has the ability, experience, and values to serve as an exceptional President,” he said. “He appreciates the role of the courts and rule of law in our society.”

Making today’s announcement, Governor Romney said, “It is an honor to have the counsel of so many distinguished men and women. Together, they represent years of experience in the legal field and their help to this campaign will be invaluable.”

Governor Romney also announced that Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova will serve on the Steering Committee of Lawyers for Romney in addition to their roles on the Advisory Committee.

New Members Of The Advisory Committee On The Constitution And The Courts:
(more…)

The Thompson supporters have had a lot of problems with the media and the way they portrayed Fred Thompson over the course of his campaign. Funnily, the Jackson Sun picked up on one thing the media distorted to hurt Thompson’s candidacy. For the 4th quarter, Thompson raised between 10-12 million more dollars.

However, one of the biggest “enemies” of the Thompson camp was Politico. They regularly distorted rumors and got their story wrong on more than one occasion. They were the ones who published a July entry date for Thompson before he commited to any date to announce his candidacy. They were the ones who published the “Lazy as Charged” article about Thompson’s visit to a Fire department that the chief then rebuked. They were the ones who pushed the rumor that Fred would drop out on the day of the Iowa Caucus, likely hurting his get out the vote efforts. It goes on and on…

Here is a short excerpt from an article published the day after the Iowa Caucus on the mood at Fred Thompson’s rally the previous evening, written by Ben Adler for Politico:

Resignation greets Thompson’s third place
By: Ben Adler
January 5, 2008 06:32 PM EST

DES MOINES, Iowa - Nothing makes for a lackluster afterparty like a tie for third place. And that’s where Fred Thompson finished in Thursday’s caucus.

The former Tennessee senator won 13 percent support, too close to Arizona Sen. John McCain to call third place in the Republican race.

The crowd of about 100 Thompson supporters watching the Iowa returns in a downtown Des Moines hotel ballroom milled about, chatting amiably and noshing on the free food as if they were at a cocktail party.

They make it sound really dead, which is just what they apparently wanted everyone who was not there to think.

“In fact, considering the small, low-energy crowds like this one that have greeted Thompson’s Iowa bus tour recently, it seems remarkable that he finished as well as he did.”

Small, low energy crowds, Mr. Adler?

“But the chants of “Fred, Fred, Fred” seemed forced. Supporters cheered weakly during Iowa Rep. Steve King’s long introduction of the candidate.”

Forced chants? Really?

Luckily, the rally was caught on video for the world to see:

Michael Van der Galien noted at the time that Thompson really was getting a raw deal from the media. I’ll let you be the judge.

I said I wasn’t planning on doing anything for a few days, but the old creative juices were flowing and I wanted to get started on this before too much time had passed. This is going to be a short series on the aftermath of Thompson’s withdrawal, the possible effects it may have on the race leading up to February 5th, and hopefully give you guys some insights into the minds of the most strident Fred Thompson supporters, and the emotional rollercoaster that have been the last eight months. I don’t have the insight to understand the soft support, but as I have worked my way to becoming one of the head moderators of www.draftfredthompson.com, the starting point of a political movement unlike any other in 2008- a successful drafting of a candidate. This is PART 1 of this series. These will focus on the emotions felt within the core of the “dft” movement.
________________________________________________________________________________

Fred Thompson’s Aftermath Part 1: The Day of Withdrawal
Tommy Oliver

Tennessee has had many popular political figures come from the state over the last few generations. The list of prominent, successful politicians is long, and many have enjoyed loyal support. It is quite an impressive roster of respected, and beloved figures. Here are the most prominent:

Former Governor Ned McWherter (Democrat)
Former U.S. Senator Al Gore Sr. (Democrat)
Former Governor and current U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (Republican)
Former U.S. Senate Majority leader Howard Baker (Republican)
Former U.S. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist (Republican)
Former Vice President and U.S. Senator Al Gore Jr. (Democrat)
Governor Phil Bredeson (Democrat)
Former U.S. Congressman and Chairman of the DLC Harold Ford Jr. (Democrat)
U.S. Congressman Zach Wamp (Republican)
U.S. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (Republican)
U.S. Senator Bob Corker (Republican)
Former Governor Winfield Dunn (Republican)
Former U.S. Senator Jim Sasser (Democrat)

That is a roster of public servants that would make most states jealous. Ned McWherter, Howard Baker, the Gores’, and Lamar Alexander are popular enough to be icons and symbols of the state’s political arena. However, only Ned McWherter can claim to reach the level of popularity in the state as Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson: Tennessean
Out of all the political ads I’ve seen since 1994, none have been as effective as this one from Thompson that year, during his run for the United States Senate. It was that same year that I, like many conservatives throughout the state of Tennessee, found “my guy.” Some wonder and marvel at the dedication of the “Fredheads,” well… here’s why. This ad is the only one I’ve ever seen that captured a political movement completely, as it did in 1994, and those of us who were lucky enough to have participated in that historic race to fill the Senate seat of a sitting Vice President from an opposing party, will remember him forever this way. This is vintage Fred Thompson:

The Best Ad I’ve Seen… period

This Fred Thompson would not have been beaten

Thompson has withdrawn from the 2008 race for the GOP nominee, but he just might go out a winner, as some may finally have to recognize. It is nice to see that one of the candidates has the ability to recognize what Thompson has done, even if it might have been for political purposes. He scored some points with more than one Thompson supporter. Thank you, Governor Romney.

The undisputable fact is that Thompson, even in losing, did what desperately needed to be done. He dragged the GOP primaries back to the right side of the political spectrum. Without Thompson, we might very well have seen this primary shift further and further to the left because NOBODY was willing to step up and say so, except for Governor Romney, who still had yet to earn the necessary credibility to answer for the conservative wing of the party, due to skepticism around his late in life conversions. Well Governor Romney, ironically, can now actually make a valid argument that, out of the top 3 contenders left, he is the most “consistent conservative” (Out of McCain, Huckabee, and Romney). Fred Thompson still managed to do what many pundits did not expect him to do, which was what John McCain would not do, Mitt Romney was not ready to do (at the time), and what Rudy Giuliani could not do. He reminded the voices of the GOP that it is a conservative party, first and foremost.

Thompson was unprepared to be thrust back into the spotlight in 2007. He had a couple of health scares, and wasn’t up to his physical peak in September. Today, he has regained that former appearence. If the Thompson of January 2008 showed up this way in July of 2007, then the campaign would’ve been over a long time ago, and he would be the likely nominee. The last month he has been the dynamic campaigner that so many of us remembered from 1994, when he was the GOP’s rising star. If he never quite regained that level of trail appeal this year, he was at least close to that level in South Carolina this year. The problem was that it was too late to make up the ground he lost.

I will have a lot more on the MSM coverage of Thompson during the campaign, but here is what will be regarded as his final speech as a candidate of the 2008 election. On that note, it’s funny that only Fox News cut away from his speech. I’ll share some of those insights later.

Fred’s Farewell:

Part II will come in a few days
________________________________________________________________________________

Note: I can’t speak for what is considered Thompson’s “soft supporters,” but I can speak with a feel for what will happen to Thompson’s hardcore support. I will remain officially neutral through the primaries, though I am leaning in a direction. However, as of right now, the majority of the Fredheads who will support another candidate during the primary seem to be leaning towards Mitt Romney. Not all of them will choose a candidate, but for those who are talking of voting for another candidate in this primary, it seems Romney is the one who could benefit, at the moment.

A large number of them may sit out the primaries and some may go 3rd party, but Romney seems to be the pick of those discussing the possibility of supporting another candidate, at the moment.

“Throughout this campaign, Fred Thompson brought a laudable focus to the challenges confronting our country and the solutions necessary to meet them. He stood for strong conservative ideas and believed strongly in the need to keep our conservative coalition together. Ann and I would like to extend our best wishes to Fred, Jeri and their family and congratulate them on their efforts during this campaign.”

Short and sweet:

“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”

It’s sad to watch my second choice for the nomination drop out of the race, but it hopefully will allow some additional conservative support to rally behind Romney. Huckabee’s gotta see a pretty big opening to pick up all the southern states on 2/5 now. And the fact that Thompson has additionally said that he will not endorse any of his competitors at this time is a little blow to McCain, who Fred endorsed in 2000 and whom he is good friends with.

Many people will write postmortems concerning Fred’s campaign… he seemed tailor made to grab the nomination in a field that GOP voters were never satisfied with. But the problems with his campaign were legion, and mostly had to do with organization and not the candidate himself. He entered the race way too late, didn’t plan enough campaign events in enough states, didn’t have control over the warring factions within his own campaign… the list goes on.

If it weren’t for his age, I’m sure he’d be the top selection for the Veepstakes right now. Even so, he’s gotta be on at least three candidates’ short lists, as the Veep slot seems a roll more suited for Thompson anyways.

Farewell to a great Republican candidate in this race for 2008.

[UPDATE: According to Thompson officials (via Redstate), Thompson will not be endorsing any other candidate in the race.]

FYI: 

Fred Thompson drops out…. Developing…

So says senior officials in both camps, according to Martin over at Politico.

Senior Thompson advisor Rich Galen says if Fred decides to stay in the race, he’ll most likely skip Florida and focus on southern 2/5 states… and Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman says that they have no plans to air television ads in Florida (and don’t have the money to do so anyway… if they do air ads, it will only be on the last weekend before the primary) and Huckabee himself says he may yet pull out of Florida to focus on states like Georgia — where he very tellingly spent yesterday and will be spending today.

This just might create the perfect storm in Florida for Mitt Romney, with his two conservative rivals not putting much, if any, effort into the state. As Martin says:

Much can happen in a week’s time — Thursday’s debate in Boca could be pivotal — but this is the most promising day Romney’s camp has had since their victory in Michigan last Tuesday.

Geraghty reports that Fred Thompson’s mother is still in bad shape. He speculates that it is unlikely that Fred will be at the Thursday debate. His report is at odds with the Fox reports from yesterday on some of the facts, as it goes to show that none of the sources are sure about the future and what’s going on.

Here’s what we can be sure of:

1. We don’t know if Fred will be at the debate. The campaign has not confirmed, but his mother’s condition could likely keep him out Thursday if he had originally planned on being there.

2. The Fox report and the NRO report are at odds on whether FDT would consider a VP slot, and I don’t think either of them are sure what he’s going to do.

3. Both reports confirm my earlier post in that if he does not continue, then he will not endorse anyone in the near future. This makes sense to me. He wouldn’t cross his friend McCain by endorsing anyone else, but he won’t endorse him either, at this stage.

Fred’s mother is ill and her condition has deteriorated today. I ask that everyone and the candidates give the family space to make their own decisions about the process, and respect whatever his wishes may be.

UPDATE at 9:00 pm: To clear up some rumors floating around, just got word from the campaign:
1. Thompson has not pulled out of Florida’s debate Thursday night yet. Fox News is wrong in their reporting yet again, at this stage.
2. Yes, she has been ill for a while, but has improved since earlier today.

Here.

I’m still on my self imposed vacation, trying to deal with everything that I’ve been neglecting for the last eight months. We don’t know what is going to happen, but I wouldn’t be shocked with either direction Fred decided to take. Note: you probably won’t hear it from me first, since I am taking a little break and only get updates every so often.

There is no word as to what his plans are yet, and there are compelling arguments from both sides to consider. I’ll be back shortly regardless of the decision.

I will leave you with this analogy made by Peter Robinson on Thompson and South Carolina, over at NRO:

Watching the returns come in this afternoon I found myself recalling my great uncle, who was a harness racer, and a horse named Schuyler Hall-maybe because the commentators kept talking about the political “horserace.” Schuyler Hall’s first owner raced the horse as a trotter, with mediocre results. My great uncle retrained Schuyler Hall, racing him instead as a pacer.

The gate would open, the other horses would launch onto the course…and Schuyler Hall, at first attempting to trot rather than pace, would rear up and throw his head from side to side, going nowhere. My great-uncle would talk to the horse, calming him. And then Schuyler Hall would find his gait, starting to pace. The rest of the field would by now be approaching the first turn. But Schuyler Hall would settle into one of the fastest paces my great-uncle ever recorded, closing on the other horses with every step. The spectators would cheer, and then, as Schuyler Hall began passing one horse after another, leap to their feet. After having begun to race four or five seconds after the rest of the field, Schuyler Hall would always finish in the middle or better.

“The horse never finished first,” my great-uncle would say. “But when Schuyler Hall found his gait, you never saw anything more beautiful.”

Senate President pro tem Eric Johnson of Savannah, the ranking Republican in that chamber and one of the leaders of the draft-Fred movement last year, is switching to presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Johnson said he’s got no special knowledge of whether Thompson, who finished third in South Carolina on Saturday, will be pulling out of the Republican contest.

“I don’t know if he’s pulling out today or tomorrow or not at all,” Johnson told us from Savannah. “But clearly Fred Thompson is not going to be the nominee.”

Expect more defections. “All of the campaigns are reaching out to the Thompson people,” the senator said. Link

This is going to be interesting. I can tell you that at www.mymanmitt.com we already have several people emailing us telling us they are switching to Mitt. I penned this post this morning.

In addition Patrick Ruffini posted these polls, and I think the results are enlightening.

Contrary to some of the reactionary, uninformed, teeth gnashing, sack clothed, covered in ashes post-SC GOP primary lamenters, South Carolina is still a very conservative Republican state.

I just hope that the Palmetto State cedes their 28 year history as the GOP nominee bell weather role to the Sunshine State, Lone Star State or second Ballot convention delegates this year.

South Carolina did veto a not infrequent Iowa aberration when SC Southern Baptists gave Mike Huckabee a lower percentage of votes than did Iowa evangelicals, as promised by Gamecock even before Iowa’s caucuses:

Huck is history.

What has been enraging has been the assumptions made in the media about evangelicals based on Huck’s rise in the polls. They get accused of only caring about abortion and/or being anti-Mormon bigots. The fact is that most poll responders don’t know much about Huck, except for his good debate performances. Moreover, most evangelicals, especially the seminal GOP winner pickers in the Palmetto State, are war hawks first, and generally orthodox conservatives on taxes, etc.

South Carolina will make Huck history if Iowa doesn’t.

Nothing enrages me more than the ignorant of history, bigoted, and/or stereotypical descriptions of Evangelicals, Christians, social-conservatives and Southerners. The latest examples are the Iowa Huck-leading poll-driven conclusions of some that recent Iowa poll responders are anti-Mormon bigots that support Huckabee solely due to the fact that he is a Christian.

Many at RS also regularly assert that evangelicals only care about abortion and gay marriage; are generally big government liberals and that they want to “impose” their beliefs on the non-Christians…

First, Iowa, Iowa evangelicals, SC, the Huck surge and the discovery that Huck is in the wrong aka, the death of the Huck surge:

1 - Iowa’s repubs are much more liberal than most repubs, including their evangelicals.

2 - They have a pacifist tinge.

3 - History shows that who they pick is much less predictive than who SC picks.

4 - Huck rose due to debate performances. He had not been vetted like Mitt and Rudy. He has vetted himself, i.e. Huck the liberal, the past two days, and the poison is killing him now. He will not win Iowa, or any other state.

Now, let us look at these GOP evangelicals and the allegations regularly made against them:

1 - They only care about abortion and gay marriage;
2 - They are generally big government liberals; and
3 - They want to “impose” their beliefs on the non-Christians…

Finally, evangelicals will reject Huck, and soon. Most poll responders are inattentive. They saw a man do well in debate who also was not captive to the PC police when it come to quoting Jesus. They, like us, are now finding out more about Huck, and most SC evangelicals are CONSERVATIVE republicans.

Huckabee may have gotten more than 50% of the evangelical vote in Iowa, but has gotten no where near that since. Read it all:

Evangelicals make GOP history. Huckabee is history and see also SC evangelical grown-ups will defy the bigoted stereotype, as usual

In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Mike DeVine, a former state Democratic Party official in South Carolina and a columnist for The Charlotte Observer, noted that the Republican Party there is markedly different from that in Iowa.

“The GOP in South Carolina that I lost to a lot [over 20 years] is [comprised of] mainstream conservatives,” he said. “They’re Reagan conservatives. … This includes evangelicals - they’re mostly Southern Baptists. A lot of military [there] too - much different from Iowa.”

“I don’t think that Huckabee will do nearly as well” in South Carolina as he did in Iowa, said DeVine. “Some of his views are simply anathema to the conservative philosophy of the state. He’s shown some weaknesses. The people aren’t going to just vote for him because he’s a Baptist. They won’t be nearly as receptive to identity politics.”

see also

Huckabee, Thompson Face Tough Ground in SC

I also wrote last week why I thought McCain had a chance to win:

McCain has a better chance this year than he did in 2000 thanks to his strong war stand, the larger field, lack of a front runner, and the likelihood that McCain will not once again slander the “religious right.”

To the contrary, McCain reconciled with many evangelicals over the past year, ran ads promising to close the border, and advocates new tax cuts now. Moreover, he represents the best option for many, especially the large military voting block, on the number one issue for most conservatives: national security. Read it all:

Thompson fighting uphill battle against McCain/Huckabee in Palmetto State

The main factors in McCain’s victory in McCain’s were the crowded field and Thompson’s late entry. Many at Redstate are mad at South Carolina and making wild accusations that Sandlappers have moved to the left and let the GOP down. This is unjustified.

Here’s why:

1 - SC usually gets to pick between two candidates, and since 1980 it always picked the most conservative electable candidate remaining.

2 - McCain’s vote dropped from 42% in 2000 to 33% this year.

3 - His non-Huck opposition either arrived late with MSM baggage (Fred); came early, wrapping up some support and then abandoned the state (Rudy); came early, wrapped up even more support, partially abandoned, and then ran ads the last few days (Mitt). In fact, the support Rudy, but especially Mitt, wrapped up going back even to late 2006 prevented Fred from winning, coupled with his late start.

4 - McCain is conservative on the war and spending.

5 - No one ran ads in SC calling out McCain on his record, and on illegal immigration, his greatest weakness, McCain turned the tables with ads promising to close the border.

Candidates were spooked by Luntz’s NH and Iowa focus groups’ inane aversions even to fair comparative ads that Mitt ran.

SC has no such aversion to negative ads. We want the truth, and given our Fort Sumter history, we understand that sometimes you have to throw the first punch! and still call it…

The War of Northern Aggression!

6 - Huckabee is conservative on life and values and promised to close the border. No ads were run against him either on his non-conservative views.

Yet, despite all that, Fred got 16% after only a few weeks time, improving on the 11% he got in Iowa in a short time. Fred’s trajectory is up. It is not impossible for Fred to continue to rise if he stays in. I hope he does.

I must also say that even Mitt or Rudy could have bested McCain or Huck if they had competed harder here. That Rudy waits till Florida to breathe is quite odd.

I also hope that SC’s gift of a wounded Huckabee is seized upon by a future state or states and usurps SC’s usual nominee deciding role this year.

I guess I do better understand and sympathize with Iowa’s usual dilemma! It’s easier with a two man field with both engaged.

What Iowa nor SC can do is make more conservatives run in the first place and not miss the opening bell.

Mike