Fred Dalton Thompson is back dispensing his wisdom and sharing his opinion, blogging on Townhall.com. A portion of his first article:
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.
I missed ya, Fred. Glad to have you back.
I keep hoping that McCain will do something that will want to make me vote for him, but Fred Thompson shot down the biggest thing McCain could do before the question was even asked. In an interview on last night's Hannity and Colmes, Fred said he had no interest in being the vice president and if McCain actually posed the question, would advise him to get someone else with "a different profile".
It’s not what I want. The presidency is the only job in town that’s worth going through what you’ve got to go through to get it. And that includes the vice presidency and all of the rest of them, as far as I’m concerned.
And I thought I had an opportunity to do some things a different way. And if I was successful, I could lead in a different way. That didn’t work out. I’m interested in absolutely nothing else other than doing what I can to help those who are trying to help this country, and be a good citizen and do those things that I can do now in the private sector to help these kids and grandchildren.
But that does not involve, you know, going to state funerals in faraway places.
And that last statement is why I love Fred.
As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.
But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?
Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?
Where was I when Reaganism died?
With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning -- think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?
Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.
I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.
I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain's poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.
I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I'm getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don't like much of it.
I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won't vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).
And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That's right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards' and Hillary's speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I'm joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can't find a militia then I'm going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.
Obama's speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.
One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).
My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]
You often hear people say that they didn't leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn't leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.
And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.
Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:
The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don't think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination. I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let's see if we can't have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.
To which Advised by Wolves responds:
Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.
My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together -- a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary's side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won't come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.
Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.
From Townhall:
But as I've stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he's the right choice.
There's much more.
An excellent article on The Anti Soundbite Candidate:
But Fred Thompson is perhaps the most substantative candidate to run for President in many years. He has taken the time to think about what should be the relationship between the government and the governed. He has framed his thoughts within the context of a set of bedrock conservative principles that animates his thinking and generates sound ideas about where America should be headed.
There is a heft to Thompson, a seriousness of purpose that none of the other candidates can match. It is most pronounced during the debates where Thompson's answers to questions are more subtle and nuanced than those of his rivals. His sometimes laconic style zings his opponents with brutal accuracy. Often, the candidate will answer a question by stating "Yep" or "Nope" and pause a few seconds to gather his thoughts. What follows is almost always coherent and is informed by years of experience in government.
Jed Babbin from Online Human Events agrees with my earlier assessment of the Politico hit piece:
The rumor that Fred Thompson will quit the Republican presidential race if he finishes poorly in Iowa is not only false: it rises to the level of a political dirty trick aimed at reducing Thompson-backers’ turnout in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. . . .
Sources told me that Thompson’s campaign was already moving elements to South Carolina where they expect to do very well. If Thompson finished at the bottom of the pack in Iowa -- which seems very unlikely -- he would have to reassess his overall chances. But that seems unlikely. And Iowa is not a determinative race for the Republicans. It is very likely to be of lesser importance than a host of others, as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani -- and Thompson -- are betting. A candidate could easily go from a defeat there to win the nomination. . . .
In every political season, there are dirty tricks like this. Some originate from opposing camps and some from the media themselves. The Politico story is of the sort that even the television networks have managed to avoid. Saying that Thompson is going to quit after Iowa on the morning of the caucuses there is like announcing the election night results in New York and the Carolinas before the polls close on the West Coast. If even CBS News wouldn’t pull a stunt like that, why would The Politico?
The influential web site Politico has tried discounting Thompson in the past (see Thompson is running low on options), but stooped to a new low with a hit piece titled Thompson may drop out, back McCain on the day that Iowan voters go to caucus.
Fred Thompson is experiencing a "late-breaking surge" in Iowa (according to Zogby) on the heels of his bold message to Iowa caucus goers in which he appealed to Republicans and conservative Democrats. The effectiveness of Thompson's message scares liberals, which is why he has been largely ignored by the MSM in favor of the myth that voters have only the Rudy-Mitt choice to make.
Politico claims that "officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign" revealed that Fred would drop out if he does poorly in Iowa. Only a fool would believe that anyone on or even "close" to the campaign would utter such a statement at this critical juncture. And to cite multiple sources is beyond understanding.
Thompson's actual campaign is denying the story, of course. Byron York posts on NRO that he had personally talked to Rich Galen, a top advisor to Thompson. Not only did Galen deny the story, but:
Galen also said that no one inside the campaign was a source for the story. "I can't put enough adjectives in front of the 'deny' to accurately describe how vehemently I'm denying the story," he said.
Galen said that "just to make sure," he checked with Thompson himself, who told him the story was not true. "We have the schedule for Saturday and Sunday in New Hampshire, and then we're going down to South Carolina," Galen told me.
Now, if the Politico's hit piece fails to stop the Fredmentum in Iowa, the question becomes: will it actually throw attention his way in New Hampshire and South Carolina?
As for me, I favor a class action suit on the part of all Thompson backers against the Politico for printing an obviously false story with the intent to kill our candidate's chances. Anyone want to take the case?
When Thompson's bus tour of Iowa is done, he will have visited more than 50 cities and towns covering 75% of Iowa's caucus-goers. This is important, because a poll released yesterday showed that 8 percent of Democrats and 12 percent of Republican likely voters in Iowa are still in the "undecided" category.
In a bold effort to sway these caucus-goers, Fred Thompson has recorded a 17 minute video in which he makes his case as to why he should be our next president. In a unique move, he includes an appeal to Democrats. In part:
So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.
Here is the entire video, via YouTube:
Peter Robinson, writing on the corner at NRO, has this to say about the message:
This is reminiscent of Reagan’s talk to the people of North Carolina in 1976. Simple, straightforward, modest production values—just the candidate in front of an American flag and an Iowa flag—but (to use the word again) compelling. Reagan’s 1976 talk enabled him to recover after a string of primary defeats, winning in North Carolina, then going on to come within a handful of delegates of wresting the nomination from Ford. Will Thompson’s talk move voters in Iowa? Does his campaign have the money to get it on the air? Throughout the state? Or even in a few of the most important markets? Beats me. But we have here a serious man, making a serious case—and doing so in the context of a campaign that has otherwise descended into mere caterwauling.
Even at this late hour, I wouldn’t count Fred out.
Watch the video above. If you agree that Fred is the best candidate, consider helping him to get his message to the voters by using the gadget below to make a contribution to his campaign. You'll note that the default amount is only 25 dollars. Feel free to increase that amount, but know this -- if just three people contribute a mere $25, Fred can put another ad on the radio. It might just be the ad that convinces another Iowan to back Fred Dalton Thompson, the Clear Conservative Choice.
Justin Wax from the Tennessean supported Huckabee, even to the point of sending him an early campaign contribution. But then he started learning the facts:
I was completely shocked when I read an Arkansas Leader article stating Huckabee issued more than 700 commutations and pardons during his tenure, more than Arkansas' six neighboring states combined. I was even more repulsed when I learned the list of pardons and commutations included convicted murderers and rapists.
As a fiscal conservative, I was annoyed with Huckabee's protectionist-sounding rhetoric and particularly his name-calling, labeling the conservative group Club for Growth, the "Club for Greed." His immigration policies as governor also gave me cause for concern, but I pushed all of Huckabee's faults to the back of my mind, instead choosing to dwell on his pro-life record and position on the war. However, when I studied the Wayne Dumond story and Huckabee's "desire" to see the convicted rapist released into society, alarm bells went off. After reading the Arkansas Leader article on Huckabee's shocking propensity to side with convicted murderers and rapists over victims, I meekly pulled off my Huckabee bumper stickers.
Wax then lists his problems with the rest of the "conservative" candidates:
As nice a summation as I have seen, although I have problems with McCain that aren't listed, primarily the fact that he hates both the First and Second amendments.
Now go read Wax's excellent reasoning as to why Thompson is his choice for president. Money quote:
Thompson "hands down" possesses excellent judgment, and he will win because he is the most reliable, consistent, principled conservative in this race. Unleash the Fredmentum.
Nice.
Fred Dalton Thompson is the clear conservative choice in the 2008 presidential election.
The Club for Growth said that during his time in the Senate, Thompson demonstrated "an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles." Although the Club praised his "excellent" record on entitlement reform and school choice, special recognition was reserved for Social Security reform by stating, "Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics." But this is the highest praise of all:
Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.
The press continues to ignore Thompson as they concentrate on the "big three" of Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. Having made up their minds that Thompson doesn't work too hard at campaigning, they give valuable print space to other candidates.
The media must not remember Thompson's 1994 campaign in Tennessee. He was energetic, positive, persuasive and ultimately successful.
And he is doing it again. USA Today said that his "five-stop-a-day schedule answers critics who say he is a lazy campaigner." Today, the Dallas Morning News cautioned, In Iowa, count on this: Don't count anyone out.
Thompson is pushing to raise funds to put a new commercial on in Iowa before next Tuesday's caucus. As of this hour, he has raised $140,769 towards his goal of $248,846 by 6 PM Friday.
I am asking that you do three things:
Just a few of the bloggers that are asking their readers do the same include:
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Rightwing Nuthouse
Bob Krumm
Stix Blog
Daily Pundit
Stop the ACLU
Sundries Shack
Say Anything
IMAO
Reformed Chicks Blabbing
Faultline USA
Wake Up America
Discerning Texan
Ah hell, just Google "Blogburst for Fred" and take a look for yourself. Wake Up America says that over 300 bloggers have joined in the effort.
Jack Kelly, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, believes that the Huckaboom is going to be a short term event. In which case:
Mr. Thompson's liability is a lot easier to fix than those of his rivals. Mitt Romney can't change the fact that he's a Mormon (which shouldn't be an issue but it is), or a recent convert to social conservatism. Rudy Giuliani is stuck with his views on abortion, his extramarital affairs and his friendship with disgraced cop Bernard Kerik. Conservatives remember how much Mr. McCain has enjoyed sticking his finger in their eye. But all Mr. Thompson has to do to dispel concerns he's lazy is to campaign hard, as he did last week in Iowa.
In a campaign marked more by who voters are against than by who they are for, Fred Thompson is a safe choice. His views -- which he articulates well -- offend none of the core constituencies in the GOP. The more Mitt and Huck fight, the better he looks to Iowa voters.
If Mike Huckabee's been the hare in this race, Fred Thompson is the tortoise. In Aesop's fable, it was the tortoise who eventually won.
I disagree with one point: Thompson is not the "safe" choice, he is the conservative choice.
Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes covers Fred Thompson's campaigning in Iowa. He describes a speech in a small town and continues:
If the Republican nomination were decided only by performances like this, Fred Thompson--whose policy views make him the most mainstream conservative in the race--would be on a glide-path to the Republican nomination.
It's not. And it is Thompson's lackluster effort in all of those other areas of a campaign that has him running a distant third in most polls less than two weeks from the Iowa caucuses. But a strange set of circumstances--the two current Iowa frontrunners cutting each other apart and two former national frontrunners essentially skipping the caucuses--means that despite his late start Thompson may still have a chance to emerge from Iowa as one of three or four candidates with a real shot at the nomination.
Thompson is short on cash, but he is making up for it by campaigning the old fashioned way: personal appearances and granting interviews. But can he really make enough speeches with the caucuses less than 2 weeks away?
This is beginning to get interesting.
Update: Jed Babbin writes in Human Events:
A new energy seems to have infused the former Tennessee senator, and his vow to spend every day until January 3 in Iowa campaigning may just translate into a surprisingly strong finish for him in Iowa. . . .
Conservatives have been complaining about Thompson’s lack of progress since September. The punditry created an expectation that Thompson’s first two weeks would be overwhelmingly brilliant. And they weren’t. But, now, Thompson is proving it’s way too early to count him out.
The expectations game always favors the underdog. Working hard, Thompson could be the big surprise in Iowa. If he finishes even a strong second, the national polls will take another sharp turn.
I think that even finishing third will change the face of the race. Again, this is beginning to get interesting.
In a thoughtful analysis, the National Ledger asks, Can Fred Thompson Surge?
The article is far too full of good stuff to extract a sound bite. Read it all.
Then click on the gadget in the right-hand column and donate to Fred's campaign. He needs it for the media blitz currently going on in Iowa.
Looks like IMAO, Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine teamed up to produce a new commercial for Fred (at least they all appear in what could pass for credits at the end). Great stuff:
Check this list to see if you are a Fred Head. As IMAO says:
Kill the terrorists.
Protect the border.
Punch the hippies.
Vote Fred Thompson.
That makes a kick-ass tee-shirt.
Fred Thompson took time out from his campaigning to say that he is skeptical of the recent US intelligence report that says that Iran stopped its nuclear weaponization program way back in 2003. As I can remember the myriad of conflicting reports in the months leading up to the liberation of Iraq, I am skeptical as well.
Amir Oren, writing for Haaretz, sums it up when he writes:
The document's eight pages, which include embarrassing instructions on how to differentiate between different yet related terms ("it is possible," "it may be so," "one must not remove from the equation," and "it's reasonable to assume"), enable the Ayatollas' nuclear and operations officials and the heads of the Revolutionary Guards to reach this soothing conclusion - from their point of view: The Americans have no understanding of what is really happening in Iran's nuclear program. They have no solid information, they have no high-level agents and they have nothing more than a mix of guesswork and chatter. The dissemblance and concealment have succeeded, and the real dispute is not between Washington and Tehran, but within the U.S. administration itself.
The CIA was once one of the top three spy agencies in the world (Russia's KGB and GRU being the other two), but democrats mounted a five-year campaign against our intelligence capabilities and effectively destroyed it in 1978. It was a blow from which it has never recovered.
So color me skeptical. In 2005, the CIA was certain that there was a nuclear program in Iran. In 2007, the CIA thinks there isn't. In spite of the fact that Iranian terrorist President Ahmadinejad takes every opportunity to tell us that Iran wants one and deserves one.
Bottom line is that we don't know what the hell is going on in the Middle East any country. The CIA is politicized and handcuffed by regulations and congressional oversight.
So I have no choice but to believe Ahmadinejad. Here's hoping our next president will too.
According to ABC News and USA Today, Fred Thompson is the best candidate for me to support. At least their Match-o-Matic thinks so after it asked me all of eleven questions.
Of course, as you can see from the checkmarks and x's we only only agreed on six of eleven issues (55%!). But that's better than Rudy or Ronnie. But why would ABC/USA Today put Ron Paul as my third choice when I agreed with him exactly the same number of times I agreed with Rudy (45%)? It didn't ask me to rate the importance of the question, so perhaps a little media bias is at work here?
And where the heck is Duncan Hunter? He strikes me as a Fred Thompson that isn't famous and that actually has military experience.
Philip Martin is Fred Thompson's friend and advisor, as well as one of four campaign co-chairman. Moreover, Thompson has been jetting around the country to campaign events on a plane provided by Martin. But Martin, it seems, has a troubled past:
Thompson's frequent flights aboard Martin's twin-engine Cessna 560 Citation have saved him more than 100,000 dollars because until the law changed in September campaign-finance rules allowed presidential candidates to reimburse private jet owners for just a fraction of the true cost, the paper said.
In 1979, Martin entered a plea of guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana, according to The Post.
He was charged in 1983 with violating his probation and with multiple counts of felony bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy, the report said.
He pleaded no contest to the cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy charges, which stemmed from a plan to sell 30,000 dollars worth of the drug, and was continued on probation.
You are judged by the company you keep, and rightly so.
Personally, I am a great believer in allowing people the opportunity to reform, and a champion of giving the vote back to reformed felons after a period of time.
But come on, Fred. Things like this can kill a campaign.
A friend was torn between Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. Knowing that I support the latter, she asked for my thoughts on the former. I thought today would be a fine time to share them with you.
Ron Paul Positives:
Ron Paul Negatives:
Analysis:
Bush has been a disastrous president domestically. Other than tax cuts and conservatives on the Supreme Court, I don't see that he has done much of anything. Even discounting the war, government spending has skyrocketed and earmarks for pork projects continue without a murmur of complaint. Medicare entitlements will kill our economy in 20 years if something isn't done. Our educational system is still a disgrace. He hasn't been able to deliver on a host of promises, including on of my favorites -- reforming Social Security.
Ron Paul would almost be the anti-Bush domestically. While retaining smaller taxes he would fight to kill pork and reduce government. He would even suggest getting rid of certain departments. Ron Paul would be the perfect peace-time president.
However, he would also cut our involvement in foreign affairs. The only reason I voted for Bush the second time around was his determination to stay engaged in the Middle East. If we leave now we are shown to be the paper tiger that invited Bin Hidin' to attack us in the first place. Plus we will leave Iran in charge of the region. How do you think that will turn out? For better or worse, we are there for a long time.
Bottom Line:
It is a fact that we are waging a war with Islamofascists that wish to establish a global caliphate. Under their leadership gays would be stoned to death, teen girls would be murdered in honor killings for having the misfortune to be raped, women would be reduced to the status of slaves, Christians would be "converted" and civilization would be set back two thousand years.
To those who say otherwise, I would say that they are not paying attention, not reading the documents picked up from mosques and safe-houses in Iraq, not listening to the words of the leaders of Iran, not watching as the entire Arab world attempts to destroy tiny Israel.
I will sacrifice my economy for my freedom, and so I support the one who will fight the enemy without taking away the fundamentals of government. "... our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." Our children deserve no less.
Coda:
On this, the anniversary of the day great evil visited our shores, it is time to remember that we are still at war. That our young heroes are fighting for freedom under impossible conditions on foreign soil.
"We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."
There is only one choice this election cycle who will vigorously prosecute the War on Islamofascism, and who also embraces the same conservative ideals that I hold dear.
Last week, the Club for Growth released an analysis of Fred Thompson's economic record:
"Fred Thompson's eight-year record is generally pro-growth with an excellent record on entitlement reform and school choice and a very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "His belief in a limited federal government is demonstrated by his numerous votes against government intrusion in the private sector and increased federal spending. His fondness for Tennessee pork aside, Thompson consistently voted against increased spending and new government projects, at times, one of only a handful of senators to do so."
Pick up your Fred Thompson 2008 bumper sticker absolutely free in my office. I have five designs, and all are available as stickers or easy-to-remove magnetic version.
But first click on gadget at the top of the right-hand column to donate to Fred's campaign.
Lefty blogger Lane Hudson has filed a complaint with the FEC against Fred Dalton Thompson, accusing him of violating election laws.
The law allows potential candidates to raise money for "testing the waters" without reporting to the FEC. But they are not allowed to build up a war chest for the campaign. So far, Thompson has raised almost $3.5 million and spent only $625,000.
"We're following the law," Thompson spokesman Jim Mills said in response to the complaint.
Under federal guidelines, the FEC will now give Thompson 15 days to respond to the complaint. Following Thompson's response, election commissioners will decide whether to dismiss the case or investigate further.
The Hill says:
The law is particularly vague in this area as there are no set dollar amounts a would-be candidate is prevented from raising. Thompson’s $3.4 million June haul as outlined in a report to the IRS does not meet or exceed any specific legal guideline.
Calling Hudson a "blogger" is like calling Stephen King a storyteller. According to Time Magazine:
Now 29, Hudson is no political outsider. A lifelong Democrat from Charleston, S.C., he has worked for quite a few politicians, including John Kerry in his 2004 campaign.
Indeed, DNC errand boy Hudson is trying to take Thompson down. Why? Because Thompson's non-campaign is working (I can't keep enough bumper stickers on my desk to fill demand) and because the Dem presidential field is so lame that viewers picked Kucinich as winner of the ABC debate.
But this one is a stretch, even for the dirty-tricks boys at DNC headquarters.
So Mitt handily wins the Iowa GOP straw poll. Of course, fellow front-runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson didn't even bother to participate. And Mitt spent two million dollars on television ads alone, far outpacing anyone else.
On Politics does a cost-benefit analysis of the Iowa straw poll:
More than a thousand dollars a vote? Do we really want someone who throws money around like that to be in charge of our tax dollars?
On the other hand, what kind of guy do we want? Laura Ingraham ponders that question as she notes that Huckabee is a really nice guy, but:
Which brings me to the question: Do we really want a nice president? I kind of want a mean, tough S.O.B at this point — who can cut the legs out from underneath the Dems and the dinosaur media who are invested in America's defeat. Someone who seems pleasant on the surface but who knows how to send in the daisy-cutters when al Qaeda or Taliban thugs are sleeping.
Evidently Ms. Ingraham isn't the only one that feels that way. Byron York notes that fourth-place Tancredo received the biggest applause of all the candidates:
The unexpected thing was that Tancredo’s applause-getter wasn’t about immigration. Instead, Tancredo told the story of Danny Dietz, a Navy SEAL who was killed in Afghanistan in circumstances Tancredo blamed on restrictive rules of engagement. “When I am president, I will never, ever, ever send anyone into harm’s way with a CYA memo drafted by a Pentagon lawyer,” Tancredo told the crowd. “The only rule of engagement I’m going to have in a Tancredo administration is this: We win, you lose!”
Right on, Tancredo! I'd have applauded too.
While Huckabee's second place finish was a surprise, so was Ron Paul's fifth place. Blog Critics exclaims:
Wow. He's not polling under 1% anymore, now is he? Everyone is just going to have to come to terms with the fact that Ron Paul really does have a significant base of support, as evidenced by his impressive fund-raising and his strong online presence. He won't win the nomination, of course, but I do expect him to be the last candidate to concede, and to give one helluva interesting speech at the GOP Convention