Sunday, December 23, 2007

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Fred in the News...

Fred may be a relative latecomer, but don't count him out--not even in Iowa.

Robert Novak concurs

  1. The "X factor" in this race is former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.). Most Iowa Republicans did not even mention his name in discussing candidates they supported or opposed. He simply does not register in the minds of potential GOP caucus-goers, but when asked about him, voters have little negative to say.

  2. Thompson has far more upside potential than any other Republican, and he is spending the entire final stretch in the Hawkeye State. Thompson has perhaps the most broadly conservative record of any candidate besides the three congressmen (see below). Many conservative Iowans currently settling for Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee (or planning a protest vote of sorts for one of the congressmen) could certainly jump on board with Thompson. If he defies his reputation as a lazy worker, he could make a spectacular surge here
Fred likes his own chances in Iowa, as evident by this upbeat interview on Hannity & Colmes.

Fred Thompson's pro-life credentials are growing, having picked up the endorsement of the North Carolina Right-to-Life PAC.

Fred's been a long time in coming to the fore, but as people begin to realize that he is the only consistently conservative choice on the GOP ticket, look for the Fred Thompson juggernaut to gain full steam!

Full Speed Ahead, Fred!

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Undeniably Conservative

That's the verdict rendered in this article. It's just another example of the case conservatives should be making on Fred's behalf. Here's one of the key sections of the article:

In short, Thompson holds the same conservative positions of all the other candidates combined, and has none of their flaws. In fact, any close observer of the campaign season would tell you that Thompson has been on the receiving end of barely any substantive attacks on policy issues. This is no coincidence. And it is the reason he has had to bear the brunt of shallow attacks about his demeanor, campaigning style, and laziness (whatever that means).

Thompson is a demonstrably viable candidate with solid conservative positions across the board, and unlike Mitt Romney, whose continued defense of his sometimes liberal record puts a dent in his newfound conservatism, Thompson has not budged on the issues since running for office in 1994.

Fred's conseratism doesn't change in the sense that the same underlying principles still guide his policy positions now as they did decades ago. The issues might change but the principles of unwavering federalism and fiscal freedom still guide his domestic policies.

Fred's also the only candidate that's published detailed plans for entitlement reform, immigration reform, dealing with Iraq and Iran. That's before we get to the issue of judicial nominees, where he's got the best credentials of anyone. (One of his advisors is David McIntosh, the founder of the Federalist Society.

Unlike Giuliani, Thompson is an undisputed social conservative, with the National Right to Life endorsement to prove it. And unlike Huckabee and McCain, he is an economic conservative who was given high marks by organizations such as the Club for Growth, and whose flat tax and Social Security plans were praised by editorial boards across the country. Thompson’s courageous and spot-on designation of the National Education Association as the primary obstacle to education in this country also shows a remarkable divergence with Huckabee, who was recently endorsed by the NEA’s New Hampshire affiliate.

Fred's plain-spoken policies are refreshing, even inspiring. He doesn't back away from fights. He doesn't pull his punches. He calls it as he sees it. It isn't just that he's talked the talk; he's the only candidate who's consistently walked the walk.

Finally, there's this:

Thompson’s plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabee’s weaknesses on illegal immigration. And unlike the other candidates, most notably Huckabee, Thompson reassuringly has extensive foreign policy experience, and identifies national security as his top priority in light of the greater war against expansionist Islamic radicalism.

Fred Thompson is the most qualified candidate in the race. You'll notice that the people that criticize him for his campaigning style don't criticize his substance. That's because it's impossible to argue with his positions.

In fact, they're the type of positions that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would take. You can't do better than that.

UPDATE: I just noticed a comment on this post at my 'other' blog. I thought it so perfect that I had to share it with you. Here's that comment:

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative
and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as am Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border
security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com. I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.

Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.

During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.

Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

Comment by Frederick Paxson
• 18Dec2007
Mr. Paxson is with Fred's campaign so it's appropriately biased, though I can say that its bias is based on history & verifiable facts.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Fred: The Right Stuff on Energy...

From See-BS:

(AP) Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Wednesday that tapping oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would help lower gas prices.

“We've got this silly battle going on about ANWR,” said Thompson, who voted in favor of drilling the refuge as a former Tennessee senator.

“We've got the reserves up there that can be tapped,” he told a crowd of about 50 people packed into a small cafĂ© in this early voting state. “They're not going to solve our problem, but it's one step we can take.”

Thompson's remarks came a day after environmental and Native Alaskan groups asked a federal appeals court to block Royal Dutch Shell PLC's plans for exploratory oil drilling near the refuge. The U.S. Mineral Management Service decided this year to allow the energy giant to drill up to 12 exploratory oil wells in the Beaufort Sea off the northern coast of Alaska.

Thompson argued the United States can become less reliant on oil-based energy and pursue nuclear and clean coal development. The country must reduce its dependence on fuel from unstable partners in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela, he said.

“So much of it is coming from problem areas in the world, and it's making us a hostage, in many respects,” Thompson said in response to a question from the crowd. “What we've got to do is not be so dependent on the wrong places in the world.”

Thompson also said maintaining a strong military could help global stability, which would keep oil prices consistent.

“That does more to keep oil prices under control, probably, than anything else,” he said.
C'mon folks--tell me he's not the right guy for the job!
On every important issue, Fred has commonsense, detailed plans grounded in conservative principles.

He is beyond a doubt the real article!

Fred Picks Up a Major Endorsement in S.C.!

Via NYT:


COLUMBIA, S.C. — In a state where he appears locked in a three-way race, Fred D. Thompson’s campaign heralded his endorsement from a grass-roots anti-abortion group in South Carolina today.

“South Carolina Citizens for Life is confident in Senator Fred Thompson’s resolve to protect and defend the most defenseless among us: our unborn children,” said Holly Gatling, the group’s executive director. She said that the group would help his campaign in the state and run radio ads before the primary.

Mr. Thompson has previously received the endorsements of the National Right to Life Committee, with which the South Carolina group is affiliated, and the group’s West Virginia chapter. According to National Right to Life Committee policy, state affiliates may either follow suit in backing the national endorsee or stay neutral. His “100 percent pro-life” voting record is a cornerstone of his bid, as he runs against those who are seen as more moderate on social issues or newer to the cause of opposing abortion rights.
Fred remains the only top-tier candidate with a 100% pro-life record. Winning South Carolina will be a big step toward Fred achieving the top-of-the ticket status in 2008!

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

What to do about Iran.

One of the critical issues likely to emerge in the ’08 Presidential race would be the candidates’ plans on dealing with Iran. It’s become even more of an intriguing issue in light of recent intelligence findings.


A new assessment by American intelligence agencies made public Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

The report seems likely to weaken international support for tougher sanctions against Iran and raise new questions about the credibility of the beleaguered American intelligence agencies, while reshaping the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran's nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.


Appearing on The Laura Ingraham Show this morning, Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, contends that Iran is indeed still enriching uranium. That would seem to indicate that Iran could restart its nuclear program at any time.

Ledeen has also been very outspoken in dealing with the Iran and their killing of American citizens. However, no sitting US President in the last thirty years has considered anything outside of failed diplomatic efforts.


From the hostage seizure in Tehran in 1979 to the bombing of the American Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in the early 1980s, to the attack against Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia a decade later, and the terror war waged against us and our friends and allies in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first years of this century, Iran has attacked America, killed Americans, and taken American hostages.

No American president has responded in kind to this ongoing war. Indeed, every president since Jimmy Carter has convinced himself that it is possible to negotiate our “differences” with Iran. Accordingly -– despite the conventional wisdom to the contrary — we have been negotiating with the mullahs ever since the 1979 revolution that brought to power the Islamic Fascist regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In the intervening 28 years, we have participated in countless face-to-face encounters, myriad “demarches” sent through diplomatic channels, and meetings –- some on the fringes of international conferences — involving “unofficial” representatives of one government or the other. The lack of any tangible result is obvious, yet the advocates of negotiation act as if none of this ever happened.


As a result, Ledeen has been a strong advocate of regime change in Iran.


This campaign would range from radio broadcasts (especially conversations with participants in successful non-violent revolutions in other countries), to working with trade unions to build a strike fund for Iranian workers, to providing communications tools (cell phones, satellite phones, phone cards, servers, laptops and anti-blocking software) to the dissidents.

It may not succeed, to be sure, but there is every reason to be optimistic. It has worked in the past, it obviously frightens the mullahs (who inveigh against “soft revolution” at every opportunity), and it would be the morally and politically right thing to do, even if Iran were not at war with us, and even if there were no nuclear program. Under the circumstances, it is not only good policy, but an urgently needed one.


Out of the current crop of Presidential candidates, only one I know of has gone on the record in echoing those sentiments – Fred Thompson. Back in April, Thompson indicated he was in favor of helping the Iranian people overthrow their current government.


(Thompson) accused Tehran of "playing a larger part in killing our soldiers" in neighboring Iraq.

Many Iranians don't like their government, "and I think we ought to capitalize on that," Thompson told The Associated Press.
"There is a chance they may mobilize themselves, and we need to assist them if that happens."


Even though US Intelligence agencies and the UN have concurred that Iran has, for now, suspended its nuclear program, the current regime still remains a threat. Thus far Thompson is the only Presidential candidate who has taken a hard line approach in dealing with the Iran issue.


UPDATE 12/5/07: Thompson also skeptical of new intelligence report on Iran.