October 7, 2007

Thompson Shakes Up Iowa

Fred Thompson's entry into the race just a month ago has already made a big impact in the key battleground state of Iowa. While Mitt Romney and his excellent organization has managed to maintain the lead among likely caucus-goers at 29%, Thompson has moved into second place with 18%, significantly ahead of Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee (via Memeorandum):

Mitt Romney still leads in Iowa but Fred Thompson, a relative newcomer to the presidential race, has emerged as his nearest competitor in a new Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican caucus participants.

Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are in a close fight for third place in the Iowa Poll taken over three days last week. ...

Thompson, a former Tennessee senator who officially entered the race for the Republican nomination a month ago, grabs second place in the new poll at 18 percent. The poll was conducted while he was finishing his second campaign trip to Iowa last week.

Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor who demonstrated surprising strength in the Iowa Republican Party’s straw poll in August, has moved up in the pack by claiming the support of 12 percent of likely caucus participants.

It seems that Fred's decision to remain out of the race beyond the Ames poll didn't do all that much damage. While other candidates have practically pitched tents in Iowa, Thompson has only made two campaign visits to Iowa. They seem to have been highly effective. A second-place finish in Iowa would give Thompson a tremendous boost in credibility.

It could also send others packing. Mike Huckabee, after his surprise showing in the Ames poll, probably needs a third-place finish in Iowa in order to maintain any credibility. Rudy Giuliani will eventually start campaigning in Iowa again -- he's been gone since the summer -- and when he does, his numbers will rise, probably from Huckabee and Romney. John McCain has all but disappeared into the soup, scoring only 7%, three points above Ron Paul in the state and two above Tom Tancredo.

Thompson's rapid rise shows two important qualities about the race. First, voters have not settled on a favored candidate and appear willing to change horses. Second, those who have been in the race a while don't seem to be benefitting from that open-mindedness. If candidates like Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and Brownback can't make the same kind of move that Thompson made in Iowa -- all candidates from around the center of the country -- then they need to reconsider their candidacies very soon. They need to acknowledge that they have gone nowhere and represent a waste of effort and focus.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thompson Shakes Up Iowa:

» Round-Up of This Week's Primary News from The Pink Flamingo
[Read More]

Comments (32)

Posted by Maston | October 7, 2007 8:41 AM

Fred Thompson is the candidate most likely to continue the muscular America-first foreign policy of the current Administration. That will appeal to the Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and eventually across the country.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 8:55 AM

Fred's ascent is due to his speaking the same language as most Iowans. Plain spoken, to the point. He doesn't talk down to anyone. He doesn't have to rely on nuance detectors and spin doctors to be able to speak to Iowans and others directly in words all can understand about the basics.

Maybe it is time we elected a President who merely sets the tone instead of trying to elect a President who promises to solve all of our problems? Seems we have had a couple decades of that sort of thing and it hasn't really accomplished much save for making too large a segment of the population come to view the president as Einstein, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Wizard of Oz all rolled into one, and end up blaming the President for all their own failures of choice and life decisions.

I like Thompson, have since Watergate days, for one simple reason. He is plain spoken and non-nuanced.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | October 7, 2007 10:21 AM

Fred would be our tallest president (even taller than honest Abe). I'm not a Fred-head yet, but I'm listening.

As for dropping out, I agree that Huckabee and McCain need to be added to the list. Fred, Mitt and Rudy offer a good cross section. Pair down the tree and we can get back to nurturing and growing the conservative base.

Posted by Gull | October 7, 2007 10:28 AM

hummmm ... interesting that most first-hand observers have noted how un-inspiring (rehashed folkisms don't translate well to actual policies)F's second Iowa swing has been.

Possibly Fred's perceived rise above other candidates says more about their lack of appeal than voters' attraction to him. Who knows.

Posted by Sean | October 7, 2007 11:23 AM

Or maybe they're just full of it, Gull. Occam's razor would seem to indicate that.

Posted by Chaos | October 7, 2007 11:29 AM

Perhaps the reason Fred's numbers remain at either a steady second place behind Giuliani or challenging him for the top spot is because what the people want is a President who is not a rock star, they're tired of the substance-less showmanship of the campaigns. What the media (and blog) elite want is maybe not what the American people want in a presidential candidate, considering all the criticism Fred's style has taken while his polls remain steady and good. I'm tired of hearing how the man doesn't have enough drive or isn't charismatic enough or is making some other gaffe according to the magic 8-ball that decides the rules of presidential campaigning. Give it up already, Thompson isn't going to fade away because some pundits and a NYT article said he's lazy and boring.

Posted by Carol Herman | October 7, 2007 11:32 AM

Nope. This is just the crock that's leading the elites into believing they're "saving the primaries" from the People.


Iowa doesn't matter anymore.

As a matter of fact, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will be "tainted" by the "win" that choose one of them. And, then goes ahead and angers the mainstream.

One reason there's so much bouncing going on, now, with primaries in general; has something to do with the disatisfaction brought about by the two Bush presidential wins.

Well, the Bush's never took the hint.

And, yes. At one time your road into the presidency was done, by knowing how to manipulate Governor Sununu in New Hampshire. ONE MAN.

Well? Henry Clay was once such "a man." He tossed out, in 1824, Andrew Jackson's win. And, by manipulating the rules in Congress, got the House to open "another box from Floriduh;" thereby, marking John Quincy Adama a ONE TERM PRESIDENT.

But? Well, Henry Clay had NO IDEA Andrew Jackson would even be back! Let aone, a winner (for the beginnings of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY). While the Whigs spun around for about twenty years. Doing tone-deaf, but touchstone misteps, wherever they could. Till the party was kaput.

Long before Abramham Lincoln had to deal with the civil war, he had to deal with the WHIG insiders; and their knives. Into your back. He dealt with it just fine.

The system that replaced presidential selections, then turned to the smoke filled rooms. Where cigar chomping thugs, INSIDERS, were making all of the decisions. Quite a few of them STUPID.

For instance: The empty-suited Warren Harding was chosen because he was tall and handsome. Empty-headed, but he had a baritone voice. And, what did selecting him do? The bloom came off the rose within his first term. Boom-bye.

The smoke-filled room also produced one of the dumbest decisions ever; and a very critical point. Tom Dewey, who had already lost to FDR, when FDR was so sick he only had weeks to live after his inauguration, was "tapped." To lose, again. As the GOP reacted in surprise. Followed by fear. Because FDR held the presidency for 4 terms. And, truman's win, in 1948, added 4-more3 years.

Same mistake does not happen in 1952. But nobody bothered, then, to ask Eisenhower about his tendency to behave like a democrat. They didn't ask. And, he added a few cabinet chairs to his executive table. Too bad about that!

But Ike did set the stage for the simple "button." The quick phrase, and the telegenic personalities. The boob tube ruled for awhile.

But look back. And, you'll view turmoil. LBD. Nixon, Jimmy Carter. Even Ronald Reagan doesn't bring the peace the public craved. But Reagan began teaching the media elites a thing or two about power. He held his own.

Then? Alas we get two Bush presidencies; beause the INNEPT GOP has primaries that give the show to the extremists in their midst. Believe it or not, BEFORE the Bonkeys really messed up. The GOP was hell-bent to move "to the right."

Accomplished NOTHING.

Put a few really talent-less men up on the Supremes.

And, brought them into Congress. Some are gone, now. Larry Craig, however, is hanging onto the draperies. As if there's anything worth salvaging in how politicians learned to milk the extremes.


Wow. Are there fights! Candidates that can't find the Pope ... for the "usual" blessing. It's something where the MAINSTREAM is roused. And, at both extremes party politics looks like MINORITY PARTIES on both sides of the crack.

So, there ya go. The media? They'll tout Iowa as if it matters. While Idaho, actually, is the place people are really scratching their heads over. You mean the honest to goodness potato-growers came up with Wide-Stance? Is this the seamier side of right wing extremism?

Anyhoo. Whatever Iowa does is gonna have ramifications.

Osama's already said he's OUT if Hillary wins. But he's "in" if he comes out on top.

Hillary is fighting to come out on top.

And, only an insane candidate, unaware of who people will react when the GOP tries to foist an unpopular winnah to the top ...

What can happen when people rebel.

Sure. We're no longer choosing candidates in smoke-filled rooms.

But in the old days? Those conventions, pre-TV, were NOT scripted events! All the states got together, and the delegates began "dealing." For their own political lives. They needed a candidate that had national appeal.

Now, national appeal is not something our media elites do well.

While, among the "bigger changes?" Right here! People, hundreds of thousands, if not actually millions ... are no longer reading-deficient! To participate? You're using your eyeballs. You're overcoming the laxness in our schools. And, you've chucked the boob tube; even if you sometimes go there for "entertainment."

I've got proof. The boob tube no longer has even one character on par with Walter Cronkite's fame.

While the Internet? Go look at Drudge. And, see how strong he is following Walter Winchell's formula. When a man has clout. When his words touch others ... you could draw your lessons from that!

Where the GOP ran into trouble? By selecting the Bush's they wrung dry this mishap, where words don't come naturally to the lips of SECOND RATERS.

That's okay. President Polk was a 2nd rater, too. And, we never gave back Texas. New Mexico. Nevada. Or California. Did I leave anything out?

Posted by Christoph | October 7, 2007 12:20 PM

You're too polite, Ed. Paul and Tancredo were never serious candidates, even for a VP slot, and they know it. Therefore, the lack of results they're pulling now was expected and isn't part of their calculus.

They'll withdraw when they've made their point and/or exhausted their money. To even entertain the idea that they will ever serious candidates makes you look unserious and reduces your credibility when you analyze the real candidate's prospects.

Posted by Gull | October 7, 2007 12:49 PM

Sean: "Or maybe they're just full of it, Gull. Occam's razor would seem to indicate that."

:::nodding head:::

Methinks there are two primary forces at play in hyping FDT as a viable candidate: 1) MSM needs the boost the Fred Follies is giving them, and 2) Bill 'n Hill have personal and political vindettas to settle .... and what better good ole' boy/GOP stereotype than FDT?

Posted by ALLTHEWAY | October 7, 2007 1:48 PM

Chaos,I absoloutley agree with your post above..the media, IMHO is very afraid of of Mr. amara atahompson

Posted by ALLTHEWAY | October 7, 2007 1:58 PM

amara atahompson???? I meant to say Mr. Thompson..(fat fingers hitting too many keys at once.

Posted by Chaos | October 7, 2007 3:00 PM


Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 3:06 PM

ALLTHE WAY...you need to be more careful. Disclosing Fred Thompson's jihadi nom de guerre "amara atahompson" will get you in trouble with the Left.

After all, there are those on the Left who believe that Thompson is a covertly Dem/Soros financed stalking horse to divide the Republicans and allow for a Democrat/Left victory in '08.

Posted by mrlynn | October 7, 2007 3:08 PM

More immediately, does anyone have any idea why the Republican candidates are walking into another debate with the insufferable Chris Matthews Tuesday night?

Bad enough that he was rude and insulting the first time. Now he has insulted Vice-President Cheney.

Can we convince the candidates to take a pass on this 'debate', one and all?

Maybe if the blog leaders speak up. . .

/Mr Lynn

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 3:13 PM

Maybe if the candidates take the moral high ground tonite all of us will win. By being there, effectively answering the questions Matthews tosses out, and preventing Matthews from engaging in his rapid fire non-sequitors, the candidates will show they are firmly in control and that they have the moral authority to challenge Matthews on his own turf.

Bailing out would only feed the frenzied Left far more than necessary or desired.

Posted by Kyle | October 7, 2007 3:31 PM

the Poll sample was 405 people. so at least 16 people chose Ron Paul. 4% is likely what Paul's name recognition amounts to in Iowa. I see that in the May poll he got '-'. seems like things are going the right direction for the RP campaign.

it's so obvious that with the mainstream vote split 5 ways, RP is going to steal several of these early states. especially if Tancredo drops out at the right time and endorses Paul. even without an official endorsement, many, many Tancredo supports would shift to the Paul camp. I met a lot of them at the Ames straw poll who told me they really like RP.

"If candidates like Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and Brownback can't make the same kind of move that Thompson made in Iowa -- all candidates from around the center of the country -- then they need to reconsider their candidacies very soon. They need to acknowledge that they have gone nowhere and represent a waste of effort and focus."

Mr Thompson never 'made a move' in Iowa. he wasn't an option on the first poll. if anything it is Mr Thompson who has gone 'nowhere', as he very likely would have polled 15 or 20 in May too if he had been on it.

is it coincidence that between polls Mitt, Rudy and John collectively lost 18%? hmm. huh. it is the four horsemen of the GOP apocalypse that are going nowhere. and now add Huckabee.

Ron Paul versus the Rest is the story of this campaign. the sooner you realise the less foolish you will end up making yourself look.

Posted by Jones | October 7, 2007 4:16 PM


Posted by harris | October 7, 2007 6:14 PM

My first instinct was that the GOP field should refuse the debate with Matthews, but now I think it's a chance for one of the candidates to really slap him down. The one that does will win many a vote. It also shows the Republicans aren't afraid of anyone, compared to the cowardly Dems. I think that's another point that some candidate should drop during the debate.

Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 6:52 PM

I plucked a voter out of Fred's pocket very easily, last night. He was the only one who ws even remotely considering Fred, and he liked him a lot, because all he knew about him was his TV face. He was the only one at the table who didn't know abut Fred voting NOT GUILTY for Bill Clinton on PERJURY charges in the impeachment hearing, That one fact did it, without even completing the FIRST sentence, but I gave him enough info so he'd know that that one actions wasn't a mere slip of a hairbrained momentary lapse in judgement.
"Oh, #$%#! I had a feeling that was too good to be true! I really did like him!"

Hunter and Tancredo are the only two worth looking at - the rest are TARES, Huckabee included.

Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 7:03 PM

How is it that so many keep saying that we need to take the top three MOST LEFTIST RINOS in our FIELD of RINOS, and focus on getting back to COINSERVATIVE VALUES????????????????????????

That is like HOFSTRA U. hiring that disbarred lawyer who was a go-between for terrorist clients and their contacts, for their ETHICS classes.

Leaves MY head swirling.

If a RINO wins the NOMINATION, I'm voting for a write-in.

He might not "move this nation as far Left as Hillary", but he'll move it TOO FAR Left, anyway.

ANY AT ALL is more than we can take any more of!

Posted by Anna | October 7, 2007 7:17 PM

Rose and do you know why he voted no on the perjury charge?

It was not a charge that you voted guilty as in did he commit perjury but is perjury an impeachable offense. Mr. Thompson has explained that perjury is not mentioned in the constitution as being an impeachable offense and that he felt the law and the House Lawyers did not show it to be an impeachable offense. He did think that Obstruction of Justice was and was shown as being an impeachable offense. So he voted guilty on that charge.

I would rather have a man as President who will obey the Law and the Spirit of the Law even when it hurts than jump into the frey and make a judgement call on emotion or a poll. That is outside of the Law which he took an oath to obey.

Posted by mrlynn | October 7, 2007 8:35 PM

Harris, you make a couple of good points,

". . . I think it's a chance for one of the candidates to really slap [Matthews] down. The one that does will win many a vote. It also shows the Republicans aren't afraid of anyone, compared to the cowardly Dems."

But the 'moderator' in these phony 'debates' controls the content, which means Matthews can keep up the "When did you stop beating your wife" drumbeat, to the endless frustration of both participants and listeners.

Besides which, Matthews's remark about Cheney was really unconscionable, and because of that, the Republicans should boycott him.


Duncan Hunter is the perfect conservative candidate, but he is going nowhere. If you don't want to see a socialist like Mrs. Clinton in the White House, you're going to have to swallow hard, and vote for a less-than-perfect conservative, maybe even a Guiliani. Just think about which party you want appointing Supreme Court and other judges and which party you want running the War on Global Islamic Terrorism.

You probably didn't like George Bush Senior, but he'd have been a whole lot better than Slick Willie. And it was Republicans voting for Ross Perot who elected ol' Slick. It's what my mother likes to call "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Steve Bowling | October 7, 2007 10:22 PM

Before recommending that former Governor Huckabee should drop out, note that Huckabee polled 5th among Republicans at 7% in one recent national poll. (Sorry, I saw this on the 9:00 p.m. evening news on a Foxe stations - not Foxe News - and I don't have the source.) This same report mentioned that Huckabee is currently third in New Hampshire.

Also, in the middle of a story about Iowa in the DesMoines Register at http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/NEWS09/71005048/1001,
it is mentioned that "Huckabee comes out on top with 19 percent" in Iowa among "the one-fourth of likely caucus participants who say their minds are made up."

Posted by pissinginthetent.com | October 7, 2007 10:44 PM

Watch out for Ron Paul...he is going to shock everyone .

Posted by jaeger51 | October 7, 2007 11:11 PM

Why is Duncan Hunter going nowhere? He's perfectly qualified, has no bad background, and holds conservative values with no question. He'd make the best president, if you are a conservative. Why? Because the MSM pegged him early on as "not a front runner". So everyone treats him that way. He gets no air time, no discussion. The general public doesn't even know who he is. Why is Hillary a front runner? Because the MSM decided a long time ago that she should be president. She has no qualifications and no real experience except for the Senate post which she had no reason to be elected to. Don't kid yourselves. The MSM controls the swing vote with their bias and propaganda. Hillary goes on all the daytime talk shows where they gush over her. The swing vote decides the election. So here's your dilemma. Support Giulani, because the MSM kind of likes him because he's not really a conservative, even though he's not really a conservative, or get 4 or more years of the disaster that will be Hillary. Stinks, doesn't it? DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO BRING DOWN THE MSM/ENTERTAINMNENT INDUSTRY. Don't watch, don't buy, don't support.

Posted by JM Hanes | October 8, 2007 12:11 AM

"Thompson's rapid rise shows two important qualities about the race."

It could also mean that the less they've seen of him, the more they like him. So far, all you can really say is that people like the idea of Fred Thomson. Until voters actually get a chance to compare him onstage with all the other candidates, his numbers mostly make me think of those polls pitting a generic Republican against generic Democrat.

Posted by Dale Michaud aka TexasDude | October 8, 2007 1:02 AM


Carol never really liked Bush, either one, much, if at all, so ...

Well, you get the idea, her replies on Bush may be judged with that bias in mind.

Posted by Rose | October 8, 2007 1:46 AM

Posted by Anna | October 7, 2007 7:17 PM


Yes, I hears three different exp;lanations he gave to Sean Hannity over about 8 or 9 months, one was on June 5th, 2007, the EDITIED TRANSCRIPT is available from Fox News, but I heard the ORIGINAL when he called the perjury a TRIVIAL MATTER, and that our Founding Fahters wouldn't consider it as rising tothe level of impeachment.

However, Ann Coulter followed him as the next guest on that show and she said what I was thinkings, since I dig a big into our Founding Fathers.

I disagree heartily that perjury in an internationally aired deposition into PERSONAL INJURY by a high-ranking official IN AN ELECTED OFFICE, a SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE, is accused of abusing a lot of PRIVATE CITIZENS, without benefit of the legal cover of being a REIGNING MONARCH who has the RIGHT to abuse his SUBJECTS as a slave owner has a right to abuse his SLAVES as he sees fit, BEING AS HE IS THEIR OWNER!

So did Ann - VEHEMENTLY.

Ann had done a book on our Founding Fathers, unlike Fred, and I have a large collection of their quotations, and links to various of the sites with their documents and journals and personal letters.

I guess because they didn't have motorized vehicles or TV or radio - most of them were most prolific in their writings.



I've seen the on air testimony of about 4 or 5 of those women, including the beauty queen with only a quick groping in the back of a limo, who then had to hide out in Europe for several years in fear for her life.

With many many leaders of other nations telling our media they were especially interested in being able to tune in to the INTERNATIONALLY TELEVISED DEPOSITION, because America [was the world's policeman] and they wanted to see how we handled JUSTICE for high ranking officials AT HOME, and see if it was like we did ABROAD...


It is HUGE POTATOES compared to the STAMP ACT and tea tax, as well!

Sop you are definitely not impressing Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Nathan Hale, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, Joseph Story, John Jay... oh, definitely NOT!

I guarantee!

These are men who thought NO ONE BELONGED IN OFFICE IF THEY WERE NOT A CHRISTIAN IN GOOD STANDING, whether belonging to an official church or not, they did not care - BUT THE CHARACTER, they cared much about - and would CERTAINLY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A SERIAL ADULTERER TO BE FIT FOR OFFICE.

Our Founding Fathers considered their WORD as their BOND, much less a contract or a VOW ON THE BIBLE. They considered that someone who lied under oath taken upon the Bible to be one who COUNTED HIS SOUL LOST TO HELL for that effort. And there are documents from them about that, as some of them went so far as to say that IT WAS THAT FEAR that made a witness a credible source of information in a court proceedings, and if he were not a Christian, and thus objected to the oath ON THE BIBLE, they considered him NOT A FIT CREDIBLE WITNESS because he had NOT the incentive of FEAR OF HIS SOUL to adjure him from lying to the court!

John Hancock: | Portrait of John Hancock
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"
One of dozens of quotes by various Founders with similar sentiments.
Patrick Henry: | Portrait of Patrick Henry
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]

Oh, I could post so very very many of these - they all SCREAM - FRED SLANDERED THEIR GOOD NAME!

It is NOT as if he lied to an enemy nation during a time of war, for the sake of American lives - NO! He LIED because he felt he had the MONARCHIAL RIGHT TO ABUSE CITIZENS!

(Wallbuilders is a good source of those documents, and so is a particular Virginia state university site, as well)

As a former prosecutor, Fred knew better. As a VOTER FOR THE ONE WHO APPOINTS NEW JUDGES, Fred flushed his royal fanny down the drain with that vote and with his vote for McCain Feingold.


Posted by Rose | October 8, 2007 1:51 AM

Posted by JM Hanes | October 8, 2007 12:11 AM

You remind me of a Texan. :)

Now, don't get insulted and insult Texans, 'cuz I are one, my ownself.

Posted by Rose | October 8, 2007 1:56 AM

Posted by jaeger51 | October 7, 2007 11:11 PM


They are running the Arnold Schwartzeneggar/Tom McClintock scam on us, because they want the most Liberal candidate for BOTH parties they can get.

Did you know that Chuck Yeager has endorsed Duncan Hunter?

At this point, he is my favorite, but I don't know a lot about him. But I love the people who are supporting him, like Chuck Yeager!
And he has great military credentials, as well!

Border security...

Posted by Rose | October 8, 2007 2:28 AM

You probably didn't like George Bush Senior, but he'd have been a whole lot better than Slick Willie. And it was Republicans voting for Ross Perot who elected ol' Slick. It's what my mother likes to call "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

/Mr Lynn


I voted for Bush Sr, and was happy to vote for him in the second run he made, KNOWING WHAT ROBERT DOLE HAD DONE TO HIM. Still feeling like that even though he made a lot of mistakes, he ws being as honest as he could be, and was working from a disadvantage of having a DIPLOMAT's HEART TO TRY TO RECONCILE, same as Bush Jr. TRYING TOO HARD TO UNIFY ALL CONCERNED.
Sincere - foolish - naive.

I never voted for that insane Planned Parenthood squirrelly little egg-sucking weasel, Ross Perot.

But I didn't vote for the back-stabbing self-serving Robert Dole, either.

I also refused to vote for Gerald Ford, gift of a Dim Congress, mind you, because he pardoned Nixon WITHOUT A TRIAL. I may not have minded if he pardoned him AFTER A TRIAL - but NOT BEFORE - on the PRETEXT of "HEALING THE NATION"??????????

"THERE IS NO HEALING WITHOUT JUSTICE" and the result of no Justice is a root of BITTERNESS.

And I was a Republican, I voted for Nixon!

I also voted for Bush Jr both times as Texas Governor, and both times as President, and still believe that although he isn't perfect and has made some mistakes, he is still God's man for that office - because I know he prays for America first thing every morning, and prolly last thing at night.
And really doesn't understand the Bible very well at all.

But I won't vote LEFT of the Bush's. And I've never regretted not voting for Ford or for Dole. They would have been as bad as Carter and Clinton - they didn't have the CHARACTER for the job.

ANY "LEFT"-WARD MOVE is too far, now.

The tiny bit for Giuliani, Mitt, Fred, McCain, Newt, Huckabee - yes, HUCKABEE LEFT, Sam Brownback -

ANY Left by them is more than this listing ship will take. I live less than two hours from the Mexico Border in a main artery of ILLEGAL ALIEN TRAFFICKING, and I know more about how Left we can afford than any of the "CONSERVATIVES" who THINK that these RINOS will do!

You cannot imagine how wrong you are.

Why should I be concerned about someone like Clinton rolling us over like the Posiedon, when finishing the list to the side which lets the tons of water finish the job of swamping her - I saw a documentary of a famous ship that listed that way in the Atlantic, and was only INCHES from swamping, and when they came to rescue the crew, one man stayed on her and talked them into towing her, while he did what he could - and they made it. Even in stormy seas!

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, if you are bound and determined to sink this ship! With all hands on board!

If the GOP wants to go LEFT, I'll give them LEFT! But if LEFT IS GOOD, then let's go WHOLE #$%#%#%$ PHLYPPYGN HOG!!!

But we cannot handle a RINO, and we won't get one WITH MY NAME ON A BALLOT FOR HIM. I won't face God with THAT on my conscience.

Now, if GOD wants that RINO, then I pray if He cannot hit me with a sledgehammer and make me see it, then He should send FIVE MORE who never intended to vote at all to counter act my vote.

But I WANT THE TARES PULLED UP BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION. IO won't vote for one and pretend it was "the best I could do" to succomb to the same emotional blackmail that got Dah Ahnold Man in California's drivers' seat.



One of the Founders attended a last meeting with reps of the King, and when he perceived at last that no compromise could be reached, he sent a pre-arranged signal by announcing something to the effect, "This meeting can do nothing more to save the [union]." and a signal was thus sent to the Sons of Liberty,

I'm not sending any such signal - but I'm saying, the election of a RINO, IN SUCH A DAY AS THIS, isn't going to save the Union.
And I'll have no part in the PRETENSE of it.
And then pretend a year later that I'm
"Shocked, SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I tell you".

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 8, 2007 8:25 PM

"Until voters actually get a chance to compare him onstage with all the other candidates...."

Posted above by JM Hanes.

- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --

This is probably what is one of the things most wrong about the process in the current context, and has been trending more and more upward since 1960.

Are we electing a President or are we voting for Kimberly, who is a finalist in the Miss New Jersey Beauty contest?

If any voter makes their decision on a 30-second sound bite or even a collection of 30-second sound bites, because one candidate sounds good onstage during what is NOT an actual debate but a conglomeration of campaign sloganeering, then they deserve the government we have and the government we will probably continue to get...overgrown, overbearing, out of control.

I'd like to see all the candidates engage two at a time, over a period of time, in real debate...one subject at a time...on the record...in a real debate format. Would even suggest Ron Paul debate Dennis Kucinich to finally put that Gnome from Cleveland to rest once and for all.

But I digress.

The point is -- What Debates???

We have a series of skin shows, without, thank God, the candidates required to wear bikinis, and this has been the trend for too long.


Most voters are just too dumb, too busy, to distracted, or just don't care about the issues, so they accept the sound bites and sloganeering that pose as addressing the issues...and the campaign consultants know this.

Why is Fred Thompson moving up in Iowa? Probably speaks the same language and speaks to Iowans on issues they can understand. He is also not Rudy.

He is also moving up in other states as well, not bad for just getting into the campaign. But, I would like to see him sit down with a Rudy or Mitt, Mike Huckabee, and all of the other candidates, one on one, one issue at a time, and actually debate the issues.

I like Thompson. Have sent him a few sheckels already, will probably send a few more. Of all the candidates thus far on the GOP side he and Mike HUckabee are standing pretty close to my beliefs.

But, I'd like to hear more from all of them, and not in the beauty contest format, but in real debate.

Post a comment