Can You See Through the Deception?

December 27, 2007 Election 2008, Fred Thompson for President, News, Opinion, Presidential Candidates, The Return of the Clinton Infestation? View Comments

This election cycle seems to be based on Clintonian style campaigning. Deception seems to be the rule of the day.

Mike Huckabee claimed to have a degree in Theology. Wrong! He has a BA in Radio and Television Communications and 1 year of Seminary before dropping out to work with a Televangelist. He did later attend another Seminary where he received a BA in Biblical Studies… That’s NOT a Theology degree.

He embraces The Fair Tax… Now… But as Governor of Arkansas he raised taxes on Arkansans 47% and implemented nanny state style restrictions through the use of the tax system. That seems to be liberal tactics. He also increased spending more than Billy Bob did as Governor. But yet he wants you to perceive that he’s a conservative. Sorry… Thanks for playing.

Mitt Romney also claims Conservative credentials in spite of his waffling on abortion. He claims to have been strong on illegal immigration while Governor of Massachusetts in spite of the fact that Boston and Cambridge remain sanctuary cities and illegals were caring for his own lawn.

Rudy Giuliani wants you to believe that his social liberalism is offset by his strong national security credentials. What national security credentials? He was the mayor of a city. He’d like you to believe that being mayor of New York is equivilant to being the governor of a state. Not so. As mayor of New York he did not have to coordinate with mayors of different cities on state policy. He did not command an army (after all, the National Guard forces are a state’s army until federalized by the President of the United States) or state police force. His efforts to gain control of New York’s out of control crime problem and response to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center aside, that does not reach the level of national security that he might want you to believe.

More important than his crime fighting skills which we would expect him to have as a former US Attorney in the US Justice Department, his social liberalism is a problem. His ideas about gun control conflict with the Party line. His ideas on homosexual marriage conflict with the Party line. And finally his ideas on abortion conflict with Party line. No Republican should be considering voting for this Democrat in Republican clothing.

Ron Paul claims to be a Constitutionalist in spite of the fact that it is obvious that he’s never read the document. He claims that the President has prosecuted an illegal war in Iraq in spite of the fact that Congress authorized the President to use what ever means to bring Iraq into compliance with UN Resolutions. Not to mention that Article II of the US Constitution makes the President of the United States Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. As Commander-in-Chief, he has the ability to deploy his troops as he sees fit. Congress has the power granted under Article I to declare actual war and to either fund or not fund the President’s military operations.

Rep. Paul might be spot on when it comes to pork spending versus the Constitution but he is in left field when it comes to national security.

All three of the Democratic Front Runners are easy to pick apart on their deceptions.

John Edwards runs around the country decrying the need to re-institute “Great Society” style programs that didn’t work the first time they were tried. A trial lawyer who during his career accomplished more to raise the cost of health care in this country than any government policy who now is advocating government controlled and funded national health care. A wealthy individual who owns a nearly 300,000 square foot mansion across the road from a mobile home park which he has never visited but in the same breath as advocating universal health care decries the plight of the poor. If he were so concerned with the poor why then has he not attempted to ease the burden of his poor neighbors? I guess he was too busy getting $400 haircuts and adding on to his enormous house.

Barack Obama claims to have the backing of a few hundred ministers who are now saying that isn’t so. What else is Mr. Obama lying about? Not to mention like John Edwards, Mr. Obama is advocating a return to failed Great Society programs. Why would we want that?

Hillary claims to be the most experienced candidate in either Party. Problem, the New York Times exposed that deception yesterday. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend any national security briefings. She was not privy to the National Intelligence Estimate. And at one point was barely even speaking the man she now claims that she was an adviser to during his Infestation of the People’s Mansion.

So can you see through the deception?

Only one candidate has not resorted to using deception in order to gain your support. Fred Dalton Thompson.

The man who has been successful at every thing that he’s ever done needs your support. Visit Fred08 and support Fred in his efforts to bring honesty and Conservatism back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Support for any other candidate returns this nation to the Clintonian Infestation Part II.

Bookmark and Share

Merry Christmas

December 22, 2007 Announcements. Comments Off

I would like to wish my readers, blogging associates, and yes even the trolls, a very Merry Christmas.

I will be leaving town this evening until after the Christmas holiday. I’ll be back on Wednesday.

Bookmark and Share

Senate Committee: Over 400 Scientist Dispute Man Made GW Consensus Claims

December 21, 2007 Lunatic Lefties, Opinion, The Fiction of Global Warming View Comments

My skepticism of the idea that mankind is solely responsible for the increase in the average temperature of the planet was well documented before the host change that Gribbit’s Word recently endured. That said, I can say that the morons at the Church of Global Warming of Modern Day Idiots have successfully media blitzed the world into believing their modern day flat earth society’s BS. Chalk that up to the only success that former VP and current High Priest of the MDI has ever, and I mean EVER, had. A Power Point propaganda presentation masquerading as a documentary for which High Priest Al Gore was given, not won or earned, but given a Nobel Prize.

In his propaganda film Gore announces that a “consensus” existed in the scientific community that supported his chicken little claims. This is an idea that this past year’s IPCC report tended to support but facts being facts seems to be lacking in truth.

According into a recent Senate Committee report over 400 scientists are debunking Mr. Gore’s claims.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. SOURCE

I was talking with someone the other day who doesn’t always see eye to eye with me on political issues about another subject and this person said that often times we as a society want to put a policy into place without fully knowing what that policy will do. The discussion was about making the HPV vaccine a requirement for all female public school students. The person I was speaking with stated a concern that the powers that be have no clue as to what kind of long term impact this vaccine will have. This is the same thing only larger.

Game show host and conservative commentator Pat Sajak asks 10 very important questions:

1. What is the perfect temperature?

2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?

3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?

4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?

5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?

6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?

7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?

8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?

9. How will we measure our successes?

10. How has this movement gained such momentum?

[To See Pat Sajak's explainations why he's asking each question visit Human Events Online]

These are questions that nobody on the other side of this debate can answer and they try to pretend that their lack of ability to answer them isn’t important. Ask yourself… Why?

Truth is if they were to get everything they want and nothing happens except for the fact that life becomes more difficult and more expensive as not only the economy of the United States, but they whole world collapses, they will move on to something else like the earth is entering a new ice age. Which is the exact same place that these same pinheads were at in 1974.

Any time a scientist says he’s certain that he has the answer and debate is over on the subject, that means he’s lying and has no clue as to what he’s talking about. When a liberal says it, it means that he’s lying and has no idea what he’s talking about. Get the picture?

Bookmark and Share

Gribbit is Back (for now) and Talking Thompson

December 20, 2007 Election 2008, Fred Thompson for President, Opinion, Presidential Candidates View Comments

Syndicated columnist and former CNN political commentator Robert Novak says that Fred Thompson is the “X Factor” in Iowa. And I agree. So much so that I think that a good showing in Iowa could carry over to a victory in South Carolina and in the majority of Super Tuesday Primary States. Is it certain? No. But it is possible. And since he is the most broadly conservative candidate on the campaign trail, it occurs to me that most economic, social, and national security Conservatives will endorse Fred when it comes down to separating the wheat from the chaff.

According to Novak:

Huckabee’s lead in the polls hardly assures a victory, and this race could change dramatically in the next three weeks.

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.

3. Huckabee’s high poll numbers and big leads do not guarantee a victory. He has nowhere near the campaign team, organization or money of runner-up Romney. As media scrutiny is finally arriving, he could be in trouble. Still, he is likable, and his openness about his Christianity plays very well among some blocs in the GOP.

4. Many Iowa Republicans like Huckabee because he comes across as genuine, especially in comparison to Romney. This is soft support that could bail to Thompson if he rises or to another candidate if Huckabee’s negatives continue to surface.

5. Immigration is a big issue for Iowa Republicans, and Huckabee’s support of state-subsidized education for illegal immigrants hurts him. His big-government record turns off some voters but is not a factor for some of his core supporters.

6. Huckabee’s dig at Mormons in Sunday’s New York Times magazine has turned off some Republican voters as dirty, bigoted or just politically dumb. This is the sort of thing that could bring him down.

7. Romney, like Giuliani, can afford to lose Iowa, but he still might win. His poll numbers have held steady amid Huckabee’s rise, and a late Romney collapse seems unlikely. Iowa Republicans who back him generally see him as the most electable conservative (in contrast to Giuliani). His healthcare mandate in Massachusetts turns off some conservatives but appeals to some older Republicans who see it as a legislative triumph in a Democratic environment. Romney’s success in business and the Olympics also appeals to potential caucus-goers.

8. Many Iowa Republicans who like Romney, however, consider him a general election liability, either because of his Mormonism or because of his record of flip-flopping. Interestingly, the flip-flops on abortion and other issues don’t directly turn off many GOP voters.

9. Giuliani has some appeal in Iowa, though not much. His personal life — his three marriages, publicly funded trysts — combined with his New York brashness hurt him here in the Heartland. His support for legalized abortion is definitely a net drag, although Iowa Republicans are hardly uniformly pro-life.

10. Giuliani’s main virtue in the eyes of Iowans is his perceived electability. Some see him as the best chance to “beat Hillary.” His particularly hawkish tone does not appeal too much here, as most Republicans do not put foreign policy at the top of their priorities.

11. The three congressmen running for President are broadly understood to be the most conservative, but not electable candidates. Representative Duncan Hunter (Calif.) has the respect of many Republican voters in a state where his brand of protectionism has some cachet. Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) appeals to Iowa voters’ deep apprehension about illegal immigration.

12. Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) continues to amaze on many levels, and he had finally started to register on the polls. In last Tuesday’s Midwestern ice storm, almost every Iowa event was cancelled. The exception was a Paul rally, which drew hundreds. His crowds are regularly huge and enthusiastic. He chalked up another record fundraising day on Sunday’s anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, with more than $6 million in online donations in a single day.

13. This battle will hinge on Thompson’s performance down the stretch. If he excels, he could draw down Huckabee’s support significantly, and maybe Romney’s, too. If Thompson is as uninspired as he has been to date, Huckabee will probably win.

14. The most likely result at this point appears to be a slight Thompson surge at Huckabee’s expense, leaving Romney in first place and either Thompson or Huckabee in second.

Fred is THE man. Like Bush is 2000 and Kerry in ’04, the front runner going into the Primary season normally does NOT gain the nomination. This fact is good news from Fred.

Presidential politics should offer a clear choice between the nominees. Giuliani and Romney do not offer a clear choice, Huck’s past tax and immigration policies leave a lot to be desired, McCain successfully alienated enough Conservatives that he’ll never in his wildest dreams be a true contender for the nomination.

With the departure of Tom Tancredo, it was thought that he might endorse Thompson. But he didn’t and some doomsdayers predicted the end of Thompson. To that notion I ask one question -

How can Tancredo’s 1% make or break ANY candidate?

Tancredo endorsed Mitt Romney of all people. The Congressman who has been so staunchly anti-illegal immigration endorses the former governor who had illegals mowing his lawn. That in itself is the most absurd bunch of BS that has come out of this election cycle.

What needs to happen is that Conservative bloggers and blog readers need to get the word out about the qualifications of each candidate. Who is the most broadly Conservative candidate? The answer is Fred Thompson. If you want a return of the Clintonian Infestation? Nominate any of the others. If you want a true Conservative in the White House, something that we haven’t had since 1989 by the way, nominate Fred Thompson.

Bookmark and Share

Al “I Love to Play the Race Card” Sharpton Busted On Video

December 15, 2007 Democrat Corruption, Lunatic Lefties, News, Opinion View Comments

Just prior to the beginning of his 2004 bid for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Al Sharpton met with an individual named Ronald A. White in a hotel in New York. Unknown to Sharpton, the FBI had video surveillance set up on the room and recorded the entire conversation.

According to Philly.com, the two were discussing the possibility of Sharpton steering individuals to invest in a Hedge Fund operated by White in exchange for a $50,000 contribution to Sharpton’s political ambitions.

From Philly.com:

With a hidden FBI camera rolling inside a New York hotel suite in 2003, an unsuspecting Rev. Al Sharpton, Democratic candidate for president, spoke candidly.

Sharpton offered to help Philadelphia fund-raiser Ronald A. White win a multimillion-dollar business deal, if White helped him raise $50,000 for politics.

White offered $25,000. “If you bring my guys up on this hedge fund, and I have the right conversation,” White said, “I’ll give you what you need.”

“Cool,” Sharpton said.

Provided that this information is accurate, and I have no doubt as to its accuracy, it looks as though Sharpton’s statement after his offices were raided and his current and former staff members were served with subpoenas was false. Sharpton does have something to hide if this report is correct. And it seems to me that the FBI and IRS are looking for corroborating evidence to the fact.

One thing about crooks, especially amature crooks, they leave paper trails and don’t even know it.

Sharpton came out a few days ago after his offices were raided and the subpoenas were issued blasting the Bush Justice Department for harassing him. Perhaps it has nothing to do with harassment but rather putting a corrupt “politician” where he belongs… In the gray bar hotel.

Bookmark and Share

Principal: Dumb Down Standards

December 14, 2007 Education Comments Off

The CBS Affiliate in New York, WCBSTV, is reporting that a high school principal in East Harlem has instructed teachers to “dumb down” standards. Now the city is stepping in.

From WCBSTV:

Last month, Principal Bennett Lieberman sent off a stern memo to teachers.

“If you are not passing more than 65 percent of your students in a class, then you are not designing your expectations to meet their abilities, and you are setting your students up for failure, which, in turn, limits your success as a professional.”

“Most of our students come from the lowest third percentile in academic achievement, have difficult home lives, and struggle with life in general. They DO NOT have a similar upbringing nor a similar school experience to our experiences growing up.”

No Principal Lieberman, dumbing down the standards needed to achieve a high school diploma is setting-up the students for failure.

The need in recent years for educators to “dumb-down” standards in concern for the students sensibilities is a lot of BULL! What happened to making sure that Johnny and Suzie know that 2+2=4 and how to locate the United States on a map?

Some of these students are going to graduate high school with marks higher than they deserve that in turn is going to allow them to be accepted into state institutions of higher learning where they will fail to gain the degree that they are attempting to achieve. Why? Because they are not prepared for the work.

Can we leave our “feelings” at the door and get the job done instead. How about learning how to teach these kids who are in failing schools? How about improving the educational opportunities for these students? And no that doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to spend more taxpayer money. It means that perhaps resources are being mis-allocated.

Many school districts are top heavy with administrators. This takes away from the educational opportunities for the students. Many school districts grant tenure to teachers who are substandard, this too is taking away from the educational opportunities for the students. Parents want to choose which schools to send their children to but the teachers’ associations, the most prominent being the NEA, block every attempt to install school choice programs.

Tax monies collected for the education of children should follow the children regardless of which school the parents choose to send them. Private or public, schools should be forced to compete for the right to educate children instead of locking in your child to a substandard school because you live in a certain geographic location.

Want to fix education… it’s call choice.

Bookmark and Share

Huck Duping Evangelicals? Appears So

December 14, 2007 Election 2008, Liberal MSM Bias, News, Opinion, Presidential Candidates View Comments

Several weeks ago, Mike Huckabee told Pat Robertson on CBN,

“I think I’m stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. It’s a theocratic war. And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well.”

Well apparently the former Governor of Arkansas misspoke about his educational background. It appears that Huck doesn’t have a Theology degree after all. It also appears that he may have even been a dropout!

From the New York Times Magazine:

If young Mike Huckabee was ever rebellious or difficult, there’s no record of it. He preached his first sermon as a teenager, married his high-school sweetheart and went off to Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia. There he majored in speech and communications, worked at a radio station and earned his B.A. in a than two years. He spent a year at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Tex., before dropping out to work for the televangelist James Robison, who bought him his first decent wardrobe and showed him how to use television. H/T: The Carpetbagger Report

HE DROPPED OUT!

Only in America can a dropout consider themselves to have a degree and get a “free-pass”. Where is the NYTimes editorial?!? This was an interview that appeared in the magazine not a political editorial. Where is the expose on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc…?!?

It remains my belief that there are facts about Huck that are being tucked away for future use by whoever the Democrat Party nominates. Huck is NOT the right choice for the GOP.

How for the love of Pete did Huck become a Pastor? Can ANYONE answer that?

Dems Playing Games In Iowa?

December 14, 2007 Democrat Corruption, Election 2008, Opinion, Presidential Candidates View Comments

FoxNews.com is reporting that Democrats are flooding the Hawkeye state with “field staffers”. The concern is that these “field staffers” could distort the outcome of the caucuses.

From FoxNews.com:

The major presidential campaigns are flooding Iowa with hundreds of field staffers, and there is at least some concern that those operatives could show up for the Jan. 3 precinct caucuses and distort the outcome of the opening test of the presidential nominating season.

The caucuses — neighborhood meetings at which Iowans discuss and then decide which presidential candidates to support — are the traditional start to the process of whittling down the field of candidates. Other states hold primary elections later in the year, and the parties will name their official candidates by September, with the general election in November.

This is the major problem with “Caucuses”. Anyone can attend them. And the results can be distorted when those who shouldn’t be attending them do.

I would not discount this report. I for one wouldn’t put it past the Clinton campaign for doing this. Obama might not but Hillary would. She will do anything to give herself an edge in winning.

I also have a problem with primary states where you do not have to declare party affiliation before obtaining a ballot. In some states, Democrats can vote for Republicans and vice versa. In my opinion that is like fixing a race.

For example:

If Hillary is winning a particular state by a rather large margin where this can occur, some of her supporters may vote in the Republican Primary for someone like Mike Huckabee who they may see as a weaker General Election candidate. Thereby distorting the outcome.

We need to standardize the process. Those who would abuse the process will. Anyone named Clinton to be sure.

Bookmark and Share

Clinton May Be Set Up For a Fall [UPDATED]

December 14, 2007 Election 2008, Opinion, Presidential Candidates View Comments

From the Concord Monitor:

Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire into a toss-up, according to a new Monitor opinion poll. The results – which show Obama with a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton – mirror other polls released this week, indicating that Clinton’s once-imposing lead has evaporated in the run-up to New Hampshire’s Jan. 8 primary.

The poll suggests that the Democratic race could hinge on the turnout of undeclared voters, who aren’t registered with either political party. Much of Obama’s backing comes from undeclared voters, while registered Democrats make up the bulk of Clinton’s support. In New Hampshire, undeclared voters can vote in either party primary, giving them sway in both contests.

This story should remind us that there is an inherent danger in thinking that the poll leaders are the destined candidates for the general election. Just 4 years ago following Iowa, it was thought that Howard Dean was going to be the Democrat nominee. Going into the 2000 primary season it was thought that John McCain would have been selected.

The lesson that we should all remain mindful of is that any candidate can pull it together and win on Super Tuesday. For that matter, Super Tuesday may even complicate things. It may be decided by the late primary states like Ohio who doesn’t vote until March.

I would not count out the Edwards campaign. He could be like my man Fred who is sitting back and waiting for a huge win in South Carolina to propel his name ahead of the pack.

Personally, I’d like to see them nominate John Edwards. Like some Dems think of the Huck (and I tend to agree), I think Edwards is ripe for the picking in the general.

UPDATE:

MSNBC is reporting that Clinton may lose all 4 early primary states…

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is teetering on the brink, no matter what the meaningless national horserace numbers say. The notion that she has a post-Iowa “firewall” in New Hampshire is a fantasy, and she is in danger of losing all four early contests, including Nevada and South Carolina – probably to Sen. Barack Obama, who is now, in momentum terms, the Democratic frontrunner.

The article is also overly favorable to Mike Huckabee but I think we can overlook that fact on the basis of liberal bias. I’ve discussed ad nauseum the fact that the ultra liberal wing of the Democrat Party wants to face Huck in the General.

UPDATE II:

Wyoming State Democratic Party Chairman isn’t too fond of Hillary SOURCE:

The Democratic Party chairman in Wyoming is predicting that Democratic candidates throughout the Rocky Mountain region will be damaged if his party selects Hillary Clinton for president.

“Every Democratic candidate in Wyoming will be painted with that same liberal, big-government brush. We will also be the target of the locker room jokes that rightfully belong to Bill Clinton,” John Millin wrote in a letter to The Denver Post.

“While I don’t agree with this view of Mrs. Clinton, I have to accept that this is the truth. It has become the dirty little secret in the Democratic Party,” he wrote. “Westerners have an independent, libertarian spirit and Democrats can make Republicans pay a heavy price for years of pandering to the social conservatives. None of this will happen if Hillary wins the nomination.”

Bookmark and Share

Fred Thompson – The Only True Conservative’s Choice

December 13, 2007 Election 2008, Fred Thompson for President, Opinion, Presidential Candidates View Comments

I’ve heard the name Duncan Hunter and I’ve heard Tom Tancredo. Trouble with Duncan and Tom is that they don’t have the legs to win. As much as I like both, neither have the ability to first gain the nomination nor do they have the ability to run a general election campaign with a broad enough focus to battle it out with Hillary or Barrack. Sorry Hunter fans, he can not win. Sorry Tancredo fans, he’s too focused on one single issue.

What about the Huck? I say it is dangerous to elect a pastor to the Presidency. As a former Baptist Pastor, Mike’s Achilles Heel will be that he is a pastor. That’s right, it can and WILL be used against him. It is my belief that Huck has gotten a “free-pass” in the press in order to gain prestige in the polls thereby would artificially become a possible nominee. Problem… The anti-Christian left will have a field day with Huck in the general. Doubt me, go look at the daily pos.

Mitt has problems explaining away his flip-flopping past. You can’t be pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice, then pro-life again and expect it to not bite YOU in the hind quarter. Is there something in the water in Mass where you must flip-flop on the issues?!?

I respect John McCain for what he has done for this country. As a young man he endured that which no-one on either side of the political spectrum has the slightest iota about. For this I respect this man. But he is a political maverick. This is why he cannot gain support among Conservatives.

My man Fred has it all. The only problem with his campaign is that he misconstrued the time involved in solidifying his campaign after his announcement. Changes in his campaign have been a distraction and due to his late entry, he lost his initial edge. This said however, he is the only candidate with a consistent Conservative position on all issues.

John Hawkins from Townhall.com had this to say in his breakdown of the Republican candidates:

Fred Thompson: “The Fred” is a peculiar case. He is a consistent, movement conservative whose views match up better with those of the base than any of the other top tier candidates. He’s a fiscal conservative, a federalist, a man with a perfect pro-life voting record, and all the right positions on illegal immigration. He is also, by far, the most popular candidate with conservatives online, quick on his feet, has a good sense of humor, comes across as presidential, and more than any other Republican running, he has put out serious, detailed policy plans. Judging by that, you’d think he’d be dominating the field. So, why isn’t he?

Simple: Because he got in the race too late.

Initially, it may have seemed like a smart move to wait to jump in because Fred’s poll numbers kept going up. But eventually, expectations became so sky high that no one could have lived up to them. So, when Fred got in the race, he was almost destined to disappoint people — and he did. Fred and his campaign took about a month to get their sea legs, but unlike the other campaigns that had their growing pains at the start of the year when no one was paying attention, the Thompson campaign was under the microscope and being examined by people who were practically expecting him to be Reagan reincarnated. Meanwhile, many of the people in the conservative press savaged Fred mercilessly because they had already picked out a candidate to back before he ever got in the race and so they never saw him as anything other than an impediment to “their guy’s” chances of winning. Today, Thompson’s campaign is well run, he’s working as hard as the other top tier candidates, he has proven to be an excellent debater, and he’s still probably the only top tier candidate who has the potential to give the majority of Republicans someone they’d like to vote for, as opposed to someone they’d only vote for out of fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency. However, despite all that, he still has yet to get out from under the shadow of the negative first impression that was left with people when he first entered the race.

Now don’t confuse federalize with federalist. Federalize is what Democrats do. They make everything a federal government problem therefore have to come up with federal government solutions. The Federalist approach is to defer these matters to the states where they belong. Federalist = good; Federalize = socialism.

Rudy….

Give me a second while I try to stop laughing…

Rudy is Hillary in a suit. He may have brought New York back from the abyss created by crime and deficit spending. And he may be the guy everyone looked to on September 11 for strength in the face of terror, but his social liberalism is a major problem. I’d rather nominate Joe Lieberman than Rudy Giuliani.

Add his social liberalism to the scandals already plaguing his campaign and you have a Democrat running as a Republican. He is Slick Willie all over again.

Bookmark and Share

Featured Content:

Can You See Through the Deception?

December 27, 2007

This election cycle seems to be based on Clintonian style campaigning. Deception seems to be the rule of the day. Mike Huckabee claimed to have a degree in Theology. Wrong! He has a BA in Radio and Television Communications and 1 year of Seminary before dropping out to work with a Televangelist. He did later [...]

Merry Christmas

December 22, 2007

I would like to wish my readers, blogging associates, and yes even the trolls, a very Merry Christmas. I will be leaving town this evening until after the Christmas holiday. I’ll be back on Wednesday.

Senate Committee: Over 400 Scientist Dispute Man Made GW Consensus Claims

December 21, 2007

Gribbit is Back (for now) and Talking Thompson

December 20, 2007

Al “I Love to Play the Race Card” Sharpton Busted On Video

December 15, 2007

Principal: Dumb Down Standards

December 14, 2007

The CBS Affiliate in New York, WCBSTV, is reporting that a high school principal in East Harlem has instructed teachers to “dumb down” standards. Now the city is stepping in. From WCBSTV: Last month, Principal Bennett Lieberman sent off a stern memo to teachers. “If you are not passing more than 65 percent of your [...]

Huck Duping Evangelicals? Appears So

December 14, 2007

Several weeks ago, Mike Huckabee told Pat Robertson on CBN, “I think I’m stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism. These are people that want to kill us. It’s a theocratic war. And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m [...]

Dems Playing Games In Iowa?

December 14, 2007

FoxNews.com is reporting that Democrats are flooding the Hawkeye state with “field staffers”. The concern is that these “field staffers” could distort the outcome of the caucuses. From FoxNews.com: The major presidential campaigns are flooding Iowa with hundreds of field staffers, and there is at least some concern that those operatives could show up for [...]

Clinton May Be Set Up For a Fall [UPDATED]

December 14, 2007

The Concord Monitor is reporting that Obama is edging Hillary in that key primary state. In the too-close-to-call New Hampshire Democrat Primary, Obama has inched himself into a neck and neck race despite polling 11 points below Hillary nationally. From the Concord Monitor: Barack Obama has come from behind to turn the Democratic presidential race [...]

Fred Thompson – The Only True Conservative’s Choice

December 13, 2007

December 2007
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
				Jan »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

A Conservative's View of the World from the Heartland

Search This Site:

Content Tags:

Obama’s Vision for America

National Debt

Ohio Under Uncle Ted

Anti-Obama Art

Categories

Daily Reads

Global Warming

Gribbit© Recomends

News Sources

SOB Alliance

STACLU BlogBurst

Featured Content:

Charities

Meta

Recent Posts

Archives

Archive Calendar

Misc. Graphics

Pages

Akismet

Recent Comments:

Popular Content:

Copyright 2010 Gribbit's Word - All Rights Reserved