In case you somehow missed it, Fred Thompson is likely in the Presidential race. Given the local Fred Thompson fans that seem so energetic in past comment threads, there's some more to discuss.
The immediate question on many a politicos mind is how exactly Thompson affects the race for the Republican nomination. Charlie Cook says he hurts Rudy Giuliani, specifically that support for Thompson:
doesn't come at the expense of any one candidate but might come from front-runner Giuliani more than the others. This might be an affirmation of the view of many analysts that Giuliani's lead is inflated by his 9/11 performance and is less durable than the support of other candidates in the race.
The Fix says Mitt Romney probably suffers more. Jonathan Martin has a good explanation for how Thompson may take a little bit away from each of the Big Three in unique ways.
Like many, I'm curious to see how Thompson actually plays on the campaign trail. Chuck Todd wonders about the Wesley Clark factor:
And is he attracting GOPers' attention because who he isn't -- rather than who he is? What, in short, makes him any different than Wes Clark was in 2003-4, sans the military medals?
Thompson may well be attracting support because of the idea of his candidacy, as opposed to the actual candidacy that may unfold...though it seems unlikely even a poor run by Thompson would match Clark's terrible showing.
Jonathan Martin also lays out the many challenges Thompson faces, which are not to be taken lightly. Here's one good observation:
Thompson is in some ways a mere vessel right now for Republicans dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates. Despite his fame, his non-acting background, record and policy views aren't well known. He'll need to make certain who he is, what he believes and why he's running while his public image is still as favorable as it is and before others muddy the waters.
As part of that question of defining one's candidacy before others do it for you is how Thompson campaigns in the early states. Martin says:
Exploiting all that New Media has to offer via blogging and posting videos is smart and effective. But it's not good enough for people in places like Iowa and New Hampshire who demand a personal touch. The modest town of Le Mars, Iowa, for example, will draw two of the top three Republican candidates back to back this week. They'll expect to see their party's latest hopeful live and in person, not just on their computers or on their TV sets when "Law and Order" re-runs air.
Excellent point. Beyond the retail politics, how does Thompson the candidate play outside the South? Richard Baehr thinks maybe not very well:
I think Thompson is by far the least likely of the 4 major GOP candidates to be elected if nominated, assuming he decides to run. This is due to one principal factor; his Southern roots. This is also one of several reasons why Newt Gingrich is almost certainly unelectable were he to be nominated.This may not be fair, but it is the reality of the 2008 race. The Democrats have had success in their multiyear campaign to identify the GOP as largely a Southern regional party, and a bigoted one at that. You may not like it, but pretending that the problem doesn't exist is foolish.
It will be interesting to see if that's true. Current polling in the three most-watched early states supports Baehr's thesis, at least anecdotally. In South Carolina Thompson runs a comfortable third. In Iowa and New Hampshire he holds only a distant fourth by comparison.
All this raises a couple questions I haven't seen raised so I'll pose them here. It is quite conceivable Thompson has trouble catching up in Iowa and New Hampshire, where organization and retail politics still play huge factors. Does he then become a Giuliani-like candidate, looking past the earliest states, hoping to survive the media rush of those first contests with eyes on bigger prizes like Florida on January 29th and the de facto national primary on February 5th? Can two major candidates hope to pull that strategy off while two others pay more serious attention to Iowa and New Hampshire? The potential permutations of various candidates winning and losing assorted states - and how that all affects the race - are mind boggling.
So, Thompson fans and other interested readers, what say you to all this?
Posted by Eric Earling at May 31, 2007 12:39 AM | Email ThisThompson will have to prove he can win the general before the year starts, else he maxes out at the same level of McCain, electability will drive a majority of the Republican electorate - someone who will fight terrorism but is perceived as being acceptable to the independents will be the preferred candidate. In states with open primaries or situations where independants can vote for a candidate, the greater turn out in the primaries will be independents and moderates voting for a Rudy, than a 'Reagan Democrat' voting for Thompson, in fact the two probably will get about the same percentage of votes from the 'Reagan Democrats'.
It would be fun to watch if it happens, you can bet the Romney takes the hit in Iowa though, two to three times the loss of Guiliani or McCain.
Posted by: Doug on May 31, 2007 01:01 AMThe facts are here:
Wesley Clark raised $4,394 260.40 a month for the 2004 primary.
John Edwards raised $1,926 662.71 a month for the 2004 primary.
John Edwards raised $26,973,278 for the 2004 primary over a period of 14 months.
Wesley Clark raised $21,971,302 for the 2004 primary over a period of 5 months.
After Iowa, in eight primaries, General Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), and Edwards bettered Clark in three (DE, MO, and SC). In those first eight post-Iowa primaries, looking only at top-two finishes, we see that Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one.
I assume that, with the facts, your assessment of General Clark's run in 2003-04 has changed, and I assume that you will no longer refer to General Clark's campaign as a 'terrible showing.'
Thank you.
elleng
There is no doubt that Thompson is the most attractive choice for conservative Republican voters. Whether he really is an effective communicator will determine his success.
Any effective communicator (Fred, Mitt or Rusy)will be able to overwhelm Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Ken on May 31, 2007 04:59 AMIf you would have simply asked the question about whether or not Thompson in campaign mode would work well, then THAT would have been a better analysis.
But your Iowa and New Hampshire question is just silly. There is still PLENTY of time for a good candidate to gain support there and you seem to be conveniently dismissing all the polls that show the support for current candidates (even in those two states) as VERY weak.
And at what point do you start dropping the canard that the main reason for the Thompson support is because he is a "mere vessel" of the anti-current candidate support?
I linked to a story yesterday that indicated a major Romney backer had left the Romney camp to join with Thompson. She suggested that there would be others. She said that it was not that there was anything WRONG with Romney but that she felt that Thompson was a better leader and candidate.
The question to those are closetly (is that a word?) anti-Thompson, is when are you going to stop with the torjured political mascinations and take him on head-on on the positions he has taken or will take?
Now THAT would be fair game.
Posted by: Coyote on May 31, 2007 05:38 AMThe jury is out, Mr. Coyote. Whatever happens, if Thompson enters the race will be good for the country. If he distinguishes himself above an excellent crop of candidates, that means a lot. If he fails, we know and can't have buyer's 'wish he entered' disease.
Romney said he welcomed the idea. Probably, it was because of what I said above.
I liked the way he handled himself on the talk shows when he was Senator; I thought he stunk it up on Law and Order. I'll take the former rather than the latter.
Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2007 06:55 AMWe Libertarians could expect a divided government if the Republicans win the White House is 2008. A divided government can do less harm.
Posted by: Libertarian on May 31, 2007 07:23 AM2. I have been reading with interest the thread below regarding the Mainstream Republicans. As an indie, formerly a dem because my party doesn't want me. I suppose in the pubbie party, I would be called a social conservative or values voter.
People of the indie social conservative variety tend to be pragmatic about choices. The comments by mainstreamers about us remind me a bit about the novels of Collete who wrote the book that the movie and play Gigi was based upon. She described and mocked the la petite minded bourgeoisie. Calling us knuckle dragging idiots because we have very real concerns about the social issues which define the type and future of society doesn't really cut it. The reason why there is a debate about gay marriage has to do with the raising of children and what is the optimum, not only environment, for that. On the abortion issue, advances in neo-natal medical science bring up the very real question of when does life begin and what is murder. Most indie conservatives are pragmatic and it is better to have some one in office that would at least listen and be responsive to most of our issues. It might mean holding one's nose this election because Team Hillary is not ever going to be there and I believe she will be the next President along with her morally challenged partner. There has to be a pragmatic choice for us. I just don't know if Thompson is it. In any event post links please.
Other than George W Bush.
Or Bill Clinton.
Or Jimmy Carter.
But other than those three living Presidents, we never elect anyone from the South...;)
Thompson draws from Romney a lot - he's a social conservative, like Romney. So that's where most of his draw will come from.
Thompson has something none of the other candidates have - an aura of leadership. It's why he plays the roles he does - it's his nature (typecasting). A President is like a CEO - he must use his leadership and charisma to convey the big picture, and use his skills to make sure his staff execute on the big picture. Being a "hands on" President like Clinton isn't good; you don't want your CEO directly managing the mail room!
Thompson understands the power of the bully pulpit like no President since Reagan. That is the single most powerful tool the President has. That alone is a serious boost for the man - if you like his positions, you won't have to worry about him NOT being able to convey his message!
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on May 31, 2007 07:29 AMOther than that Coyote, you ask a lot of questions that can only be answered once Thompson has been on the trail for a decent amount of time. That's nothing different than all the other candidates had to endure (and still face) out on the stump.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 31, 2007 07:33 AMPosted by: Giffy on May 31, 2007 07:34 AM
My point is that people have switched and the indication from the woman in the interview who did switch was that there would be others. She also in her own statements did NOT belittle Romney (another attack at the strawman).
Go back and reread my comment. I did say that questions about Thompson's campaign are perfectly valid and OF COURSE they should be answered. However the questions posed by Eric are merely vapid attempts to build some kind of doubt out of thin air.
David Yepson in the DesMoines Register (that's in Iowa in case anyone was wondering) seems to think that Thompson would hurt Romney in Iowa IF he decides to campaign there.
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=6138
Of course it is early but one can't put a whole lot of weight in how long someone has already been working Iowa. If time spent there were to equate directly to support then Brownback should be a shoe-in in that he has been working Iowa (with a real grass roots network) for TWO YEARS.
There is a point in Iowa where it is to late to get up and running and one should look past it. We have not reached that point yet and probably won't for a couple of months.
A strong Iowa finish in the top three by any of the leading candidates will help any of the three in the following primaries. And McCain is toast. He is dead candidate walking at this point so look for Rudy, Romney and Thompson to be duking it out. If those three finish with double digit support in Iowa all three could claim some kind of momentum.
Yip Yip
Posted by: Coyote on May 31, 2007 08:47 AMIn 2000, I was a John Kasich supporter and this time, I am a Duncan Hunter supporter, but realize Duncan should step back and help winnow the field. Maybe September is a better time to winnow, but I don't know.
What may be telling is if Thompson and Romney take votes from each other and Rudy gets in, where if Thompson or Romney run alone, he may get more than Rudy.
And with the early super primaries, that may very well happen. The winnowing process needs to start early this year.
First to go- Tancredo and Paul. Next week ....
Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2007 09:22 AMSo if you are going to count a few people switching from one campaign to another as "belittling" then so be it. I mean if you will define the definition of belittling down to that point then I might argue you are just interested in borrowing sorrow.
I too LOVE Duncan Hunter. However he has not gained any traction and unfortunately irrelevent (as is Ron Paul at this point).
The point is, is that Thompson has been in the news less than any of the second and third tier candidates, has not campaigned at all as opposed to the second and third tier candidates and has not appeared in either of the nationally televised debates as have the second and third tier candidates.
Yet... Yet his poll numbers have him up with the big three and in some polls have him IN the top three.
So... So it is time to stop with the vapid philosophical gymnastics that try to paint some kind of question as to political viability. Which is what the meat of Eric's post was about. It is time to stop pretending that there is any question to his viability. Viability has already been established much moreso than Paul's, Brownback's, Hunter's, T. Thompson's, and Tancredo. Yet a post here on this blog treat's Paul as if there is any level of credibility while the very next thread discounts Thompson's viability? Puhlease... A little perspective.
It is time to start discussing his candidacy with the same level of seriousness that one would discuss with the other top three. THAT is my point.
The Presidential Press Roundup on NRO's Corner is repleat with news stories on the impact of a Thompson campaign. Yet where is the mention of say Ron Paul?
Perspective. Now on to the various positions, organizations and fundraising.
Anymore discussion of viability is merely a transparent attempt to discount his candidacy and wreaks much more of "belittling" than people jumping the Romney ship.
Yip Yip
Posted by: Coyote on May 31, 2007 09:39 AMI don't disagree that he should hang it up (not that I dislike him), right along with Brownback, Hunter and Paul.
I also think that the arrival of Thompson could very well squelch much of the calls for Newt to enter. Those calls are based on folks looking for something different. If just 10% of the energy from the Draft Newt effort is lost to a Thompson effort it may effectively kill the chances for Newt's September announcement.
Posted by: Coote on May 31, 2007 09:49 AMThe dangers of posting and working at the same time.
Posted by: Coyote on May 31, 2007 09:51 AMwww.fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com
www.fred08.com
www.fredthompsonfaq.com
www.draftfredthompson.com
Law & Order is NBC, not CBS.
Posted by: Mike H on May 31, 2007 10:29 AMHe's not a tough-as-nails NYC District Attorney, he just plays one on TV. Unfortunately, image is all that counts these days.
Posted by: lobbyhobby on May 31, 2007 11:13 AMA "career lobbyist"? Reading through bios at several of the links above, I didn't find any mention of FDT working as a lobbyist.
I did see that FDT served as assistant US attorney for Middle Tennessee from 1969-1972.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 31, 2007 11:50 AMFirst, he won't be seen as an opportunist/flip-flopper. He will be seen as a principled conservative. This will make him more palatable to many right-leaning moderates (even if they disagree with him, they will feel somewhat more comfortable in knowing that he stands where he stands), and certainly help bring out the base better than McCain or Romney would.
Giuliani may have a better chance than Thompson in the general, but I don't think it is remotely possible for him to win the nomination.
The only people who won't vote for Thompson because of his Southern roots are the same people who wouldn't vote for ANY Republican. That's a non-issue, unless Republicans are fooled into thinking it is an issue, and then it becomes self-fulfilling.
I don't know if calling him a "career lobbyist" tells the story well, since it's been a relatively minor part of his adult life. But not an insignificant one.
Perico @ 21: Thank you!
Posted by: Saltherring on May 31, 2007 01:02 PMThanks for the info. I have begun to research Thompson and I will follow his postings more carefully.
The postings about him being a Southerner and for geezers are puzzling. I think, as an indie, I am more interested in ideas and philosophy and whether I think the person given the demands of what it takes to get to that level in politics has some integrity. I can vote for someone that I disagree with on certain issues if that person has some cogent and rational reason for their position. I don't care what the race or gender of the person is. I would have voted for a dem like Evan Bayh, but they stand no chance of getting through the primaries. I will, however, follow Thompson.
Posted by: WVH on May 31, 2007 01:06 PMpudge, when push comes to shove and not the lovey-dovey polls two years away we have today, Americans will look Hillary Clinton in the eyes and look whoever the Rs put up and make their choice then. It is a very hard assessment that woman will face and the United States of America will find her wanting in soul.
Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2007 02:02 PMI suspect in the end it will be Rudy. VP unknown
The real storm, will be when Gore enters the Democrats race. There is no love loss between him and Clinton. This will be one big blood bath to watch. Obama is the shoe in for VP.
I tend to think Gore is their better choice, but they will choose Clinton.
From there it is anyone's guess.
So when I look at Brownback vs. Gilmore vs. Thompson vs. Tancredo vs. InsertConservativeCandidateHere ... I do calculate electability. I think Thompson is more electable, so that counts in his favor.
Electability is a good thing: it usually doesn't mean so much "has a pretty face" as it means that he excites a broad range of people, he well-communicates his message, and so on. These are all things that are good to have in a President, not just a candidate: those nebulous "Reaganesque" qualities.
I've been saying it for months, and I keep saying it: Fred for President, Rudy for VP. Now THAT ticket would kick some serious butt. I'd put it up against the best the Democrats have got, any time.
I hope Gore enters the race ... he shows such a terrible face to both conservatives and moderates, because he is so far to the left, it will be fun to see.
1. I like what he has written so far on blogs and conservative site articles. Most of what he says is very objective and down-to-earth. He definitely has both a conservative appeal, a credible appeal and an aura of leadership.
2. He adds something to the range of Repub candidates that I have not seen so far. Of the largest straw vote shares, we've got McCain and Paul who have set themselves off as a bit loopy. And we have Giuliani who does not sit well with the Social Conservatives, but who fully understands the problem of fanatical Islamic hatred. And then there's Mitt Romney, who is an excellent orator and leader, and who appears quite rational, but seems to be dogged by his religion. Apparently there are many out there who just can't get over that. So Thompson brings together the likeable things about each candidate, and enough charisma, chutzpah, maturity, etc.
3. Most importantly, the guy appears sane. He's got a the demeanor of a cool customer. In this day and age of fanatical Nutroots ranting, patronizing Environmentalism from Al Gore, Shrillary, the aloof arrogance of John Kerry, crazy Republican Truther candidates like Ron Paul even emotional profanity laden outburts from other candidates like McCain, it's time for an adult candidate, and better yet an adult President to lead the country.
I think GW's lack of oratory skills severely weakens his arguments and positions. And I have to give liberals their due in that I often cringe when Bush opens his mouth and blows another speech.
Fred Thompson in general seems like a solid man of integrity, that I would enjoy listening to, as well as someone who I would mostly agree with.
Other than Reagan, I can't recall any other President or even Presidential candiddate that fits that bill.
I am looking forward to hearing more from Fred. He just might be the Primary winner.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 31, 2007 06:21 PMHe was the second strongest candidate for the Dems last time even though he started later and had no experience in campaigning.
Posted by: bedir on May 31, 2007 08:01 PMPEGGY NOONAN
Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
Whether Thompson can bring together conservatives of all denominations remains to be seen.
Posted by: WVH on May 31, 2007 10:46 PMGulliani is going to win because he is opposite of Bush. Bush has gotten so bad, R's are going to vote Gulliani just to cleanse themselves of this 8 year nightmare.
R's are going to find it very hard to win in 2008 anyways as conservatives don't consider themselves Republican anymore. What do you do when your Base, doesn't agree that they are your base? I voted for only a few R's last time, an equal amount of D's and decided to waste the rest of my votes.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 1, 2007 05:04 AMHe will have to be smart enough to outwit and out smart those selfserving, greedy, lying, manipulating and immoral senitors, representatives and congessmen and women.
It is about time for the American taxpaying citizens to get a President that believe this is still a country by the people and for the people instead of a country that is for the politians and by the politicians.
We the American taxpaying citizen are getting tired of all this BS that goes on in DC. The BS that we the American taxpayers are dearly paying for.
This country had better start uniting again or we will not have a beautiful America anymore....or we will wind up like the Mexians and other illegal immigrants looking for a place to invade.
I really feel like we are being sold out on a daily basis.
From just a plain ole American citizen.....
Posted by: Harry on June 1, 2007 07:07 AMCapitalize the "J" in Jesus. Now, I am researching Thompson. There is a way for a conservative candidate of either party to win, it is called coalitions. If a candidate has a set of positions that appeal to a broad spectrum, they can win. Conservatives have not been good at explaining their positions to a mass audience and those claiming to be conservative have not governed as conservatives. You may not like me, but you know where I stand and I can usually articulate a reason for my positions. Take the abortion debate, it is a very different debate when framed in terms of killing a life and that is backed up with scientific evidence. I may have rights as a person, but it is a very different argument to say in the excercise of my rights if I have superior power, I can kill you to advance my rights. So, it is dependent upon the candidate and their message and how successful they are in articulating that message.
Posted by: WVH on June 1, 2007 09:40 AMAre you saying Jesus (Hey-soos or Geez-us)? With Bush's anti-conservative immigration bill he has done a good job screwing over the "conservative" base. Now has he done that for 7 years...I don't think so...if he was screwing over the country for the first 4 years, he would have lost re-election like Jimmy 'I am a bumbling fool' Carter. Anyone that says that America has seen its best days is a fool. Reagan proved otherwise. So basically, the best argument you can make according to the elections (and yes, he did win Florida by the VOTE count) is that he did good by us for 4 years and the past 2 1/2 years has been going down hill...even though his Social Security plan would have saved SS and given people like me (25) a FUTURE in SS. So, by all standards and reasons according to math, the electoral college and a majority of states and eventually a majority of citizens choose Bush over what the Dem's had to offer. Any other fallacies you want me to debunk?
Posted by: e on June 1, 2007 02:59 PM1. find saddam's wmds.
2. find the trillions spent by a republican congress and signed by the preznit.
3. find osama.
4. find the saudi benefactors of wahhabism.
5. find a.q. khan and tell him to quit giving dirt-bag dictatorships nucular technology.
6. find the smaller govt that republicans believe in.
7. find the separation of church and state enshrined in the constitution.
8. find fema.
that's a starter.
Posted by: dinesh on June 1, 2007 04:23 PMMitt Romney is articulate & does as well on TV as Fred Thompson does. He has shown that he can lead & manage a business, the Olympics & the state of Massachusetts. He has no known health issues, has a good family life, is well-educated & knowledgable about politics.
Romney's qualifications are better than those of Thompson & the conservatives in the Republican party need to stop being so narrow-minded and look at the bigger picture. Thompson is a spoiler & might tip the election to the Democrats.
The person who can beat the Democrats is Romney.
Posted by: Clean House on June 1, 2007 05:38 PM4. Regarding the Separation of Church and State:
Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution
"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.
The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot in be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.
This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause....
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Posted by: WVH on June 1, 2007 09:52 PMOne good thing about Bush is never again will conservatives vote for these "Mid stream" Republicans.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 2, 2007 10:38 AMJust curious, what motivates you? Is it a body of principles? Don't know Reichert since I live in the district of the Comisar for life. I do know that change is often incremental. Having the veto proof majority to pass some of the legislation that has and will be conteplated is lunacy. Often in life getting the major ideas supported is what is the aim. In any event, what would be the practical effect of what you are proposing?
Posted by: WVH on June 2, 2007 03:39 PMBy fallacies, you obviously don't have a very good comprehension of the term. Fallacy: any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
Saddam's WMD's...found http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
Trillions spent by the CONGRESS! The president only approves or denies bills created by the Congress AND is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
Osama - Pakistan border with Afghanistan. Do I know why we haven't attacked. Lack of manhood on Bush's part to go after them.
Why do we need to find the benefactors of Saudi's? What business is it of our until we find them and determine they have done something wrong? Circular question for circular reasoning.
Why should A.Q. Khan stop giving nuclear weapons to "dirt-bag dictatorships?" He has a right to do anything he wants. Next, I think we can all agree that Saddam was a dirt bag for his thousands if not millions of human rights violations. So if that is the case A.Q. Khan gave nuke's to Iraq therefore, WMD's.
Smaller government on comes with true conservatism. Not Compassionate Conservatism. If you realize the difference you will understand.
Separation of Church and state was already covered sufficiently.
FEMA. How about find 1000 drivers for buses Mr Ray "Chocolate New Orleans" Nagin. It is not the responsibility of the government to bail out people who will not willing leave their own homes in a time of impending crisis and/or doom. You get warned, you get up off your duff and leave. There is a wonderful statement, STATES RIGHTS. FEMA and National Guard and the FED's have to be ASKED to come in. Took a while for that to happen. Or do you want the feds to run every aspect of our lives. Do we need permission to wipe? How about permission to eat and what to eat and when? You like variety in your food? Won't be that way if the feds move in when they want, how they want, and where they want. But remember this one thing. A fallacy is an argument that collapses under the weight of its own stupidity.
Posted by: e on June 2, 2007 09:29 PM