McCain Surging In The Polls

John "amnesty" McCain is surging in the polls":

McCain's NH momentum is exactly what his campaign was hoping for. But his better showing in IA and nationally is still a bit surprising. In the best case scenario for McCain, he comes in 3rd in IA, 1st in NH, and the momentum helps him win MI (as he did in 2000) and then SC where the race is very narrow right now. That would make the race functionally a Rudy v. McCain Super Tuesday and beyond. But a more likely scenario is still a 4th or 5th in IA, 2nd in NH, and no wins before Super Tuesday. It's hard to see where McCain goes without a NH win.

It seems many Republicans have found it in there hearts to forgive McCain for this past years fiasco over amnesty. I can not.

I have stated this before and I would like to put it on record one more time: I will not vote for anyone who supported that bill.

Poll

Michelle Malkin has a poll up: "Which GOP candidate do you support?". Go on over and vote.

As of 3:08pm, the results are:

Thompson- 46%
Romney- 16%
Giuliani- 9%
Hunter- 8%
Paul- 5%
Huckabee and McCain are tied with 3%

"The Fourth Quarter"

Fred was on Hannity & Colmes last night. Watch the video:

Part 1:



Part 2:



A lot of people are writing about Fred's witty remarks, such as "I’m not raising my hand until Chief Justice John Roberts swears me in." While these are good, the meat of the interviews with Fred is the fact that he gets it. He understands the issues and is willing to stand up for his positions on these issues.

He is not going to pander, like the rest of them. Of course, he is the only candidate (Democrat or Republican) who can stand up for his past and still have a shot at winning the race.

Win, Fred, Win

Romney would ban "Weapons Of Unusual Lethality"

First of all watch this video:



Romney has a habit of flip flopping on the issues. He is not doing that here. He will support gun bans. He talks a good game, but he will not stand up to the anti-gun crowd.

What is a weapon of unusual lethality?

What gun could be described by this statement?

All guns can be described with that statement. Any gun can be used in a lethal manner.

Terms such as this are used to mask a candidates true feelings on an issue.

Fred's Campaign "Apologizes" To Huckabee

Fred08:

In light of Mike Huckabee’s heartfelt apology to Mitt Romney for making reference to Romney’s religion in the New York Times Magazine, we at the Thompson Campaign would like to offer Huckabee our own heartfelt apologies for some references we’ve made about his record as Governor of Arkansas.

We apologize for pointing out that as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee offered in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. That’s something he’d probably just as soon no one talk about.

...

We apologize for pointing out that in 2002 Huckabee wrote Pres. Bush a letter asking him to lift the Cuban embargo. It’s easy to see how Huckabee might have missed the finer points of a 40-year embargo. While he obviously knew enough about the embargo to ask that it be lifted, Huckabee clearly didn’t know enough to ask that it not be lifted. So for that, we’re sorry.

...

We apologize for referencing that 47% tax increase Huckabee imposed on Arkansas taxpayers when he was governor. That must be really awkward for him, now that he’s running in a GOP primary election. We notice he never points it
out to voters.

...

We apologize for telling reporters that a BA in Biblical Studies from Ouachita Baptist University doesn’t, in fact, make Huckabee more qualified to fight the war on terror than say…Fred Thompson.

Win, Fred, Win

More Video Of Fred At The Debate

This is good, I found this at Hot Air:



Fred did a great job last night. Maybe they may have given him more time than the rest, wrong:

Giuliani: 9:03 during 12 answers
Huckabee: 8:56 during 11 answers
Romney: 8:52 during 12 answers
Keyes: 7:08 during 8 answers
Tancredo: 6:49 during 10 answers
Hunter: 6:42 during 9 answers
McCain: 6:34 during 9 answers
Paul: 5:36 during 9 answers
Thompson: 5:23 during 10 answers

Win, Fred, Win

Video: Ted Nugent On The Second Amendment

"Don't tread on me."

Go get em Ted.

H/T: Born Again Redneck

Updated (Video Added): The Debate

It seems Fred did well onstage today:

Mary Katharine Ham:

Fred: 'The NEA is the Problem':

FABULOUS and fabulously true answer on education that no Dem could ever, ever give. Got everyone's attention, and the people-meter was waaaaay up top.

Fred: 'No Hand Shows!':

Fred refuses to do a "show of hands" on global warming. Hilarious. He counter-offers for a minute to talk about it and the debate moderator refuses. The audience applauds his sticking up for a more in-depth debate formate. Now, she's reduced to getting short answers from everyone. I enjoyed that.

Fred may be coming alive just in time. You know I like his style, but he may be gearing it up a little to satisfy the nay sayers. I watched him in his run for the Senate and a month before that election he did not have a chance either.

Win, Fred, Win

Update:

Congressional Republicans Deserve Their Minority Status

From Hot Air:

It’s bizarro world on the Hill, where liberal Democrat David Obey is threatening to cut spending, and allegedly conservative Republican John Boehner is laughing at the “idle threat.”

Hey Republicans, whatever happened to being the party of less spending? Reform? Cutting pork? Just wondering.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) is known for blowing his stack every once in awhile, and this time around Republicans are simply dismissing his latest rampage.

Republican House leaders are essentially calling Obey’s bluff one day after the irascible Wisconsin lawmaker threatened to pull every earmark from the remaining appropriations bills in order to cut an additional $11 billion and meet President Bush’s budget demands.

“This idle threat of taking away earmarks is just that,” said Majority Leader [sic] John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “An idle threat.”

Read the rest at the link above.

Why can the Republicans understand this is the main reason they are not in charge any longer? It is because they have become too similar to the dems.

Crunch Time

Well, we are getting down to it. Less than a month till the Iowa Caucus.

I have been trying to decide how to paint the situation the republican party is facing. You all know that I am a Fred supporter.

Friday on my way home from work I heard Sean Hannity do a comparison of the candidates. Now Sean will not endorse any of them, but I get the opinion he is for Rudy. This has caused me to lose a little respect for Sean. I still like the guy though. Anyway, he was responding to a caller about the "problems" that all the candidates have. I can't remember the exact wording but he named off the top candidates along with issues that may cause them problems in the primaries. As he discussed the candidates, he was listing real issues that would cause a conservative concern. Then he came to Fred. I will give you one guess what he said: "fire in the belly".

So I thought I would take a little time looking at each candidate this way:

Rudy Giuliani- GUNS, abortion, gay marriage, illegal aliens, corruption, I don't think he would be any tougher on terror than any of the rest of the top republicans. There are others but you get the point.

Mitt Romney- Illegal aliens, trust (he flip flops to meet his immediate needs), given the trust thing I will stop.

Right or wrong, I have a big problem trusting the words of someone who can get elected in such liberal places as Mass. and N.Y. City. While running for office each of them said very liberal things. I have heard people say they had to talk that way to get elected in such places. The only problem I have is how can I be sure they are not doing the same thing to get elected now?

Anyway, back to the list:

John McCain- IMMIGRATION, he is too quick to line up with the likes of Teddy Kennedy.

Mike Huckabee- Taxes, illegal aliens, foreign relations...

Fred Thompson- Not much. I'll give you some of the things that have been used by others OK: Fire in the belly (he is doing as much or more then the others), guessed star on Rosanne as a sexist (must be a damn good actor as he had to make a pass at Rosanne).

See how this sounds, after all the scrutiny these candidates have went through, Fred is lazy is all they got.

Win, Fred, Win

Fred On Huckabee And NIE

From CBS News' John Bentley:

"Not only is Iran the major long-term threat to our country, the nuclear program is the most important part of the Iran consideration. For a presidential candidate not to know that and not to keep up with that is very surprising," said Thompson.

"These are the kinds of things I've been talking about all of my life. Now, if the American people have other priorities, if they want someone who smiles a lot more than I do, or someone who is a better quipster than I am, who has no experience in these areas, that's for the American people to decide."

Win, Fred, Win

Tell Me Where Fred Is Wrong

I would like to make a challenge to anyone who thinks Fred would not make a good president.

These are the stories that are on Fred08.com right now. Read them all and tell me Fred does not get it:

Wisconsin Right to Life Endorses Fred

Thompson tickled by Iowans' independent voting streakRadio Iowa, December 6, 2007

Thompson: Don't trust IranThe State, December 6, 2007

GW law professors endorse ThompsonGW Hatchet, December 6, 2007

Thompson calls for tapping Arctic oil reservesWinston-Salem Journal, December 6, 2007

Thompson Tax Cuts Big Enough?Tom Rants, December 5, 2007

In Greer, Thompson touts Second Amendment rightsGreenville (SC) News, December 5, 2007

Thompson skeptical of new intelligence report on IranAssociated Press, December 5, 2007

Make sure you read the stories about the tax cuts, second amendment and ANWR anyway.

Win, Fred, Win

John Hawkins Interviews Fred's Campaign Manager

Right Wing News:

On Tuesday of this week, I got together with Fred Thompson's campaign manager, Bill Lacy, for a phone interview. What follows is the transcript of our conversation, which has been edited for grammar, clarity, and brevity.

Fred has been accused, fairly or unfairly, of being lazy. With that in mind, how does the level of activity in Fred's campaign match up to that of his opponents? In other words, is he working as hard as Mitt, Rudy, McCain and Company?

I think that characterization of Fred is probably one of the single most unfair things I have seen in my career in politics. Fred is a very hard worker. He is a very measured and thoughtful guy. He is not prone to run out and make decisions or do things without thinking about them, but he works very hard...

In let's say, raw appearances. Is he making as many appearances in front of groups per day as say Mitt or Rudy? Is he hitting as many states as say McCain or Huckabee?

To be honest with you, I have not measured that, per se. Most everything I have seen indicates that we are definitely competitive....There was a piece done...a couple of weeks ago...where they took a two week schedule and compared everybody and...

Fred came in 2nd on that one?

That's exactly right.

I know which one you're talking about (Link here)

...There are periods of time when we are focusing on fund raising or preparing for debates and we're not going to be quite as visible as the other guys. If you're Governor Romney, you don't have to do fund raisers if you don't want to and the same goes, I think, for the mayor to a certain extent.

Fred was raising money at a clip far higher than that of any of his rivals at the end of the third quarter. Is that still continuing? Do you expect Fred to raise more money than any of the other Republican candidates in the 4th quarter?

No, I don't expect that we'll raise more than any of the other candidates. I think that we will be competitive. I think that Governor Romney has pretty much set a pattern of waiting until the end and contributing to his campaign whatever amount he needs to have raised the most that quarter.

But, to be honest with you, John, and I am pretty consistent, you can find quotes to this effect out there, I honestly do not believe that money is going to be determinate in this campaign. I think if you look at the current status of the race, with Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and where they stand nationally, that's the most clear indication....

Read the rest at the link.

Fred is working just as hard, no harder than the rest of them. On top of doing just as many appearances as the rest of them, he has come out with specific policies on several important issues. I think the regular people are starting to pay attention now, so things are going to start changing fast.

Win, Fred, Win

Pearl Harbor 1941

I found some old photos from Pearl Harbor some of you may be interested in:

Busy

I am sorry I have not had much chance to blog all week. I have managed to throw out a few posts but my work schedule has me way to busy. I should be back at it full force tomorrow.

Bolton On The NIE Report

John Bolton via the Washington Post:

Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.

All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.

...

That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all.

Read the specific points he makes at the link above.

This has significantly hurt our ability to deal with Iran.

My Take On Iran's Nuclear Arms Program

This post is in response to this New York Times article:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Read the rest at the link above.

I hope this is true. I am pretty sure it is not.

The way I understand it that one defector from Iran has stated the country stopped their nuclear arms program in 2003. That is great, but were is the hard proof. There is not any.

I can't help but think this has something to do with the "Middle East" peace plans Bush and Rice have been working on. I know they are willing to bend over backwards to convince the Israeli government to hand over land to the Palestinians.

What it will do is allow countries to ease restrictions on trade with Iran. It will be used against Bush every time you turn around. (Bush lied again). It will embolden Iran. Hell it already has:

A new U.S. intelligence review concluding Iran stopped developing an atomic weapons program in 2003 is a "declaration of victory" for Iran's nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

Russia's foreign minister, meanwhile, indicated that the U.S. report's findings undermined Washington's push for a new set of U.N. sanctions against Iran.

The U.S. intelligence report released Monday concluded that Iran had stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and shown no signs since of resuming it, representing a sharp turnaround from a previous intelligence assessment in 2005.

"This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people during a visit to Ilam province in western Iran.

"This was a final shot to those who, in the past several years, spread a sense of threat and concern in the world through lies of nuclear weapons," Ahmadinejad said, drawing celebratory whistles from the crowd.

Several reports I have read in the past few years said all that was holding Iran's nuclear program up was the ability to enrich uranium. So of course the program was frozen so they could learn how to accomplish this. Well, back to the New York times article:

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

Better Late Than Never

I know the debate was a week ago, but I had to post on this:

RUSH: It was fascinating to me, as I said, to watch this because it hit me upside the head -- even though, as I say, I instinctively knew this -- that all of the top-tier candidates, because of these questions... See, there's always a silver lining in everything. There's always an upside. Some of you might not think of this as an upside or a silver lining, but the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson. Now, this is not an endorsement. You know, I don't endorse during primaries. I just point out: These are things I noticed, and I've told you during the course of this one campaign year that one of the things that's bothering me, is I'm a Reagan conservative, and I believe in conservatism. It's in my soul and it's in my heart, and I know it is the best way for us to manage our affairs to ensure the most prosperity for the most, to continue our freedom, to protect our country.

Read the rest at the link. He addresses the "fire in the belly" crap.

Win, Fred, Win

One Reason Why I Will Not Vote For Rudy

As you know I have not been around much the last couple of weeks. The reason - deer hunting. I am back for a while now (season opens again Dec. 15th). I have had a good little break from blogging. I also have some meat in the freezer, so it has been a good couple of weeks for me. But now it is time to get back at it. I have been looking forward to getting back in the swing of things.

I found this link in one of my e-mails.

Want to know what Rudy thinks about guns? Watch this:




There is no question how he feels about guns. He is about as liberal as a person can get on the issue. As a matter of fact, he is about as liberal as you can get on a lot of issues; guns, gay marriage, abortion, etc... If I am going to have to endure a liberal president I want to be able to cuss a democratic one. I have been cussing a republican (Bush) long enough; immigration, spending, Israel, etc...

I understand the "lesser of two evils" thinking. I have been guilty of it myself in the past. Not anymore!

I will not vote for Rudy Giuliani!

I Guess They Are All Lazy

From Nov. 4-17, Fred was second in campaigning:

A review of the two-week period from Nov. 4-17 by Gannett News Service shows Thompson held 28 campaign events, making him No. 2 among the four major GOP candidates. Sen. John McCain of Arizona topped the list at 35. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney held 22 and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 20.

Giuliani, however, had the broadest reach, visiting 10 states and Washington, D.C., during the period. He was followed by McCain with 10 states, Thompson with seven states and D.C., and Romney with six states.

The lazy perception has "been rather damaging, because it's an easy accusation to make and easy for people to understand and ... it's hard to disprove a negative," said M. Lee Smith, the retired founder of the Tennessee Journal political newsletter.

Smith was a classmate and friendly with Thompson at Vanderbilt University's law school and plays an odd role in the genesis of the Thompson-as-lazy narrative.

A search of the LexisNexis media library finds only one news story before Jan. 1, 2007, with the words "lazy" and "Fred Thompson." It was a 1997 story about how Thompson ran a Senate investigation of campaign fundraising in the 1996 presidential campaign, and it quoted Smith.

"I don't think he's lazy, but he is just more of a live-and-let-live individual in a lot of respects, including whether he would run for president," Smith said in the 1997 article in the Los Angeles Times.

It's the same view he holds now, says Smith, who points out that while in law school, Thompson was a married father supporting a family.

Fred is campaigning just as hard as the rest of them. So, you could make an argument that all the GOP candidates are lazy.

Recently, some news reports have described an increased level of campaign activity and more passion from Thompson. Spokeswoman Karen Hanretty said Thompson is the same as he's always been.

"We've just always said he is very methodical, someone who is not prone to overreacting," Hanretty said. "Maybe in a town like Washington, D.C., where politicians regularly run out in front of a camera and run their mouths off, Fred stands in stark contrast to the style."

That is what I have been saying. How many of us long for leaders that are just like the rest of the people in Washington today? I know I certainly do not. How are we going to get the best leadership if we are unwilling to except the fact that truly good men and women are not going to act like the rest of them?

We all want a change in the " business as usual" politics in Washington. It may be time to step up and realize the only way this is going to happen is to expect and demand a different approach.

Ask yourselves a few questions:

What do you want to happen with the tax issue?

What do you want to happen with immigration?

What do you want to happen with social security?

What do you want to happen with gun control?

What do you want to happen with national security?

How does your candidate stand on these issues? Chances are you know an overview of the issues, but very little about how they plan to go about getting there. That is one advantage we Fred supporters have. We know how our guy would implement his plans. He has left himself little, if any "wiggle" room.

Just Checking In

As you know I have been away for a while. I still have the rest of the week to hunt, but wanted to spend a couple of hours trying to catch up.

While you are hear you might as well sign a petition:

Hunting Season

Hey it is that time of year again. Posting will be very light, if I get a chance to post at all. See you in a week or two.

Hold down the fort for me.

Has Bush "LOST" His Mind?

His support for the Law Of The Sea treaty is not surprising:

The president continues to support the pending Law of the Sea Treaty, but a spokeswoman isn't going to speculate on how it would have affected critical U.S. operations on the sea had it been adopted earlier.

The issue was resurrected recently in the U.S. Senate at President Bush's urging even though critics making up a wide-ranging chorus have concluded it would grant the United Nations control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The plan recently was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 17-4 vote, and now must go before the full Senate.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has called it, "U.N. on steroids," and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has concluded it is "the dumbest thing we've ever done. It's like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What's wrong with us?"

The affirmation of Bush's position came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who responded to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's White House correspondent. He asked. "How does the president react to the fact that while he supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, all the leading Republican candidates for president now have announced they oppose it?"

"The president's position is very clear. The Defense Department and the State Department have been to Capitol Hill to help explain why this Law of the Sea Treaty makes sense. The president's position on the Law of the Sea is clear. And presidential candidates are going to make their own decisions," she said.

"Does the president believe that had we been subject to the Law of the Sea Treaty, that President Kennedy could have quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy, that President Ford could have used the Navy to rescue the Mayaguez, and President Reagan could have sent a Navy carrier force to defy Qaddafi of Libya in the Gulf..?" Kinsolving asked.

"I always avoid hypotheticals for the future; I'm going to avoid them for past scenarios as well," she said.

I don't avoid hypotheticals. Of course we would not have been able to do any of those things. Before we could defend our interests we would have to crawl to the UN and ask for their permission. And you know how cooperative the UN is with us. Bush and Perino both know this and do not care. Bush is a globalist, plain and simple.

Read it all, but I want to draw your attention to the last section:

The proposal would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority.

The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."

Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee.

With the UN as corrupt and useless as it is, do we really want to turn our mining and fishing industries over to them?

No matter how it is spun, this would be a major loss of our sovereignty.

Put That Veto Pen Away GW

The Senate Republicans did the job:

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion Iraq war bill because it had a troop pullout plan, defeating Democrats' latest attempt to end the war while continuing the battle over funding it.

The Senate action stopped a Democratic proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday. The measure needed 60 votes to pass under Senate rules; it only got 53 votes, with 45 senators voting against.

The measure would have given President George W. Bush about one-fourth of the $196 billion he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2008, while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

Good now the Democrats in Congress can get back to the important stuff, like giving $1,000,000 to the hippie museum.

My Assessment Of The Republican Candidates

I would like to take this opportunity to give you my assessment of how each of the five top Republican candidates compare(in my mind). Which, I may add, is a scary place.

Not in any specific order. You already know who I support. If not, just look to the left side of your screen.

Rudy Giuliani:

He did a good job with 911. I like the fact that he would be tough on the war. Although not any more so than most of the Republicans. One of Rudy's favorite talking points is the job he did with crime in New York. I can respect that. He added a bunch of cops that really helped slow the crime rates in a city that had an awful reputation for being dangerous. Those are the good.

One thing he did to help with the reduction of NY's crime rate was gun control. This did nothing to slow the crime rate. I can support no person that is for gun control. He tried to smooth this over by saying that NY should have different gun laws than the rest of the country because it is NY. The last time I checked NY is in the USA. That means they are governed by the same Constitution as the rest of us, even us hillbillies. Then there is his liberal views on practically everything else: abortion, gay marriage, etc...

It has come out in the past few weeks that he bent the rules quite a bit while he was prosecuting crime. I am all for putting criminals behind bars, but legally and ethically.

I do not see putting a guy that has almost the same views as the leading Democratic candidates up front in the Republican party.

I don't think Rudy would be able to beat Hillary or Obama. To many defectors would stay at the house next November.

Mitt Romney:

Mitt seems to be a pretty sound conservative. At least on the surface. He has leadership experience and is a successful business man.

I think he has flopped on way too many issues. He has really played up his time as governor of one of the most liberal states in the US, with health care that is real close to the plan Hillary has laid out. I don't know what it is but I just can't bring myself to trust the man.

I think he would give Hillary or Obama a run for their money.

John McCain:

He is one of the most socially conservative candidates in the race. You can't help but like his humor and respect what he has done for this country.

As much as I do like about John I will not be able to forgive him for what he put us through with immigration. He has a quick temper and I don't think that is a good quality for the President of the US. Another thing we have not heard about with John is campaign finance. Sure we have heard that Fred supported it, but John's name is on it.

He could run neck and neck with the Democrats. I think he is a little weaker than Romney against them though.

Mike Huckabee:

A social Conservatives dream. He is a likable guy and presents himself well.

He has some major problems with his positions on big government and taxes. I think a lot of people, including myself are just getting to know him.

I am still a little up in the air as to his chances to win. I will hold off on my opinion right now. More on Mike in the following weeks.

Fred Thompson:

Fred is not the most conservative person in the race. He supported campaign finance at the time. He has since admitted that to be a mistake. But he is the all around best candidate the Republicans have.

I know, I know he is lazy right. BS! You can not accomplish all this man has and be lazy. What does it say about a candidate when after 6 to 8 months of scrutiny by numerous presidential campaigns this is what you here about? Well over half the negative stuff you hear about him is this "he's lazy" crap.

He can beat Hillary and Obama.

House Democrats Are Playing The Same Old Tune

From the Hill:

Staring down the threat of a White House veto and some internal opposition, House Democrats Wednesday night passed legislation linking $50 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a withdrawal date.

The spending bill, which requires Bush to begin bringing troops home from Iraq within 30 days and to complete that withdrawal by Dec. 15, 2008, passed 218-203. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who had said he was undecided earlier in the day, voted present.

Bush vetoes.

Not enough votes to override.

Try again.

I kind of like this myself. They are waisting a lot of time when they could be screwing something else up. A do nothing Congress is not such a bad thing.

Hillary Flip Flops On Driver's Licenses For Illegals

Hillary puts on a display of "flopping and twitching", at least she is good at it:

Yesterday, in an attempt to neutralize one possible threat at the debate, her campaign announced that Mrs. Clinton would not support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants as president. It is the latest formulation of her position, which has shifted since it became a tripping point in the last televised debate on Oct. 30.

Her advisers say they hope the matter will now be off the table, but Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals made clear that they would continue to press the argument they have been making in recent weeks, that she is inconsistent and overly political.

“When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a rival in the race for the nomination.

“Wow, this is dizzying,” added Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, another rival.

Yes, she has taken several different positions on this in the last few weeks. Yes, this is dizzying. It is par for the course though. She says what she thinks people want to hear. The only problem is she still is the most likely candidate to win the democratic nomination.

The good thing about that is the fact that she will hear about this all through the general election too. I know I am going against the grain here, but I think she is a very weak candidate. She should have no problem convincing the left she is the person for the job. The problem for her is convincing the average Joe voter who will not show up in Jan. or Feb. It is getting the vote of the "regular" American population.

Good News, "Arch-Conservative" To Run Against Graham In S.C.

From Politico:

Buddy Witherspoon, a long-time South Carolina committeeman to the Republican National Committee, will be announcing this week that he will challenge Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in the GOP primary, according to a source familiar with his intentions.

Witherspoon, an orthodontist, is known as an arch-conservative on social and cultural issues, and plans to run a campaign centered on fighting illegal immigration.

I would like to see all the RINOs get challenged by true conservatives.

Good luck Buddy.

NRO Editorial: "Policy Fred"

From the Editors of NRO:

Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to.

...

It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead.

Read the rest of the article at the link. You won't be disappointed.

This is something I don't hear supporters of the other candidates (Democrat or Republican) talking about very much. Go to all the candidates websites and all you see are the talking points. Where is the beef?

Maybe this has something to do with the fact that Fred is not one to go jumping through the hoops in front of the camera. He is too busy working. I have posted on this several times, here is an example:

Thompson was committed back of GAO’s High Risk list, anotherblockbuster for serious students of government but relegated to a desultoryaffair, that identified those agencies in government that were performing suppar, wasting taxpayer dollars, and thus needed fixing. These are the kinds ofendeavors that are dull as dishwater but vital as air for those who want aGovernment That Works. Thompson was the guy who knew all these arcane, and while other members were dancing around getting headlines on the issue of the day, Thompson was grinding it out in Committee; I know, I had to attend those hearings and they were full of minutiae.

That was taken from this post by Jeff Nelligan. Read it.

Win, Fred, Win

San Francisco Will Not Be Outdone

You can bet on one thing, if any city in the U.S. decides to do something crazy, San Fran. is going to be right on their heels.

New York is abandoning their plan to give driver's licenses to illegals:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Wednesday he was abandoning a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but said that the federal government had "lost control" of its borders and left states to deal with the consequences.

"I have concluded that New York state cannot successfully address this problem on its own," Spitzer said at a news conference after meeting wtih members of the state's Congressional delegation.

Spitzer said overwhelming public opposition led to his decision.

Now San Fran is going to give ID cards to all residents, legal or not:

(11-13) 15:56 PST San Francisco - -- The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to issue municipal identification cards to city residents - regardless of whether they are in the country legally - and to double the amount of public money available to candidates running for supervisor.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who authored the ID card legislation, said the program is a smart public safety measure because it would make residents living on the social margins of San Francisco more likely to seek the help of police and could give them more access to banking services.

"People are afraid to report crimes," Ammiano said, referring to illegal immigrants who avoid local law enforcement authorities over fear of being arrested or deported by federal immigration officials.

I have heard this "fear of being arrested" thing to much. These illegals can't report a crime, but they can march up and down the street and wave Mexican flags. They can go on TV and complain because this country is so mean to people who break the law.

Democratic Debate Thursday Night, Can Hillary Recover?

The Democrats get another shot tomorrow night in Las Vegas:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (N.Y.) campaign has a chance to reclaim momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination at Thursday night’s debate in Las Vegas.

In the two weeks since the last debate in Philadelphia, where Clinton later admitted she had an off night, her campaign has experienced repeated missteps. This has led many analysts and supporters of her rivals to believe her campaign ship is listing and ripe for capsizing.

While Clinton’s chief rivals are sure to remain on the offensive, Clinton will have the opportunity Thursday to re-establish herself as the candidate to beat, a notion reinforced by most national and state polls despite apparent slips in key places.

“This is a very important debate for Sen. Clinton because you want to see if Philadelphia was just a one-time occurrence and a bad night or if her campaign has been knocked down a bit,” said one Democratic strategist.

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Iowa, where Clinton remains in a tight three-way race with former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), said Clinton needs a strong debate performance to counter the growing media narrative that her campaign is reeling.

Will all those big, bad, scary men attack the poor, defenseless girl again? I'd lay money on it. She has shown weakness and needs to rebound tomorrow. They all know this and will be chomping at the bit to hit her again.

Of course, even with the terrible performance in the last debate, she is still way ahead in the polls. The race is hers to lose.

I think this did more to damage her in the general than in the primary. It proves she is not invincible. She does not have her husband's charm and political prowess. Maybe now is the time to start looking for a more conservative candidate instead of putting a RINO in just because of the perception that only one of the republicans can defeat Hillary. I think at least three, and quite possibly five could get that job done.

Bush Vetoes Another One

This time it was the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill:

President Bush Tuesday vetoed the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill in a move that is likely to escalate the ongoing battle between the White House and Congress over government funding.

“The bill is nearly $10 billion over the president's request, and is filled with 2,000 earmarks,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One.

She added that Bush would urge Congress in a speech later Tuesday to “take out the pork and reduce the overall spending level and return it to him quickly.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was quick to condemn the veto.

Just like I said the other day:

...veto all the unnecessary pork bills, even if you know they will be overridden. Let the American people see how many of these bills are being pushed through. When a bill gets passed right on through the average American never even notices. When they override a veto you can bet it will make all the news sources, especially the MSM (Democratic controlled Congress hands Bush a defeat on his veto...). Even though the veto did not stick, the bill is getting the press it deserves.

It's Official: National Right to Life Committee Endorses Thompson

Fox:

Fred Thompson on Tuesday fielded the endorsement of the largest anti-abortion group in the country, giving the GOP candidate a boost in his quest to appeal to conservative voters.

...

“Our endorsement is a testament to Sen. Thompson's longstanding pro-life record, his commitment to protecting unborn children and our belief in his ability to win,” said Wanda Franz, president of the committee.

Hopefully this will give Fred a boost in the polls. For a great assessment of this endorsement check this post out at Red State.

Win, Fred, Win

Is Mike Huckabee A "Real" Conservative?

To tell you the truth I don't know as much about Huckabee as I should. A few weeks ago I would have told you he did not have a chance. Now he seems to be getting a lot of attention, so I wanted to learn more about him. I am still in the process of that, but here is something I have found that, quite frankly, has me worried.

Hillbilly White Trash has a post (complete with video) up about him too. That post links to this Arkansas Journal post. The biggest problem I can find is this:

May 5, 2003-Governor Mike Huckabee addressed the Arkansas General Assembly, pleading with them to pass a tax, any tax. He ticked off a list of various taxes that he would find acceptable, a tax on tobacco, a surcharge on the income tax, a sales tax... "I will very happily sign that," he proclaimed.

While it is true that we will never get the "perfect candidate", I am having serious reservations about Huckabee. One of the biggest reasons the Republicans lost in '06 was a result of them spending money like Democrats. And raising taxes is not going to get you very far with me.

I will continue to research Huckabee, and let you know what I find.

National Right to Life To Endorse Fred?

That is what's being reported by Fox news:

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has won the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee, the largest U.S. antiabortion group, three sources tell FOX News.

The announcement is scheduled to be made Tuesday in Washington D.C.

The announcement first was reported by The Politico. Click here to read the blog posting on The Politico.

With Mitt getting the Heritage Foundation and Rudy getting Pat Robertson last week Fred needs this. I cannot understand how Fred's stance on the issues could be seen as worse than Mitt or Rudy's. Of course Fox has to put this in:

Thompson's voting record is strongly in favor of abortion opponents, but his response to a 1994 questionnaire that surfaced earlier this year on abortion rights raised some questions over how strongly he stood against abortion.

And of course the fact that he would not support the Human Life Amendment because of his federalist beliefs is being used against him too.

The fact of the matter is, his record shows he voted pro-life 100% of the time while in the Senate. All while Rudy was calling for taxpayer funded abortions and Mitt was all for abortion.

Win, Fred, Win

Hillary Down But Definitely Not Out

NY Daily News:

DES MOINES - Where did Hillary Clinton's mojo go?

That's what her campaign has to be asking after a rough two weeks. And more importantly, they have to be wondering how to recapture that fading aura of an unstoppable juggernaut.

Top Clinton strategist Mark Penn doesn't own up to his candidate suffering a dip, but he admits it's been tougher of late.

"The opponents went negative, and that created a new dynamic and a different set of headlines," Penn said.

The new dynamic emerged at the debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago, but didn't just spring from sharp criticism by her opponents. Clinton stumbled by offering fuzzy answers to some questions and refusing to take a stance on Gov. Spitzer's license plan for illegal immigrants.

Then Camp Clinton's damage control backfired as she was pounded for suggesting the "boys" ganged up on her. And Bill Clinton brought more scorn when he said the attempt to get an answer out of his wife on licenses verged on John Kerry Swift Boat territory.

Now Penn and company plan to stick to the high road, talking about Clinton's strength, experience and vision for America, fund-raising at a torrid rate and deploying Bill Clinton more.

They're also launching counterattacks, calling her opponents mudslingers.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Clinton is just the poor little girl being picked on. I don't think the other candidates are going to like where this is headed. They have attacked her now and the Clinton smear machine will begin working over the next couple of weeks. She can play that game with the best of them.

Get a load of the last couple of lines in this article:

Some Democrats saw damage from the attacks but liked Clinton more.

"I think it is hurting her, although for me, it's made me feel a little better toward her," said Roy McCoy, of Riverside, Iowa. "I don't like bullying."

Roy, you have not seen bullying yet. But I am sure Hillary will show you a fine display very soon.

Veterans Day

Thank you fellow veterans!

Please remember the reason we have the freedoms we treasure. It is because of these men and women that we can live our lives as we see fit.

Fred Unviels His Social Security Fix

Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson waded into the politically potent issue of Social Security on Friday and proposed overhauling the retirement system by creating 401(k)-style personal accounts.

..

Thompson would leave Social Security benefits unchanged for people who
are currently retired or are near retirement. No one now over the age of 57
would be affected.

He would provide voluntary personal retirement "add-on" accounts to supplement benefits and index the program's benefit system to prices instead of the current practice of indexes benefits on wages.

Thompson's plan would give current workers the option of making voluntary contributions into personal retirement accounts similar to a 401(k) plan.

Workers would be able to contribute 2 percent of their monthly wages and the federal government would match that contribution.

Thompson said under his plan, a worker earning $40,000 a year who started contributing to the plan at age 22 and worked until age 67 would accumulate more than $280,000 for retirement.

He said he opposed trying to overhaul Social Security by raising taxes on wealthier Americans, as some Democratic candidates have proposed.

I think this would be a great option for younger people. Of course the Democrats are not going to like it, because they believe the government is smarter than you. You are too dumb to handle YOUR money. I cannot believe that argument is actually standing in the way of this type of plan.

Win, Fred, Win

HUD Residents Cannot Have Jesus Or Any Religious Themes This Christmas

World Net Daily:

Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development officials have announced a ban on any decorations in HUD housing complexes that mention Jesus or represent religion for the Christmas season, and the American Family Association has responded with a petition drive to overturn the decision.

The AFA has set up a link to allow constituents to send e-mails to the HUD secretary or President Bush expressing their objections to the policy.

The issue arose at the Plant City Living Center in Plant City, Fla., where 85-year-old Mrs. Arnold was told that federal law now prohibits her from displaying anything that references religion – words, decorations and the like – in the common area of her apartment building, a HUD facility.

The grandmother told AFA she was instructed that even an angel decoration would be disallowed by the ban, which makes her think of the restrictions in Germany during World War II.

According to the center, HUD has issued a directive banning "any religious symbols or religious words associated with Christmas," which effectively prevents Mrs. Arnold from placing a small Christmas tree outside her door if it contains any religious symbols or words – "even an angel," AFA said in a special alert asking for e-mails.

A spokeswoman at the center who preferred not to give her name told WND the rules now prevent displays "like a manger, like a Christ child, any religious symbols."

"We used to have a sign outside that said, 'Jesus is the reason for the season,' but we can't anymore," she told WND. "We're all very unhappy about that."

Read the rest.

What is going on in this country? This kind of stuff has got to stop. Most of the people that live in HUD housing don't have a choice but to live there. It is their home. So just because these older people have to live in government housing they are forced to give up their first amendment rights? This is just wrong.

I do not want to force anyone to believe in Jesus. I hope and pray they do, but would never force it on them. I just don't think I, or any one else should have to give up our rights to express our beliefs. You can bet the people that complain about religion do not have a problem letting you know how they stand.

Lieberman Is Not Happy With The Democrats

The New York Sun:

The Senate's only "independent Democrat" is lashing out at the party whose vice presidential nominee he once was, accusing its leaders of betraying the tradition of presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.

At a speech before Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut said, "Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush."

Those words were part of a speech that traced Mr. Lieberman's own position on the war in the tradition of not only the great Democratic presidents of the 20th century, but also the interventionism of President Clinton and his vice president, Albert Gore, a man who has played to the net roots base that tried and failed to unseat Mr. Lieberman in 2006.

Mr. Lieberman was particularly critical of his 22 Democratic colleagues in the Senate who voted against the senator's resolution to label Iran's revolutionary guard corps and elite Quds Force a foreign terrorist entity. He accused liberal Web logs of peddling a "conspiracy theory," namely that the legislation was a back door authorization for war. Also, without naming names, he said some of his colleagues who had voted against it said they agreed with its substance, but told the senator, "We don't trust Bush. He'll use this resolution as an excuse for war against Iran."

One thing about Joe, he calls it like he sees it.

Read the rest of the article at the link above.

Texas Fred On Rudy

Texas Fred:

Personally, Guiliani isn’t in MY top 4, I think the guy is a RINO more than any RINO running for the Oval Office, I see Rudy as a very well disguised ultra libber that has somehow pulled the wool over the eyes of some very weak minded or incredibly desperate voters…

Giuliani asks voters to Focus On My Record, Not Kerik, that’s a gambit I don’t know that I would want to push if I was Rudy, for one thing, Kerik IS a part of Rudy’s record, that is an indisputable fact of the matter, and for me, as a CONSERVATIVE, I am totally opposed to Rudy because of his homosexual rights stance, his abortion stance and his gun grabbing agenda, and I personally don’t know how any REAL Republican or Conservative, not to mention CHRISTIAN Conservatives, could support this individual given those opinions on 3 of the biggest hot button topics facing the USA today…

Don't be fooled by Rudy, he is a liberal at heart.

With Hillary conceding that we will be in Iraq for years to come, what is the big difference between the two. Rudy might be a little more effective in Iraq, but the conservative cause would be devastated by his nomination.

Congress Wants Their Pork

Congress has overridden President Bush's veto of the $23 billion water resources bill:

President Bush suffered the first veto override of his seven-year-old presidency Thursday as the Senate enacted a $23 billion water resources bill despite his protest that it was filled with unnecessary projects.

The vote was 79-14 to pass the bill. Enactment was a foregone conclusion, but it still marked a milestone for a president who spent his first six years with a much friendlier Congress controlled by his Republican Party. Now he confronts a more hostile, Democratic- controlled legislature, and Thursday's vote showed that even many Republicans will defy him on spending matters dear to their political careers.

The bill funds hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers projects, such as dams, sewage plants and beach restoration, that are important to local communities and their representatives. It also includes money for the hurricane-hit Gulf Coast and for Florida Everglades restoration efforts.

The House voted 361-54 to override the veto Tuesday. Both votes easily exceeded the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber to negate a presidential veto.

As I have said before, veto all the unnecessary pork bills, even if you know they will be overridden. Let the American people see how many of these bills are being pushed through. When a bill gets passed right on through the average American never even notices. When they override a veto you can bet it will make all the news sources, especially the MSM (Democratic controlled Congress hands Bush a defeat on his veto...). Even though the veto did not stick, the bill is getting the press it deserves.

Video: Celebrate "Coal Week" With Glenn Beck

This is good:

Hat tip: Hot Air

My Blog's Reading Level, Wow

Find out how your blog rates here.

John Coleman, Founder Of The Weather Channel, On Global Warming

From IceCap:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

...

have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

I see a scary trend going on with republicans. A lot of the republicans are starting to go with the myth of man made global warming. It has got so you cannot watch a football game without having to hear them preaching this crap to you.

More and more scientist are speaking out against man made global warming.

Ahmadinejad Announces Iran Has All 3000 Centifuges Working

3000:

BIRJAND, Iran - Iran has achieved a landmark, with 3,000 centrifuges fully working in its controversial uranium enrichment program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Wednesday.

"We have now reached 3,000 machines," Ahmadinejad told thousands of Iranians in Birjand in eastern Iran, in a show of defiance of international demands to halt
the program believed to be masking the country's nuclear arms efforts.

How much longer can we wait folks?

Iran is working feverishly to develop nuclear weapons. We cannot let this happen.

Thompson's Website Leads All Other Candidates

From Newsmax:

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is winning the War of the Web – his campaign site on the Internet is attracting significantly more visitors than any of his GOP or Democratic rivals.

The numbers:

REPUBLICANS

Fred Thompson: 635,000

Mitt Romney: 347,000

Ron Paul: 286,000

John McCain: 136,000

Mike Huckabee: 89,000

Rudy Giuliani: 87,000


DEMOCRATS

Barack Obama: 433,000

John Edwards: 410,000

Hillary Clinton: 302,000

Joe Biden: 94,000

Bill Richardson: 78,000

Chris Dodd: 35,000

Dennis Kucinich: 6,000

I don't know how much this means. I hope it means a lot.

Win, Fred, Win

Motion To Impeach Cheney Heads To Debate

From The Hill:

House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.

After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them.

I can't wait to hear how the Democrats handle this one.

Michelle Malkin has a lot more.

Giving Licenses To Illegals Would Be Very Unpopular

Red State:

A new poll finds voters oppose drivers' licenses for illegal aliens by a nearly five-to-one margin:

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of American adults are opposed to making drivers licenses available to people who are in the country illegally.

This is set to be one of the major issues next November. Americans oppose giving licenses to illegal aliens. 88% of Republicans, 68% of Democrats, and 75% of independents all agree this should not happen.

Fred's Newest Ad

H/T: Ace of Spades

Red And Green Lights Are Too Religious In Colorado

From World Net Daily:

A special task force in a Colorado city has recommended banning red and green lights at the Christmas holiday because they fall among the items that are too religious for the city to sponsor.

"Some symbols, even though the Supreme Court has declared that in many contexts they are secular symbols, often still send a message to some members of the community that they and their traditions are not valued and not wanted. We don't want to send that message," Seth Anthony, a spokesman for the committee, told the Fort Collins, Colo., Coloradoan.

He said the recommended language does not specifically address Christmas trees by name, but the consensus was that they would not fall within acceptable decorations.

What will be allowed are white lights and "secular" symbols not associated "with any particular holiday" such as icicles, unadorned greenery and snowflakes, the task force said.

The group was made up of members of the city's business and religious communities as well as representatives from some community groups. Members met for months to review the existing holiday display policy, which allowed white as well as multi-colored lights and wreaths and garlands.

Read the rest at the link.

I am speechless.

Is It Wrong To Joke Around Now?

This may be the most asinine thing used yet to attack Fred with:

Even Fred Thompson doesn't think he will become president. Chatting off-air
to a television reporter, a stunningly candid off-the-cuff quip from the Hollywood actor cemented the impression that his heart is not in the 2008 race.

Trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so an interview could start, Carl Cameron of Fox News said into his microphone: "The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep." Standing beside him, a deadpan Mr Thompson interjected: "And so do I."

As some Thompson aides looked bemused and others cringed, a taken-aback Mr Cameron, Fox's chief political correspondent, exclaimed: "You can't do that kind of stuff!"

The self-deprecating quip said much about the former Tennessee Senator's candidacy.

Read on if you want to, but come on people.

It was a clearly joke. Of course it will become fodder for all the naysayers.

As far as Fred being lazy, go here.

It is true when Fred was in the Senate he was not seen everyday. Read the link above and you will see, he was busy doing his job.

Hate Crime At George Washington Univ. Was Faked

From Hot Air:

A freshman painted swastikas on her own dorm door.

After evaluating evidence from a hidden camera positioned in response to the swastika postings in Mitchell Hall, University Police have linked the student who filed the complaints to several of the incidents.

Following a final interview with investigators today, the student admitted responsibility for those incidents…

Using footage from a hidden video camera, the University Police Department linked freshman Sarah Marshak with the vandalism. She will now appear
before Student Judicial Services and could face federal and District charges, a spokesperson announced Monday afternoon.

In an interview with The Hatchet Monday afternoon, Marshak, who had been a reporter for this newspaper, categorically denied drawing the swastikas on her residence hall door.

Marshak saw six swastikas on her residence hall door, where she lived alone.

What is this world coming to? Evidently she was just looking for attention. I'd say she'll get more than she bargained for now.

What Did She Say?

I haven't been able to say a whole lot of good things about John Edwards, but this is good:

If You Do Not Know The Candidates, Just Stay Home

From Burt Prelutsky of Townhall:

For as long as I can remember, people have been cajoled, harangued and even bullied, into voting. They’ve been reminded incessantly that their ancestors fought and died so that they would have the right to choose their leaders. It’s been pointed out to them that even today there are hundreds of millions of people to whom universal suffrage is nothing more than a fantasy.

All of which is true, but so what?

The beauty of our system isn’t that we have the right to vote. After all, Russians got to vote for Joseph Stalin and Iraqis got to vote for Saddam Hussein. No, the nice thing is that people who are too dumb or lazy or uninformed to bother casting a ballot aren’t compelled to vote. And no apologies are required. In fact, in my opinion, thanks are in order. Far too many people are voting, as it is.

...

So why on earth would you urge citizens who have done their level best to avoid thinking about the issues or the candidates to suddenly roll off the couch on election day and do their civic duty?

Before the last election, some busybody suggested that, as an incentive to stir up the electorate, there should be a special lottery open to anyone who bothered to vote. I have no problem with the idea of a lottery, but, frankly, I think it should be limited to those people who, by remaining steadfast in the face of relentless peer and media pressure, did the honorable thing…and stayed home!

I wholeheartedly agree. Too many people vote just because. That is all you here for months before elections. Get out and vote. BS! If you don't know where each candidate stands on the issues, stay home.

I have talked with many people who don't know what each party stands for. A few months ago I was talking with a guy that actually said "If the damn republicans would quit raising taxes...". On another occasion, a girl I know told me that "Bush needs to let the democrats build the fence down on our border ...". While it is true that Bush does not want a fence, he is not stopping the democrats.

Don't worry, I asked each of them if they vote. They both told me they did not vote. I could have urged them to vote, or at least pay closer attention. What I did was say "good", and left it at that.

So I have to say this. If you do not somewhat keep up with the presidential race keep your butt at home.

Fred And The Issue Of Abortion

Federalism:

Sen. Fred Thompson appeared on Meet the Press today and, Clintons take note, had to answer some tough questions asked by host Tim Russert. He discussed the crisis in Pakistan, his support for concealed carry laws on university campuses, and other issues. A little over midway through the interview, Russert queried Thompson on the Human Life Amendment and whether he supports it or not. He doesn’t. He favors letting states set abortion law. Around that nugget, though, Thompson touted his 100% pro-life voting record and ends this clip with his opinion on when life begins.

I find it hard to argue with his point on this issue. I am against abortion. I do not want it to be legal. But I also want this country to be guided by the Constitution, which gives the power to determine issues like this to the states.

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) agrees.

Win, Fred, Win

Hillbilly White Trash Has It Right

Thoughts on Clinton and immigration from HWT:

I'll say. At least 40% of why Republicans lost the legislature last year was due to the president's and key Republican Senate leaders' support for amnesty and open borders.

The writer of the WaPo article, who is a partisan Democrat, attempts to whistle past the graveyard by claiming that most Americans really support amnesty but then can't offer a coherent explanation of why that isn't a winning issue for Democrats.

The truth is that the Clinton machine, which is entirely poll driven, knows with absolute certainty that immigration is a losing issue for Democrats. This is why Hillary melted down when asked to answer a simple yes or no question about an issue which is a no-brainer to around three quarters of the American people.

Does anybody out there still think that Hillary is unbeatable? Is there anybody left now who thinks that the only way Republicans can defeat her is by selling our souls and embracing human sacrifice?

Read the rest, you know where.

All Of A Sudden Bush Likes To Veto Stuff

This should have started a long time ago:

An increasingly confrontational President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him.

Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in vetoing legislation that provides $23 billion for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation.

It appears certain Bush will have his veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. The bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's decision and make the measure law.

"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

It will be overridden, but it will also be brought to the public's attention. That is why it is important to do this. Too many bills slide right through without any opposition because they can be overridden. He should veto them all and let it be know that he opposes them.