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!