December 24-26, 2007
Dec 24 05:21 Attrition Through Enforcement Dec 24 14:08 The Straight Talk Express It Ain't Dec 25 23:06 Reconciliation, Iraqi Style Dec 26 05:56 ROMNEY SINKING: The Union Leader's 'Unendorsement' Dec 26 07:25 Hillary's Experience? Dec 26 08:35 Major Step Taken Toward Iraqi Reconciliation Dec 26 10:58 Prayer Request Dec 26 16:36 Thompson Blogburst Set For the 27th
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
Attrition Through Enforcement
After Arizona passed some laws with tough employer restrictions in them, it appears that those laws are working . Here's what the AP wrote about the new laws:
Illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.While Mr. Herrera thinks that the employer-sanctions law is absurd, I'd bet that most Americans think it's a great solution to the immigration crisis. As far as I'm concerned, they're just what the doctor ordered. Barbara Banaian recently wrote a column in the St. Cloud Times that sums things up perfectly, saying:
For months, immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state's new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect January 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.
And by all appearances, it's starting to work.
"People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors -- they're moving back to Mexico," said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. "They don't want to live in fear, in terror."
Martin Herrera, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant and masonry worker who lives in Camp Verde, 70 miles north of Phoenix, said he is planning to return to Mexico as soon as he ties up loose ends after living here for four years.
"I don't want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment," he said. "I'll be better in my country."
He called the employer-sanctions law "absurd."
"Everybody here, legally or illegally, we are part of a motor that makes this country run," Herrera said. "Once we leave, the motor is going to start to slow down."
A country that cannot define who its citizens are ceases to be a country.Unfortunately, the Bush administration seemed disinterested in defining and identifying its citizens. Mr. Herrera is sadly mistaken when he says that "the motor is going to start to slow" once illegal immigrants leave. We'll just make up for things by bringing in people on work visas instead of hiring illegal immigrants. It'll be a tiny adjustment.
This proves the folly of the Grand Bargain. All that was was amnesty because its key provision was in giving lawbreakers a path to citizenship. This also proves that taking a hardline approach to illegal immigration was the right path.
Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke keep talking about how taking this hardline position with illegal immigration will hurt the GOP longterm. They repeatedly said that there has to be a pathway to citizenship because that's the only way to deal with all of the illegal immigrants already here. This AP article refutes both opinions, especially since a Democratic governor signed these employer sanctions into law. Dry up the jobs and the social net benefits and you give illegal immigrants no reason to come here or stay here.
Here's something that I'd love hearing King's opinion on:
When immigrants don't have jobs, they don't stick around, said Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University who specializes in illegal immigration. She said the flagging economy, particularly in the construction industry, also is contributing to an immigrant exodus.As more states sign laws that fine employers for hiring illegal immigrants, more illegal immigrants will return home. One fear I do have is that some of the more liberal states won't enact tougher laws. Here in Minnesota, we have an ultra-liberal legislature. The chances of passing something carrying substantial fines will be almost nothing. I suspect that states like New York and Vermont won't enact tougher laws, either.
"As the jobs dwindle and the environment becomes more unpleasant in more ways than one, you then decide what to do, and perhaps leaving looks like a good idea," she said.
"And certainly that creates a problem, because as people leave, they take the jobs they created with them."
Pearce disagreed that the Arizona economy will suffer after illegal immigrants leave, saying there will be less crime, lower taxes, less congestion, smaller classroom sizes and shorter lines in emergency rooms.
"We have a free market. It'll adjust," he said. "Americans will be much better off."
At that point, the only hope for this spreading nationwide will be for Congress to pass legislation. That type of bill has little chance of passing the House because Ms. Pelosi won't want to upset the Hispanic Caucus. Even if it got a committee hearing and made it to the Senate, which isn't likely, Ted Kennedy and others would thwart it with a filibuster.
Nonetheless, I still want Republicans to force the issue. I want Democrats to have to defend their actions on the campaign trail all fall long.
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 5:24 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Dec-07 10:37 AM
I'm not the least concerned that some states will enact and enforce the law on employers. That's what federalism is about. I am far more concerned that if such laws are passed at the national level, there will be nowhere for illegal immigrants to go EXCEPT to go home, and I have a compassionate concern that this will be very bad for them personally. To the degree that some came here to escape grinding poverty and have "nothing" to sustain them if they returned, I am concerned that they might be forced to turn to crime as the only means to survive.
I think having states individually pass such laws might be the best way of sorting this through. Those illegals who believe they must stay will move to the more liberal states, reducing the overall problem and making it more obvious in concentrated places.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Dec-07 12:21 PM
A federal response is totally appropriate since national security is the federal government's job. I'd have no trouble with them passing such a law.
Furthermore, I'm perfectly willing to engage the Mexican government in ridding their country of the corruption that's oppressing their people.
In fact, I started talking about that a year+ ago.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 24-Dec-07 04:26 PM
I believe that federal law basically provides for what the states are now enforcing. The federal government already provides the employee verification system which the states are relying on to define who is here legally and who is not.
I'm all in favor of the notion of enforcing the law, and letting the illegals sort themselves out, assuming that 1) the fence gets built first and 2) that said enforcement proceed in a practical fashion, taking many years but starting with the employers most obviously violating the law. I think the advantage of state-by-state "crackdowns" is that it allows those with "nothing to go back to" to go to the more liberal states. It alleviates the "humanitarian crisis" that a massive (and impractical) federal crackdown would create, and it puts additional pressure on the liberal states to come along, as well as for the federal government to fully solve the problem.
Yes, we should "engage" the Mexican government, but it's really their problem to solve, and what they need after an end to corruption is a huge dose of real capitalism, to provide the opportunities there that now are only available here. That, too, is going to take a long time, with a lot of human tragedy along the way.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 24-Dec-07 05:02 PM
Yes, we should "engage" the Mexican government, but it's really their problem to solve, and what they need after an end to corruption is a huge dose of real capitalism, to provide the opportunities there that now are only available here. That, too, is going to take a long time, with a lot of human tragedy along the way.
JE, You're right that it'll take a long time to install (relatively) corruption-free capitalism. That's why it's important to get started ASAP.
While it's the Mexican government's responsibility to eliminate corruption, we can play a role in that because it affects us, too. It wouldn't be disimilar to our sending the DEA to Columbia to eliminate the major drug cartels.
The Straight Talk Express It Ain't
I wrote here that Mitt Romney had a 'figure of speech' problem. Based on this article , it's apparent that Gov. Romney's got bigger troubles than just figures of speech:
Two women contacted the Mitt Romney campaign this week, offering their memories of seeing Romney's father march with Martin Luther King Jr., in Grosse Point Michigan in 1963. Campaign officials were well aware that the women were mistaken. Yet, they directed those women to tell their stories to a Politico reporter. The motives and memories of the two women are unknown and irrelevant; the motives of the campaign, however, were obvious: to spread information they knew to be untrue, for the good of the candidate.Each presidential campaign vets their candidate. They don't just do opposition research on their opponents because they know mud will be slung back at them. They want to be prepared.
By getting this story out late on Friday afternoon, heading into the holiday weekend, good luck getting a King historian on the phone before Wednesday, the campaign was pretty well assured that it could keep alive through Christmas their claim that Mitt Romney was mistaken only about "seeing" it, not about it taking place.
Then-governor George Romney did indeed march in Grosse Pointe, on Saturday, June 29, 1963, but Martin Luther King Jr. was not there; he was in New Brunswick, New Jersey, addressing the closing session of the annual New Jersey AFL-CIO labor institute at Rutgers University.
Those facts are indisputable, and quite frankly, the campaign must have known the women's story would eventually be debunked; few people's every daily movement has been as closely tracked and documented as King's. As I write this, I am looking at an article from page E8 of the June 30, 1963 Chicago Tribune, which discusses both events (among other civil-rights actions of the previous day), clearly placing the two men hundreds of miles apart.
I also have here the June 30, 1963 San Antonio News, which carries a photo and article about Romney at the Grosse Pointe march; and an AP story about King's speech in New Jersey.
A King researcher editing his letters from that time has stated definitively that the two men never marched together; Michigan and Grosse Pointe historians have stated definitively that King was not at the 1963 Grosse Pointe march; Michigan civil-rights participants of the time have concurred; so have those who worked for George Romney at the time.
All of this evidence is important to present to the general public, but it is unnecessary for the Romney campaign; it has been clear for some time that they know perfectly well that the two men never marched together.
Bear in mind that the Romney team has a substantial research team (and vast resources for outsourcing more). Bear in mind that the campaign has compiled vast documentation about the candidate's father, particularly his civil-rights activities, long before the Phoenix posed the question earlier this week. Bear in mind that the campaign has direct access to George Romney's materials and documents, his family members, his friends, his former staff, etc.
Believe me, they know the two men never marched together. This is an attempt to rewrite history. And even if it is a small rewriting, it is offensive.
In this instance, it's inconceivable that Mitt Romney didn't know that George Romney didn't march with MLK in Grosse Pointe. Look at how little time it took to rebut Romney's story. There's something bigger at play here, though. Romney's embellishments, whether it's about his father marching with MLK or his stating that he's been clear on being pro life since 2004 are an indicator that he isn't comfortable in his own skin.
One thing that's bothered me about Gov. Romney is that I couldn't figure out why he couldn't stick to a position very long. I'm not certain but I think it's possible that he simply doesn't a core set of governing principles. King and I talk about whether a politician has an underlying philosophy. Romney doesn't have a detectable underlying philosophy.
I further suspect that Gov. Romney isn't a big picture guy. I suspect that he's more of a fixer, which is what he was with the 2002 Olympics. I suspect that he's pretty good at that. That isn't what we need right now. We need a visionary who sees things beyond the next task.
Fred Thompson has shown himself to be such a man. Quite awhile back, Fred criticized our planning on terrorists by saying "We have a plan through the next election. Terrorists have a 100 year plan." Later, he said that he's got a plan to topple Iran's mullahs without firing a shot. That's the type of man we need in the White House in January, 2009.
That's the only way we'll have straight talk in the White House.
Posted Monday, December 24, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment 1 by BT at 26-Dec-07 03:16 PM
Well... you could elect John McCain. Then you might really have some straight talk in the White House. ;)
See this article for more info suggesting what straight talk actually looks like:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/12/26/no_ordinary_candidate/
Vote for McCain '08
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Dec-07 04:44 PM
I'd prefer Fred Thompson's straight talk because I agree with his brand of conservatism & libertarianism. You can't accuse Sen. Thompson of not giving you a straightforward answer like you can about Romney & Huckabee.
Reconciliation, Iraqi Style
American politicians have been complaining that the Maliki government hasn't done enough with regards to national reconciliation. This article shows why these politicians, mostly Democrats, need to realize that Iraqis do reconciliation differently than Americans do reconciliation:
Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, leader of the ancient Chaldean Catholic Church and Iraq's first cardinal, celebrated Mass before about 2,000 people in the Mar Eliya Church the eastern New Baghdad neighborhood of the capital.While I realize that this isn't the formal legislation that Washington politicians are looking for, it's impossible to argue that this isn't a significant step towards national reconciliation. Better yet, this is verifiable proof that Iraqis are adhering to their Constitution :
"Iraq is a bouquet of flowers of different colors, each color represents a religion or ethnicity but all of them have the same scent," the 80-year-old Delly told the congregation.
Muslim clerics, both Sunni and Shiite, also attended the service in a sign of unity.
"May Iraq be safe every year, and may our Christian brothers be safe every year," Shiite cleric Hadi al-Jazail told AP Television News outside the church. "We came to celebrate with them and to reassure them."
Article 2:Because people are obeying the Iraqi Constitution, reconciliation is happening. A formal bill recognizing reconciliation as a national goal would be a welcome step forward but the absence of such a bill doesn't mean that reconciliation isn't happening.
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.
Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans .
"We didn't celebrate like this in the past two years as we were holding limited celebrations for relatives in an atmosphere filled with fear," said Jalal, a cook in one of Baghdad's social clubs. "Now we feel better as we see all these security forces in the streets to protect us."The Anbar Awakening: It isn't just for Anbar anymore.
Here's what the International Herald Tribune said about Christmas in Iraq:
"We did not celebrate last year, but this year we have security and we feel better," said Rasha Ghaban, one of many women at the small Church of the Holy Family in Karradah, a mainly Shiite district in downtown Baghdad where many Christians live. "We hope our future will be better, God willing."These aren't the types of things that Democratic politicians tout unless they're forced to but it's another sign that reconciliation is happening. At this point, it's irrelevant whether politicians admit that reconciliation is happening because the average news consumer is noticing.
Families streamed into the church's courtyard, wrapped in heavy winter jackets to protect them from the early morning chill. Young children with neatly combed hair held their parents' hand, and women stopped by the front door to pick through a basket of small lacy headscarves, placing them over their hair before walking in.
The pews were almost full, women toward the back and on the right side of the church, the men on the left, and still more people streamed in. Outside, police armed with automatic rifles manned a checkpoint at the corner of the narrow street, searching every passing car for possible bombs.
Christians have often been the target of attacks by Islamic extremists in Iraq, forcing tens of thousands to flee. Many of those who stayed were isolated in neighborhoods protected by barricades and checkpoints. Less than 3 percent of Iraq's 26 million people are Christians, the majority of which are Chaldean-Assyrians and Armenians, with small numbers of Roman Catholics.
The reality is that news consumers don't rely on the so-called newsmakers for their information. The politicians that don't pay attention to the news will be swept aside. Similarly, politicians that pay attention will be rewarded. That means that politicians that admit that reconciliation is underway will be rewarded next November. I'd pity the politician that thinks they don't have to change with the times. They'll have a rough go of it next November.
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2007 11:08 PM
No comments.
ROMNEY SINKING: The Union Leader's 'Unendorsement'
Hugh can write all he wants about how Mitt Romney is rising . All his spin won't undo the damage that the Union Leader's unendorsement of his boy Mitt will do. Here's what Hugh's boy Mitt can't undo:
I've chronicled Romney's flip-flopping in several posts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out that Mitt Romney's never met a position he wasn't willing to jetison if the situation demanded it.Like a lot of people in New Hampshire, we wanted to believe Romney. We gave him the benefit of the doubt. We listened very carefully to his expertly rehearsed sales pitch. But in the end he didn't close the deal for us. Now, two weeks before the primary, the same is happening with voters.
Republicans and right-leaning independents in New Hampshire gave Romney a chance. His events have not been sparsely attended. Nor have they been scarce. He's made more campaign stops here this year than any other Republican, even John McCain.
And after a year of comparing Romney to McCain, of sizing up the two in person and in the media, Granite Staters are turning back to McCain. The former Navy pilot, once written off by the national media establishment, is now in a statistical dead heat with Romney here.
How could that be? Romney has all the advantages: money, organization, geographic proximity, statesman-like hair, etc.
But he lacks something John McCain has in spades: conviction.
Granite Staters want a candidate who will look them in the eye and tell them the truth. John McCain has done that day in and day out, never wavering, never faltering, never pandering.
Mitt Romney has not. He has spoken his lines well, but the people can sense that the words are memorized, not heartfelt.
He now champions the Bush tax cuts, something I agree with. Unfortunately for Mitt, he hasn't always liked them:
In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush's tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike.He's been even shiftier on life issues. Here's the collection of Romney quotes from ARTLA's ad:
Once upon a time there was a man named Mitt who said a very bad thing:After that, he made this feeble attempt to diminish the damage of the ad:
Romney: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country"
Then he thought of campaigning in Utah and said something different. "I am NOT pro-choice!"
But when he came back to liberal Massachusetts:
Romney: "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
Then in 2004 he magically became pro-life, but only six months later:
Romney: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to law related to abortion and choice."
The spell must have worn off.
Now he's on the campaign trail again, and he's back to being pro-life.
Romney: "I was pro-choice; I'm pro-life." , "I changed my position" , "I never said I was pro-choice."
"My record in being pro-life is very clear as the governor of Massachusetts, and my guess is that there is some group that is pulling for another candidate and is trying to find someway to go after me, and that is just the nature of politics," he said.This paragraph sums up what I've said in previous posts:
Last week Romney was reduced to debating what the meaning of "saw" is. It was only the latest in a string of demonstrably false claims, he'd been a hunter "pretty much" all his life, he'd had the NRA's endorsement, he marched with Martin Luther King Jr. himself, that call into question the veracity of his justifications for switching sides on immigration, abortion, taxes and his affection for Ronald Reagan.I've said before that I defy anyone to tell me about a major policy position that Gov. Romney hasn't changed. I'm still waiting for someone to respond to that challenge. I'm not holding my breath on someone answering that challenge.
Not even Hugh Hewitt is foolish enough to take that, or any other challenge .
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 6:03 AM
No comments.
Hillary's Experience?
This International Herald Tribune article calls into serious question Hillary's experience. It didn't take long for the IHT to raise questions about her experience:
But during those two terms in the White House, Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on.That's gotta put a major dent in her image of being a battle-tested co-president. One of the first questions that's likely to be asked is what this means in terms of Hillary's supposed foreign policy experience. With the US at war, voters will want to know, first and foremost, that she's a steady hand in times of trouble.
That paragraph tells the world that she didn't have much to do with US foreign policy during Bill's administration. There doesn't appear to be proof that she played a role in setting policy or making decisions.
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her "eight years with a front-row seat on history."It's typical Clintonista spin to say that she was a "full partner" to Bill. It's also easily refutable. Hillary's best strategy for winning the nomination and the general election was to give her the air of inevitability. Once that was demolished in the Russert Debate, her next logical adjustment was to say that she was battle-tested and more experienced than Obama. As more of this type of reporting is done, the mose damage that's done to that strategy.
Now that Hillary's Plan A and Plan B have failed, it'll be interesting to see what her Plan C will be. I suspect that it'll be to talk about the policies she'd ;ut in place if elected. At that point, she becomes just another candidate, albeit with significantly higher name recognition.
She doesn't have an impressive list of legislative accomplishments to distinguish herself by, either. What that means is that, when everything is stripped away from Hillary's facade, you notice that there's no there there.
Hillary has the money to stay in the race as long as she wants. It's just that it won't make much of a difference now that she's been exposed as a pretender to the throne.
The good news for Republicans is that it's apparent that neither Obama or Clinton has the type of gravitas that's required to be commander-in-chief. That'll make the GOP nominee's job a little easier, whether that nominee is Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:34 AM
No comments.
Major Step Taken Toward Iraqi Reconciliation
According to this AFP article , a major first step towards national Iraqi reconciliation was taken Wednesday. Couple this news with the show of solidarity Sunni and Shia clerics sent in attending Christmas mass and it's safe to assume that national reconciliation. Here's what AFP is reporting:
The Iraqi cabinet on Wednesday approved a draft law that offers a general pardon to thousands of detainees held in US and Iraqi prisons in a bid to boost national reconciliation, an official told AFP.Obviously, there's need to shepherd this legislation through the Iraqi Parliament but it's a welcome first formal step in the march towards national reconciliation. Here's what Reuters is reporting on the reconciliation process :
"The draft law offering amnesty to detainees who are innocent was approved by the cabinet and forwarded to parliament today," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Thousands of detainees, mostly Sunni Arabs, are being held in US and Iraqi prisons without formal charges. Most have been detained for more than a year on suspicion of backing insurgency in Iraq.
"The cabinet has passed the general pardon law, which will define who is eligible to be freed from all prisons, both Iraqi and American," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters.If this bill passes, it'll be a major accomplishment for the Maliki government. It'll also be a major victory for the Bush administration. It'll essentially eliminate Iraq as a weapon Democrats can use on Republicans.
The law still needs to be approved by parliament.
Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said earlier this month that the draft law was aimed at boosting reconciliation between majority Shi'ite and Sunni Arab Muslims, locked in a cycle of violence.
Captain Ed is all over this , too, saying:
The National Assembly will probably take this up quickly, but will chew on it for a while to fine-tune the thresholds for release. Everyone knows that the current detention levels are unsustainable, and the question will be who gets released, and when. It will prove another significant step towards reconciliation, something that will cheer Americans .... if they get to read about it.Whether they rely on the so-called MSM or if they're getting their news from the internet, the American people will hear about this. It's simply a matter of when, not if, they'll hear about it. When reconciliation passes the Iraqi Parliament, rest assured that Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck and Hugh Hewitt will be all over it. When they jump on that accomplishment, it'll be all over except the shouting.
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:36 AM
No comments.
Prayer Request
My good friend Leo Pusateri's dad has taken ill so Leo's at his dad's bedside now. Leo is one of the classiest people in the MOB & I consider Leo to be one of my closest friends. Leo is asking for everyone's prayer support . I'm confident that Leo's many friends in the MOB will stop past the Ice Palace & offer him lots of words of encouragement. I'm certain that Leo would appreciate that.
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:02 PM
No comments.
Thompson Blogburst Set For the 27th
Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse is organizing a blogburst to help Fred Thompson raise money for a TV ad. As an unabashed Fred supporter, I proudly gave this afternoon.
I'm encouraging my readers to do the same because Fred Thompson is the gold standard of conservatism. Fred's federalist views haven't wavered since he read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative."
Still need more reasons to support Fred? Fred a 100% pro life voting record in the US Senate. He's the man who successfully shepherded John Roberts through the confirmation process, though I'll go out on a limb and predict he might've eaked it out anyway.
If you want more reasons to support Fred, you're in luck because I've got a thousand more reasons. While chairing the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Fred co-authored a list of over 1,000 programs that either wasted taxpayers' money, overlapped each other or both. Fred wants to finish the job as president.
Fred's also put together a plan to reform entitlements, something that the other candidates didn't bother doing.
Still need more reasons to support Fred? Ok. Get ready for a lengthy post. Fred wants to shut down the border. His way of dealing with illegal immigration is to say that "America needs tall fences and wide gates." I wholeheartedly agree. That's exactly what we need.
Still need more reasons to support Fred? How about his unwavering support for President Bush's tax cuts? Unlike some candidates who shall remain nameless, Fred entusiastically supported them, not like someone who voted against them (McCain) or who wouldn't publicly endorse them (Romney).
As he proved during the Des Moines Register debate, Fred Thompson is the leader who wouldn't play the Schoolmarm's silly handraising game. He essentially said that if a question was worth asking, then it was appropriate to let people give a real answer, not play the pander game. (After all, they called that event a debate.)
If you want the GOP to nominate a man who will give us someone to get excited about, then it's imperative that we get behind Fred Thompson with our blogs and with our wallets.
If we want someone that connects with mainstreet Americans, then it's imperative to support Fred Thompson through this blogburst and with our checkbooks.
Finally, there's one simple question that must be asked: What kind of America do you want to see four years, eight years from now? The America I want to be living in is best created by having someone with Fred Thompson's gravitas and common sense in the White House.
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:37 PM
No comments.
