Fred! news…

Another campaign shake-up for Fred Thompson:

Thompson’s campaign finance chairman Thomas D. Bell Jr., has relinquished his role as the campaign’s chief money man. The Atlanta-based commercial real estate executive “has his own business commitments that he needs to be 100 percent committed to,” according to Thompson campaign spokeswoman Karen Hanretty.

“He is going to remain active with the campaign but, we


  1. rugby_fan says:

    Anyone who supports Fred after this exchange, well, I will have lost a tremendous amount of respect for.

    Edward Paul, an employee of the Delta Dental Plans Association, asked the question Monday, but had trouble being understood.

    “I’m proud to say that in January 2008 New Hampshire has passed a law facilitating civil unions here. … What is your belief for federal civil unions to be passed?” Paul asked.

    “Soviet Union?” Thompson responded.

    “No, civil unions,” Paul said.

    “Oh. No, I would not be in support of that,” Thompson said.

  2. Harry says:

    Fred’s the only viable candidate talking about restoring federalism and budget reduction, and for that he has my vote.

  3. Harry says:

    I also think the Democrats are very afraid of Fred, because they realize he may be the only one who can put together a Hillary-beating coalition.

  4. Mark Rountree says:

    Still with Fred T. Seems he simply didn’t hear a question correctly. That doesn’t disqualify him from anything.

    Fred’s still the right guy for the GOP in a general election… here’s why.

    At least as it stands now, it will be very difficult to hold the traditional GOP coalition together if Rudy G. is the nominee: he will be outflanked on the right by a third-party candidate, or worse from a strategic point of view, a series of them. He’s got political problems on immigration, abortion, the right to bear arms, and the fair tax. Those are the big four in a Republican primary, other than the war on terror.

    But I admit I just don’t get the strategy that Fred’s campaign team is using. His niche was those of us who want a red meat candidate — and has the real record to back it up. He could have been that.

    Neither Romney nor Rudy G really has that. It’s not an attack on them to say this — it’s just the record.

    Still for Fred. But the best part of his campaign so far happened before he got in the race — the draft Fred effort.

    Romney has run the best campaign by far, given what he’s had to work with. Kudos to them. That team acts like they want to win.

  5. rugby_fan says:

    Fred is about as much of a lightweight as they come.

    If anyone fears Fred Thompson it is at their own peril.

    All he is, is a representation of what conservatism should be, and has nothing to back up what he supposedly represents.

    I don’t know if there is any candidate who has generated high levels of buzz before entering and then lose all of it once he faces an iota of criticism.

    But you know what, if he is the savior of the GOP, excellent. The entire party will be no more and I say good riddance.

    No one will shed a tear if the Republican Party were to disappear.

  6. Harry says:

    He explained that one to my satisfaction. He’s a lawyer, a paid gun. Lawyers represent all sorts of criminals and scum. Hillary represented Whitewater. Edwards represented con artists.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    What is a “federal civil union?” Do we even have “federal marriages” now?

    The question was very poorly worded, and I wouldn’t blame Fred for not being able to give a coherent answer to an incoherent question.

  8. Still Looking says:

    Fred is a lightweight. Huckabee is going to wax him in Iowa and carry that momentum into New Hampshire. Fred better have a big firewall in Soth Carolina or he is toast. I’m betting he’ll make a few more blunders along the way.

  9. Harry says:

    Huckabee’s pro-illegal immigration views together with his over-the-top spending record in Arkansas will cause him problems in building a Hillary-beating coalition.

  10. Chris says:

    Huckabee is right on two things:

    * Many in the anti-illegal immigration movement are driven by racism
    * The comprehensive tax reform is important to keep the US competitive in a global market.

    Pretty much everything else he is wrong on.

    Given a choice between Clinton and Huckabee, I’ll take Clinton. Another 4 years of the kind of fiscal incompetence we’ve seen from Bush will ruin this party for a generation or more.

  11. Chris says:

    Huckabee increased the average tax burden of the citizens of Arkansas by 47%.

    Rangel and Edwards aren’t even proposing tax hikes like that.

    The Republican Party doesn’t need another big-government liberal in the White House, no matter how much he panders to the religious nut-cases.

  12. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Raising the state sales tax
    Raising taxes on groceries
    Supported taxing Internet purchases
    Recently advocated wage caps (during the MSNBC debate)

    Huckabee in 08! Where do I send my money?

  13. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Oh, I forgot–Arkansas state spending went up more than twice the rate of inflation while Huck was in the mansion.

  14. Chris says:


    Only twice the rate of inflation? Well maybe he will be better than the liberal we elected to the White House.

  15. Holly says:

    You know, I like Mike Huckabee when I hear him talking. That’s something I don’t feel with most of the other candidates. He doesn’t talk down to the audience, and he’s very calm and reassuring.

    Now, that said, I won’t vote for Mike Huckbee because of his fiscal record. But I do want to point out that he’s got a great demeanor, which is why he’s been able to do so much with so little.

    Fred comes across as tired. Ron Paul sounds crazy at random intervals. Romney reminds me of a car salesman. McCain can fly off the handle. Guiliani comes across as a jerk at times. And we wonder why people are attracted to the calm, nice guy?

    I understand that there are personality differences in all the candidates, but the others need to find some charisma or take some likability pills or something.

  16. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Rountree says, “Still for Fred. But the best part of his campaign so far happened before he got in the race

  17. Jason Pye says:

    Oh…sorry, I forgot to link the Tax Hike Mike web page when I referred to Huckabee.

    My apologies.

    IAJP and Farris are absolutely correct in pointing out the issues with Huckabee’s abhorrent fiscal record…and so is Erick with these two posts at Red State.

  18. Still Looking says:

    The early primary voters are not hearing about Huckabee’s fiscal record. They are seeing a calm, consistent, conservative with religious credentials. Thompson has no spark. Romney and Rudy are unacceptable to the base. They’ll go with Huckabee. Only Romney and Huckabee have polling numbers that trend upward in Iowa. He’s gonna take a “surprise” second-place bounce from Iowa and a follow-up strong showing in New Hampshire and parlay it into a win in SC.

  19. debbie0040 says:

    Here is a Wall Street Journal piece that blasted Huckabee. I was really suprised at the article….

    I refuse to vote for someone because he is a Christian. Ronald Reagan was a Christian but he was not a regular attendee of church and he did not wear his religion on his sleeve.

    Jimmy Carter is a devout Christian and Southern Baptist but he would never get my vote under any circumstances.

  20. jsm says:

    A few facts on Huckabee and his record:

    -Governor Huckabee raised taxes numerous times as Governor of Arkansas:

    * Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
    * He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
    * He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
    * He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
    * He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
    * He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
    * In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

    From the Cato Institute’s 2006 Fiscal Report Card:
    “Mike Huckabee of Arkansas also went from being one of the best governors in America to one of the worst. He receives an F for his current term and a D for his entire tenure. The main reason for the drop was his insistence on raising taxes at almost every turn throughout his final term.”

    John Hawkins of Right Wing News writes:
    “However, when I interviewed Mike Huckabee back in April of 2006, he was a supporter of comprehensive immigration whose positions seemed to be, by and large, indistinguishable from those of George Bush.”

    Huckabee is NO conservative, and I can’t imagine any knowledgable, small government, fiscal restraint Republican voting for him.

  21. Holly says:

    Jason, that was my point. The others have to present themselves better or Mike Huckabee will be the surprise – mark my words.

  22. debbie0040 says:

    Holly is right. Huckabee is a likeable and dynamic speaker. He is a social conservative and some may overlook his non fiscal conservative credentials.

    I supported Fred from the beginning and still do. I think that Fred will put out great ads and he is slowly but surely getting in his groove as far as campaigning.

    I heard Huckabee speak and he was my second choice until I started checking out whether or not he was a fiscal conservative and found out he was not.

    Rudy is my second choice now.

  23. IndyInjun says:

    Fred has NO chance whatsoever of being the GOP nominee.

    Ron Paul may even beat the lamentable Thompson.

    He will almost certainly be around longer.

    As for Huckabee, there is nothing I can add to the foregoing. There were several opinion pieces in addition to the WSJ article by John Fund.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at his shameless and false representations about his record, seeing that he was once a Baptist preacher.

    If Ron Paul is not the nominee, it is a race to see who will be cannon fodder for the Indies, Fiscal Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists who are dead-set against giving our former hosts, the GOP, any stay of execution.

  24. jsm says:

    We had better hope that someone who believes in lower taxes ends up in the White House. Hillary will raise taxes in a heartbeat–she basically said as much at the last debate. She and Rangel will quickly choke this economy down in an effort to pay for their communist proposals.

    Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance at the GOP nomination, and Huckabee is clearly a dangerous candidate. I’m supporting Fred, and I know he’ll fight the democratic tax-hungry machine. I hope that Giuliani or Romney would do the same.

    The GOP had better start figuring out how to win with a fiscal conservative in 2008.

  25. jsm says:

    That’s only one tenant, rugby. From the following taken directly out of the Communist Manifesto, how many of the ten items listed exist in America today, and how many do national democrats, including Hillary, support?

    “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

    “These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

    “Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
    8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children

  26. rugby_fan says:

    To be honest (and you can take of your partisan glasses if you would like) the Democrats support zero of those.

    Oh wait, they like general policies that are similar to those so they must be communist right?

Comments are closed.