Replies

All republicans, conservatives, Reagan democrats, blue dogs, pro-defense and pro-life democrats need to get behind Fred Thompson.

I would be a better article, if not for the Fred falling asleep nonsense. I remember the left saying that Reagan took naps during cabinet meetings. That was BS too.

Yes, they do, but I fear they won't.

Fred is exactly the candidate people have said they wanted. But when they get him, they have only the silliest reasons for not supporting him--like 20 HOURS he spent on some prochoice representation, as if Ronald Reagan's YEARS of supporting abortion rights as governor don't completely overshadow that.

He is exactly the kind of person we need, not only to run this country but to pull our party back from the increasingly hysterical elements in our midst. He has the qualities truly conservative thinkers desire in a president, plus the temperament and comportment to lead OUR COUNTRY, not just elements within our party.

I don't like to be the spectre at the banquet, but I don't see this party picking Fred because those who could be supporting him are enamored of the slick-talking Huckabee or Romney, or even McCain.

But we get the slate we get, not the one we wish we got. Fred probably did get in too late if only because his lack of flash requires people listen to him for a long time, over time, in order to see that his substance is what we need.

Huckabee's embarrassing playing up to Evangelists, nor Romney's government-mandated health care plan (which isn't so bad in itself, but surely opens the door for what we all fear--some politician is going to talk about helping those who can't afford it, which will lead to saying why shouldn't we ALL get government subsidies for this mandated program, and etc. etc.) are what we need now. But they are attractive candidates, though I can't see what any thinking person sees in Huckabee, though his appeal is obvious to those led by emotion.

If those two were not in the race, I think Giuliani and McCain would appear less attractive to centrist Republicans, who see Huckabee especially as all the cliches about lunatic Republicans and shrink back.

Anyway, thanks again for your postings.

I agree with the conclusion, but not with how he got there.

First, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Romney is the bottom of the barrel for social conservatives. While Rudy does indeed have the support of some social conservatives, I think it's fair to say from what I and most of us here have seen that Romney is doing better among them.

As for fiscal conservatives, I have to say that, on fiscal issues, I actually prefer McCain to Romney. While taxes are important to this fiscal conservative, spending is even more important. While McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, he has an exceptional record on spending, particularly on fighting pork. Contrast this with some of Romney's programs in Massachusetts, and his promises to pump money into Michigan. Regardless of the Laffer curve, advocating tax cuts without spending cuts is fiscally irresponsible. This country desperately needs both, but the need to cut spending is more important. This is especially true given, as Fred Thompson put it, the oncoming "fiscal tsunami" of runaway entitlements spending.