Replies

He may have a hard time winning the nomination because many in his own party claim he was a lazy senator because he didn't sponsor much, if any, legislation. To me this is a strong point in his favor. Just think if there were more like him, the hopper would not have been filled with so much garbage the Senate could hardly operate, and we would not have as many dumb laws on the books.

Frankly this is why conservatives should like him!

George W. Bush has been disappointing on some issues (notably spending and immigration) but very good on others, and in any case far superior to the kind of President we would have had if the 'Rats had won in 2000 or 2004. We're looking at a near certainty that Hillary will be the 'Rat nominee in 2008, so we must focus on preventing her from winning the election. Any of the Republican candidates would be better than Hillary, even the RINOs.

I think Fred is a conservative, but he needs to show that he can actually win if he is the nominee. The MSM has settled on a couple of talking points to try to derail his candidacy--"lazy" and "boring." He needs to dispel those impressions before they take hold.

I forced myself to watch part of the Shields & Brooks on PBS tonight. Both particularly emphasized the theme that Fred is boring.

Brooks tends to be full of gloom and doom for the Republicans, whether he believes it or just wants to be liked by his liberal friends at PBS and The New York Times, so I don't put a lot of stock in what he says.