Friends,
I apologize for my absense from this blog for the past three weeks. I have embarked on a special project that has been quite time consuming.
I want to thank everyone for visiting, and I appreciate your support and emails.
I am proud of the progress that Fred has made since his announcement,
and I am pleased to see his West Virginia campaign coming together so well. I am confident that our state will be in the Fred column come February.
The project I am involved in will invovle Republicans from all sides of the presidential primary, and I will be retiring this blog to focus on those very important efforts which I will soon fill everyone in on. I encourage everyone interested in Fred to visit Fred08.com and Gary Abernathy's (his WV campaign director) website: republicangazette.com
Thanks,
Charles
Monday, October 29, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Monday, October 01, 2007
A Fine Read
J. Peter Mulhern of the American Thinker weighs in on why he thinks Fred will win in 2008.
First he breaks down what will prevent each of the "big three" running against Fred from winning.
According to Mr. Mulhern, Gov. Romney comes across slick.
Even his greatest admirers usually concede that he is too slick and too packaged to seem entirely trustworthy. As the polling data so far indicates, the great majority of Republican voters are going to choose somebody else when they judge him alongside their other choice.
Then he points to Sen. McCain's fatal flaw, his open defiance of the party on so many issues:
McCain has been at war with the Republican Party for a decade. The idea that he could win the GOP's presidential nomination was never more than a fantasy. His presence in the race will soon become an embarrassment, if it isn't one already.
And he discusses why Rudy would be a disaster as nominee:
With Rudy on the ballot millions of "values voters" would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism's promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.
Mulhern rightfully dismisses Rudy's chief argument that he can put New York and California in play by appealing to socially liberal urbanites:
Giuliani's supporters like to complain about the petulance of "single issue" voters who would ignore their man's many sterling qualities and help elect Hillary merely because they have some serious disagreements with the former Mayor. This complaint is a waste of time and energy. A Giulliani nomination would hurt Republican prospects. This is as predictable as the tide and just as impervious to argument. If Giulliani's supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and, as a result, Hillary wins, they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others.
Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it's natural leader. If, at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society's defenders and against the vandals.
Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn't understand that Roe is a travesty, which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons, Republicans can't choose him as their nominee.
Finally, we learn why he thinks Fred is the best candidate to face Hillary.
Political strategists aren't known for consensus, but they all agree that the public loathes passionate and polarized politics. Attacking Hillary with self-righteous zeal like St. George all set to slay the dragon would be a tactical mistake. The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade. Fred is just the man to do that.
A lot of comparisons have been made to Reagan, and they are unfair as no one can be expected to fill those shoes, but Fred does share one trait with the Great Communicator: He can articulate our agenda and come across as "one of us".
The polls say that dissatisfaction with Washington is at astronomical levels, and I argue that we need someone like Fred that is willing to stand with the voters and against Beltway Politics. Mulhern has a similar observation that Fred is the candidate best suited for this Herculean task.
After a long career in Washington as a staffer and Senator, as a lawyer and a lobbyist Fred Thompson is as well connected as any "insider" here. But for his entire career Thompson has stood outside the bipartisan consensus that, when it comes to government activity, more is better. His commitment to governmental modesty is most often expressed as concern for the principle of federalism. That commitment put him on the short end of some very lopsided votes as a Senator.
As Republicans, we are blessed to have strong, serious candidates seeking office, but in a time in which our own party's own elected officials have so often betrayed our prinicples (2006 Congressional Election) We need to elect a President who we know will not give in to the pressures of Beltway Politics - we need to elect Fred.
First he breaks down what will prevent each of the "big three" running against Fred from winning.
According to Mr. Mulhern, Gov. Romney comes across slick.
Even his greatest admirers usually concede that he is too slick and too packaged to seem entirely trustworthy. As the polling data so far indicates, the great majority of Republican voters are going to choose somebody else when they judge him alongside their other choice.
Then he points to Sen. McCain's fatal flaw, his open defiance of the party on so many issues:
McCain has been at war with the Republican Party for a decade. The idea that he could win the GOP's presidential nomination was never more than a fantasy. His presence in the race will soon become an embarrassment, if it isn't one already.
And he discusses why Rudy would be a disaster as nominee:
With Rudy on the ballot millions of "values voters" would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism's promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.
Mulhern rightfully dismisses Rudy's chief argument that he can put New York and California in play by appealing to socially liberal urbanites:
Giuliani's supporters like to complain about the petulance of "single issue" voters who would ignore their man's many sterling qualities and help elect Hillary merely because they have some serious disagreements with the former Mayor. This complaint is a waste of time and energy. A Giulliani nomination would hurt Republican prospects. This is as predictable as the tide and just as impervious to argument. If Giulliani's supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and, as a result, Hillary wins, they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others.
Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it's natural leader. If, at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society's defenders and against the vandals.
Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn't understand that Roe is a travesty, which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons, Republicans can't choose him as their nominee.
Finally, we learn why he thinks Fred is the best candidate to face Hillary.
Political strategists aren't known for consensus, but they all agree that the public loathes passionate and polarized politics. Attacking Hillary with self-righteous zeal like St. George all set to slay the dragon would be a tactical mistake. The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade. Fred is just the man to do that.
A lot of comparisons have been made to Reagan, and they are unfair as no one can be expected to fill those shoes, but Fred does share one trait with the Great Communicator: He can articulate our agenda and come across as "one of us".
The polls say that dissatisfaction with Washington is at astronomical levels, and I argue that we need someone like Fred that is willing to stand with the voters and against Beltway Politics. Mulhern has a similar observation that Fred is the candidate best suited for this Herculean task.
After a long career in Washington as a staffer and Senator, as a lawyer and a lobbyist Fred Thompson is as well connected as any "insider" here. But for his entire career Thompson has stood outside the bipartisan consensus that, when it comes to government activity, more is better. His commitment to governmental modesty is most often expressed as concern for the principle of federalism. That commitment put him on the short end of some very lopsided votes as a Senator.
As Republicans, we are blessed to have strong, serious candidates seeking office, but in a time in which our own party's own elected officials have so often betrayed our prinicples (2006 Congressional Election) We need to elect a President who we know will not give in to the pressures of Beltway Politics - we need to elect Fred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)