Michelle Malkin » Newsflash: Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King endorses Thompson

Newsflash: Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King endorses Thompson

By Michelle Malkin • December 17, 2007 10:27 AM

Scroll down for updates…full statement added…

Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King announced his endorsement for president this morning. He’s going with Fred Thompson.

As I mentioned, Rep. King has been one of the strongest proponents of strict immigration enforcement. Looks like Mitt Romney’s Meet The Press performance yesterday–go back and read his Clintonian answer on amnesty–didn’t help. Like I said yesterday, the endorsement promises to carry much more weight with grass-roots conservatives than the left-leaning Des Moines Register’s.

Duh headline of the day: Immigration a big issue to NH, Iowa GOP.

***

Hold the line. My insider said it was Thompson. First Read says it’s Romney.

Stand by.

MSNBC is wrong. It’s Thompson, as I reported. Intrigue. MSNBC corrects itself:

*** UPDATE *** King just announced that he’s supporting Thompson. Team Romney is in the back of the room looking bewildered. They were all here, leading all the press to conclude that it was an endorsement for Romney.

Stand by for more.

Well, I have more. Here’s an exclusive excerpt of the text Rep. King read this morning:

The cultural calamity toward which we are headed is the focus of my life. I believe America was founded by Christians and that the broad core of our culture is Christian, founded in Judaeo-Christian values. I do not believe America, or the American Presidency, is closed to other faiths, let alone other Christian faiths. I believe our destiny as a nation is in the hands of God, but as individuals we have free will. Some are so passionate in their beliefs that they believe they have the market cornered on salvation. In fact, if we didn’t believe our faith was the true faith, there would be no reason for competing denominations. God only knows if any of us are right, but each of us justly believe we are.

In the time that I’ve been evaluating the candidates, I’ve dealt with them in every arena. I’ve probed their private thoughts and measured their responses. I’ve gotten to know their families. I’ve watched and sometimes helped shape their policies. I’ve measured their instincts and intelligence

There is only one candidate who epitomizes the full spectrum of our conservative values. There is one who is a comfortable conservative whom I have full confidence in his decisions.

That candidate also has the fire in his belly to go the distance and the brains and resources to get there.

That candidate also meets the test of life and marriage, judges and borders. That candidate has taken solid, persistent, and principled positions consistent with the Republican platform-which we wrote to inform the candidates of the positions of Iowa Republicans.

That candidate has a record of faith, family, freedom, service, and success.

There is no question about that candidate’s position on protecting our sovereignty at the borders, in the workplace and on the streets of America. The Rule of Law will be reestablished in American life. My long and exceptionally deliberative evaluation of the Republican candidates for president has come to an end.

I will put all my efforts into and the fire into the belly of the person whom I believe destiny has called to be the next president of the United States…

***

Here’s the full statement:

Iowans have a profound opportunity and a great responsibility to make the first in the nation recommendation for president to the rest of America. Of 300 million Americans, one in 100 are Iowans. Of Iowans, only about one in 15 will attend either the Democrat or the Republican caucus. Your vote in the Iowa caucus will likely have 1500 times more impact than that of the average American. This is a profound responsibility. It is our duty to determine the most important issues and set criteria for how we make our decisions.

Iowans have a unique and historic opportunity to see and hear, in person, each of the presidential candidates. As a Republican member of the Iowa Congressional Delegation, I have had the opportunity and the privilege to meet individually and privately with them, giving me a unique insight into the candidates.

During the past year and a half, I have come to like and respect all the presidential candidates. Each has demonstrated real leadership and success in their respective careers. All are capable and effective. All are capable of winning the general election. The questions before us are, “Who would make the best leader of the free world? Who would best lead the United States to the next level of our destiny? Which of the candidate’s records demonstrates the vision to lead and is consistent with our platform and values?”

It’s the culture of America that produces our leaders at every level, from precinct captain to city council, from Congress to president. We elect leaders who reflect our values. We determine by our vote the issue priorities of our culture which charts the course of our national destiny. Our challenge is to elect a president who will best position America to pass the American Dream on to future generations. America needs a president who will refurbish the pillars of American Exceptionalism.

Among the most important issues in the presidential campaign are Social Security reform, healthcare, tax reform, Tax reform, 2nd Amendment-gun rights, Global War on Islamic Jihad, abortion, marriage, illegal immigration and the imperative to reestablish our national sovereignty. Our decision on who to support should emerge as we evaluate the priorities of the candidates.

Fundamentally, there are two types of issues. Those issues that improve or protect our quality of life, and issues that redirect our national destiny. Of the quality of life issues, some are not at risk and either will be protected by all candidates or by Congress. Social Security and healthcare are two issues we can be confident will be available to eligible Americans, regardless of who we elect. I have pushed for decades for real tax reform but since our republic functions best under the lash of necessity, the time has probably not yet arrived. In any case, Social Security, healthcare, and tax reform are not likely to redirect our national destiny. Destiny issues should determine the next leader of the free world.

Second Amendment gun rights will get a new Supreme Court decision of likely sweeping proportions within the next several months. The courts may make guns a critical issue but it is more likely they will reinforce our 2nd Amendment rights. If the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution, which I expect, loss of our right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. Our destiny will not be changed, if our gun rights are upheld by the court.

Every Republican candidate, except Ron Paul, will fight Al Qaeda and the Global War on Islamic Jihad. The combination of eternal vigilance and good fortune has kept us safe within our borders. We must stay on the offensive if we are to eventually defeat our enemies. The Republican nominee will fight this war and move us closer to a final victory. The differences between the candidates on the war are ultimately unlikely to dramatically redirect our destiny. The differences between the candidates is in degree, not substance.

Of profound implications to the cultural destiny of America are the issues of marriage and the protection of innocent human life. These battles will play out in Congress, the states, and the courts. Except for partial birth abortion, abortion on demand and the full rights of marriage for same sex couples have been ordered by the courts and, here, are the law of the land. Both are likely to be determined by the next two confirmed presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.

I’ve asked of the presidential candidates, “Would you appoint justices who will interpret the Constitution as it was understood when written, ratified, and amended? Will you fight for their confirmation in a hostile Senate?” Each Republican has answered, “Yes.” The question becomes the question of discernment. President Bush had the right position, made the right statements, and eventually made the right nominations which will be his enduring legacy. But President Bush needed help in reselecting a Supreme Court Justice. The next president will need our help as well. His legacy of Supreme Court appointments will endure for at least a generation beyond his presidency.

We need a president who will uphold the Rule of Law by enforcing current immigration law. We need a president who will reconstitute our national sovereignty by establishing operational control of the border. We need a president who really means it when he says, “I am opposed to amnesty.”

Each of the Republican candidates are on record opposing amnesty. No candidate has defined amnesty except to say what amnesty is not. We understand that defining what amnesty is not, implies an admission that the definer’s plan is amnesty as understood by the American people. The definition of amnesty is granting a pardon to immigration lawbreakers and rewarding them with the objective of their crime. Immigration law breakers must get no advantage for having broken our laws.

The future of the American Dream lies in how we make decisions on life and family. We pour all of our values, from faith to freedom, through the womb of marriage and into the next generation. Essential components of our unique American culture will be shaped by our next president.

The Rule of Law is the central pillar of American Exceptionalism. Our failure to enforce the Rule of Law is the reason we have an illegal immigration crisis. Our southern border alone has 11,000 illegal border crossings a night. We catch and release illegal border crossers as many as 17 times before we adjudicate them. Eighty to ninety percent of all illegal drugs used in America at a cost of some $65 billion comes across our southern border. Internal domestic immigration law enforcement remains statistically nonexistent. Contempt for the Rule of Law is common for border jumpers, major corporations, national organizations and even funded by federal tax dollars. The American civilization, as we know it, will not survive another generation of deteriorating respect for the law. Because of vested interests in illegal labor, the critical mass of Americans is near the tipping point. Congress has no power to force the administration to enforce the law. The president must have the will. If he does not, our immigration policy will continue to be determined by the cumulative effect of millions of “willing travelers” from countries of their choosing. Illegal immigrants are setting our immigration policy every day by voting with their feet. They are in control, not American citizens. Our national sovereignty is at stake. We will not be the United States of America in fifty years if we do not control our borders.

For these reasons, I must have confidence that the next president will make informed originalist appointments to all of the federal courts. I have to believe he will reconstitute our national sovereignty by restoring the Rule of Law.

Tom Tancredo deserves the greatest appreciation and admiration of the American people. Without Tancredo relentlessly pressing the issue first from the floor of Congress and then as a candidate for president, the American people would not have jammed the switchboards and blocked comprehensive amnesty. Tom is running for president to save our country from the impending disaster that I’ve described. The measure of his success is in the platforms of every Republican candidate and even in that of the Democrats. No candidate has had so profound an effect on any public policy of America. Every Republican has taken the no amnesty pledge and adopted a tough on illegal immigration stance. Tom Tancredo has been so successful that much his political capital has been co-opted by his opponents. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

John McCain is a great American who has served his country every day of his adult life. No one in the field can match his patriotism, sacrifice, or experience. McCain remains an active proponent of comprehensive amnesty which puts our national sovereignty at stake.

Rudy Giuliani, America’s Mayor, cleaned up a city and managed a crisis well. His positions on life and marriage do not square with a promise to appoint “strict constructionist” judges. The former mayor of a sanctuary city would be unlikely to put an end to sanctuary cities, let alone bring operational control to the border and shut off the jobs magnet.

Mike Huckabee is unquestioned in his commitment to life and marriage. He, like President Bush, would need help in selecting judicial appointments. No one could dislike the man or disrespect his convictions. But Huckabee has been forceful and even judgmental in voicing his conviction to give scholarships to illegal immigrants. Just one amnesty policy, and there are others, destroys the chance to reestablish the Rule of Law. How can Huckabee answer to the sons and daughters of veterans or veterans themselves who come back from the war to find that illegals have desks in classrooms at a discount prohibited to them? Compassionate conservatism run amok is hard to harness, as we have seen. The Rule of Law cannot be reestablished without “tough love”. Our destiny pivots on amnesty.

Fred Thompson is a solid conservative with a pro-life voting record and a logical Constitutional strategy to protect marriage. Of the candidates, he has the best understanding of the principles of federalism. He has adopted good policy and put together a solid platform. I have confidence that he would defend the border and the Constitution with appointments to the courts. Thompson, like Bush, would need help with appointments. He needs to really want to be president. Although he might bring the wisdom of Solomon to the White House, he needs the fire in the belly to get there.

America cannot afford the cultural calamity toward which we are headed if we decide poorly on these major issues. Each past president, and the national debate on the way to his election, has redirected our national destiny. The decisions made in the oval office move the chess pieces of world history. Our decision in the coming weeks will determine the America our children will leave to our grandchildren. They will have to build upon the foundation we leave them because a nation cannot be stripped to its original foundation and rebuilt without revolution.

The cultural calamity toward which we are headed is the focus of my life. I believe America was founded by Christians and that the broad core of our culture is Christian, founded in Judaeo-Christian values. I do not believe America, or the American Presidency, is closed to other faiths, let alone other Christian faiths. I believe our destiny as a nation is in the hands of God, but as individuals we have free will. Some are so passionate in their beliefs that they believe they have the market cornered on salvation. In fact, if we didn’t believe our faith was the true faith, there would be no reason for competing denominations. God only knows if any of us are right, but each of us justly believe we are.

In the time that I’ve been evaluating the candidates, I’ve dealt with them in every arena. I’ve probed their private thoughts and measured their responses. I’ve gotten to know their families. I’ve watched and sometimes helped shape their policies. I’ve measured their instincts and intelligence

There is only one candidate who epitomizes the full spectrum of our conservative values. There is one who is a comfortable conservative whom I have full confidence in his decisions.

That candidate also has to have the fire in his belly to go the distance and the brains and resources to get there.

That candidate also meets the test of life and marriage, judges and borders. That candidate has taken solid, persistent, and principled positions consistent with the Republican platform-which we wrote to inform the candidates of the positions of Iowa Republicans.

That candidate has a record of faith, family, freedom, service, and success.

There is no question about that candidate’s position on protecting our sovereignty at the borders, in the workplace and on the streets of America. The Rule of Law will be reestablished in American life. My long and exceptionally deliberative evaluation of the Republican candidates for president has come to an end.

I will put all my efforts into and the fire into the belly of the person whom I believe destiny has called to be the next president of the United States, Fred Thompson.

***

Related: The Lieberman-McCain endorsement is getting all the national MSM attention. Allah’s got vid. McCain spoke with the Glenn and Helen podcast. Listen here.

Posted in: Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney

Printer Friendly

comments (119)

trackbacks (40)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#197797

On December 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pm, BOB said:

Fred was a good choice, I even like his laid-back demeanor. With Hillary screeching and cackling and Fred calm and laid back, I think the contrast would help Fred a bunch.
#197798

On December 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pm, Barry F. said:

I’ve never really put much stock in someone else’s endorsement of a candidate for any office.

I realize Steve King says he researched candidates and spoke with many of them personally, which I something I would never be able to do, but I prefer to do my own research.

The problem is, I wish I could mold a few of the Republican candidates into one that I agreed with on everything. But, obviously, that will never happen and I will have to pick the lesser of several evils. And, there is no use in me looking at the Democrats’ slate of candidates. They are too far off to the left for me to even bother with evaluating.

I thought, early on, that I would be supporting Fred Thompson. But, that whole Spencer “Open Borders” Abraham thing sent me spinning back in the “Testing the Waters” period.

Is it too much to ask just to have one good candidate for at least one election with whom I can feel comfortable and get behind? Just once? It’s been decades, since I have seen one I feel I could really get behind.
#197807

On December 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pm, taylork said:

But, that whole Spencer “Open Borders” Abraham thing sent me spinning back in the “Testing the Waters” period.

Agreed, but from what I understand, Abraham is in charge of fundraising, not policy making. I suppose it depends where he would land if Thompson became POTUS that makes me a little nervous.
However, Thompson has a staff member, while Huck, Rudy, Mitt, and McCain were all actively open borders.
#197808

On December 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pm, Barry F. said:

That Iowa Pubbie Rep pretty much stuck a fork in Pon Raul, didn’t he, with that comment about Pon not defending the country against the terrorist threat?

The scary part, Bear, is that a local news-talk host did a “caucus”, as he put it this morning, asking listeners to call in and state who they were for and why. And, much to my amazement, Ron Paul was winning, hands down, over any other candidate, Democrat or Republican!

The callers kept talking about how they liked his “fundamentalist approach”. I’ve never really seen Ron Paul as a “fundamentalist” myself. But, obviously, there are some that do and even mentioned him being like Fred Thompson in that regard.

I heard this morning that Ron Paul raked in a huge sum of campaign contributions, when I was watching Fox & Friends, while getting ready for work. Where are all these Paul supporters coming from?
#197815

On December 17th, 2007 at 4:05 pm, Barry F. said:

However, Thompson has a staff member, while Huck, Rudy, Mitt, and McCain were all actively open borders.

That was sort of how I had looked at it, when the Spencer Abraham story first started breaking back in July. But, there was a lot that started to unfold from that. Pay special attention to conservativegrunt’s post in the comments section. I had not known about that and was quite taken aback.
#197826

On December 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm, taylork said:

#91 You’re right, that doesn’t look too good. Although he did get an A+ on border control.

As far as Ron Paul is concerned, if the phone caucus is at all like the internet polls Ron Paul followers crash, I wouldn’t put any stake in it.
#197833

On December 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

Put that on a button in a spiral configuration and you can hypnotize Dimocraps into being a true conservative.

A man can dream!
#197846

On December 17th, 2007 at 4:42 pm, coldfront said:

taylork #33 HUH?

“they believe that the Jesus and the devil are brothers, right?”

OMG….how Jungian…omg…..how secular……omg… how inept!!!!!!!!!!!!

C Jung’s spew replete w/ W.Blake painting called ‘Answer to Job’ where “He believes that he has set forth inescapable conclusions that must be reached if one were to..” bla bla bla bla….that basically G*d & the devil are one! (YIKES!! & holyhorsesht Batman) & that G*d was coming to consciousness through Job…ie…Job was way ahead of G*d.
The beginning of secular-humanism as an accepted ‘artform’…(strong snark factor) & one of the main contributers to the mess the human race is in right now.
#197848

On December 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pm, Dasher said:

I sure am glad he endorsed Fred… the only conservative in the running.
#197853

On December 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm, Patchthebun said:

Go Fred! I’ve always liked him.

Hey Michelle– will you be at CPAC 2008? I’d love to get an autograph and a picture of you with my daughter to put in her baby book!
#197867

On December 17th, 2007 at 5:12 pm, taylork said:

#94, did you catch the huck reference? still not sure…
#197868

On December 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm, nbarry said:

Fire in his belly? Up until now, Fred has been mailing it in. Until proven otherwise, I will have to go with “None of the Above” for both parties.
#197936

On December 17th, 2007 at 7:32 pm, bear1909 said:

The scary part, Bear, is that a local news-talk host did a “caucus”, as he put it this morning, asking listeners to call in and state who they were for and why. And, much to my amazement, Ron Paul was winning, hands down, over any other candidate, Democrat or Republican!

Yes. And the same Pon Raulies are lining up to jam call-in lines to keep this numbskull’s name on the wire. I don’t think Americans can quite visualize Pon Raul on the world stage.
#197938

On December 17th, 2007 at 7:37 pm, ajmontana said:

numbskull, love that term, fits him perf. looney tune theme plays on a loop in his head.
#197939

On December 17th, 2007 at 7:39 pm, CC said:

Now if he would only DO something.
#197940

On December 17th, 2007 at 7:39 pm, bear1909 said:

I heard this morning that Ron Paul raked in a huge sum of campaign contributions, when I was watching Fox & Friends, while getting ready for work. Where are all these Paul supporters coming from?

Lots of small donations coming in to dilute the presence of major candidates.
Huckabee’s surge— where did that come from?

My theory: it’s the opposing party diverting attention from the majors through the media; so they are attracting money. Plus, Pon Raul has probably figured out how to do what Howard Dean did.

If they have trouble beating a Pon Raul, the public perception is that they are weak as compared to Osmarma and the PIAPS.

We are also 11 months out from the main event— so the little guys are bound to be making their move. But do their ponies have the gonadal fortitude to run the distance, or are they angling for a prize in the Republican Party?

Raul and HuckaChiliBeeny are too unelectable to be garnering this much attention on their own.

The more the mainstream public sees them as the face of the party (unlike when Reagan was the face in his bid for the Presidency), the more likely the belief stays in place that the pubbies are the party of Mormons, Huckabee bigots, or Raul tin-foil beanies.

Grim.
#197945

On December 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm, Surak said:

Eh, #51 (bear)? Warren Buffet as Secretary of the Treasury? The man who thinks taxes are too low? No sir. Other than that, your scenario is pretty good.

Has anyone noticed the fun if Thompson named Hunter as VP: “Vote for Thompson-Hunter”! As opposed to Hunter-Thompson…

I’m not thrilled about the Spencer Abraham connection, nor Thompson’s support for McCain-Feingold. But it seems like the best shot for consistent conservatives with a realistic hope of popular support.

If I say “Go Fred”, is Fred willing to say “Go Fred”?
#197948

On December 17th, 2007 at 7:58 pm, Surak said:

Excuse me, #102? I have no problem with the Republicans being the party of Mormons. Why would that bother you? Not that Romney’s candidacy makes it so, anymore than Kennedy’s candidacy in 1960 made the Dems the party of Catholics. As a Jew, I’ve been voting for people of other religions most of my life. Really, it’s not a problem.
#197957

On December 17th, 2007 at 8:15 pm, gollumclone said:

wow- Huckabee is da man. O’Reilly’s unscientific poll gives Huckabee as choice of 44% of respondents? Of course the Paulbots were not allowed to vote nor was Thompson on the ballot. I think Romney was 32 and Guliani 19. Imagine two libs from Arkansas possibly fighting it out for Prez?
#197961

On December 17th, 2007 at 8:23 pm, bear1909 said:

Eh, #51 (bear)? Warren Buffet as Secretary of the Treasury? The man who thinks taxes are too low? No sir. Other than that, your scenario is pretty good.

Doesn’t mean he makes tax policy. So as long as his mitts stay off the legislative steering wheel he can be put to better use.

He has a way of investing in “disaster” and turning it around to profitability.

The Country could use that kind of thinking when it comes to money, banking, and investment regulation.
#197962

On December 17th, 2007 at 8:23 pm, Rick Moran said:

Raul and HuckaChiliBeeny are too unelectable to be garnering this much attention on their own.

Oh, c’mon Bear. Are you really saying that their rise is some kind of plot by the Dems and media?

Huckabee has tapped into the Christian right – about 30% of the party – who will vote for the guy right on their issues regardless of what crap he stands for as far as immigration, fiscal policy, or foreign policy.

Paul has few Republican supporters – his poll numbers are horrible everywhere. Paul is attracting libertarians and disgruntled Democrats who are rabidly anti-war and blame America first. But most Paul supporters will not vote in Republican primaries. Paul has a lot of money and no possible way to spend it so that he gets the nomination.

Leave the conspiracy theories behind. THese guys got where they are in the Republican race (Paul is nowhere) the old fashioned way – by exciting and appealing to their supporters.
#197965

On December 17th, 2007 at 8:31 pm, ajmontana said:

and now we take you to Monday Night Football…. yippy! a bad monday turned out OK! Go Fred!! I like it!
#197967

On December 17th, 2007 at 8:37 pm, ajmontana said:

by exciting and appealing to their supporters.

some people just get excited to easily….
#197986

On December 17th, 2007 at 9:16 pm, Dandapani said:

Perhaps this is the exact jump-start Fred and his campaign needs.
#197995

On December 17th, 2007 at 9:39 pm, puhiawa said:

Immigration? Newsweak, Time, and The Economist have assured me for weeks that only the mentally ill worry about it.
#197997

On December 17th, 2007 at 9:47 pm, Ombre Rose said:

I will NOT vote for Fred Thompson, and the choosing of Judges is the PRIMARY reason!

Any FORMER PROSECUTOR who decides that PERJURY is NOT an IMPEACHABLE offense – then tries to sell it to the CONSERVATIVES that our Founding Fathers didn’t think it rises to the level of impeachment, either – even when it is totally self-serving, and displayed before the entrie planet, with foreign leaders looking in to see how well our Justice system works even when it is in an office for which we routinely condemn their leadership for “covering up” and extending “The Royal Privilege” to their dictators for such similar abuse of power.

I will not vote for Fred.

He is the same to me as any crony of Bill Clinton’s or Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy. AND NO BETTER.

Those guys could accomplish NOTHING without their cronies – and to me, Fred is a crony of those types. (McCain Feingold! is said to be more of Fred’s hard work than the two whose names REMAIN on it, today.)

No. I won’t vote for Fred.
#198009

On December 17th, 2007 at 10:07 pm, Random-American said:

I WILL vote for Fred.

He is the candidate that holds the values closest to my own on the topics most important to me, concerning:
National Security
Federal Budget and Spending
Tax Reform
Health Care
Government Effectiveness
The Second Amendment
Education
and, importantly…
Border Security and Immigration Reform

I WILL vote for Fred.

He is a plainspoken common sense conservative.

Yes. I will vote for Fred.
#198018

On December 17th, 2007 at 10:20 pm, Ombre Rose said:

(Did you guys miss the news a few weeks ago where they caught someone in the UKRAINE doing the Paulie spambots???
I have no reason to think Paulie is “doing so good”, without a lot of stage-dressing!)

(Fred usually always supported any Leftist issue that McCain was promoting – remember, he was McCain’s 2 000 Presidential Campaign Manager – and he was the driving force on McCain Feingold – his name was originally on that bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102042.html
***********
Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn
by Ann Coulter
***********
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S0JVGO0&show_article=1&catnum=3
Thompson Defends Gay Marriage Stance
Oct 1 02:41 PM US/Eastern
By MIKE GLOVER
Associated Press Writer
************ http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JamesBoppJr/2007/09/21/%e2%80%9cplain-speaking%e2%80%9d_about_mccain-feingold-thompson
“Plain-Speaking” About McCain-Feingold-Thompson
By James Bopp, Jr.
Friday, September 21, 2007
**********
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/09/13/is_fred_necessary
Is Fred necessary?
By George Will
Thursday, September 13, 2007
**************
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200709/COM20070913b.html
The Thompson Campaign
By Paul M. Weyrich
CNSNews.com Commentary
September 13, 2007
******************

Fred has previously always agreed with McCain on the Liberal issues that McCain adopted – but he didn’t really say he didn’t like this last Spring’s Shamnesty – HE STAYED SILENT during that whole fiasco, while “he was weighing his options” and didn’t come out with any support for CLOSED borders until it was plain that failure to do so would DOOM the campaign of any such idiotic candidate.
I also noticed he didn’t come out for President until he THOUGHT McCain’s ship was SUNK!
And when McCain surges, Fred steps back into the shadows! I mean to say something other than that as other candidates being overshadowed when one of them shines!)

Can we vote for Bear???
THAT would work for me!
#198019

On December 17th, 2007 at 10:23 pm, Prime Director said:

Fred’s got my vote. I like the cut of his jib.

He may not have as extensive a record of public service as some of the other candidates, but he hasn’t made the same kind of policy mistakes those others have made, either.

Plus, he’s a recognizable face from film and television; he played an honorable role in taking down Nixon for Watergate and refused to get too invested in taking down Bubba for the bj lie, both of which I believe will play well with the as-yet undecided middle; he played a crucial role in sheparding W’s nominees for the Supreme Court through the vetting process; and he’s a white southern male, which is bound to get him some votes when the dems plan to run either Hillary or Obama.

Yeah, the only thing he needs now is fire in the belly.
#198020

On December 17th, 2007 at 10:25 pm, Ombre Rose said:

Aw, Bear! WARREN BUFFET???
THE MAN WHO AGREES WITH HILLARY ABOUT INCOME REDISTRIBUTION???????? SHEEESH!

MY fair share of HIS fortune isn’t in a check in the mail YET!

I’m sorry to do this Bear, but I gotta take my vote for you BACK!

The guy I vote for CANNOT PUT CLINTON CRONIES in the WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION!
#198037

On December 17th, 2007 at 11:15 pm, SHoward said:

Hmmmm. Warren Buffet is a two-edged weapon. On the one hand, he IS an excellent manager of resources, and he does know the difference between BS and real value. He’d be good at cleaning up wastefull spending.

On the other hand, he does in fact believe certain segments of the society are taxed too little. He says this while taking full advantage of the law that allows him to claim only $100K in income per year, which greatly reduces his tax burden. All the while he is worth billions, just not in realized income.

Don’t think he “gamed” the system, this is a legitimate way many people legally reduce their tax burden. Buffet just maybe doesn’t understand that most of the rest of us do not enjoy enough insulation from the effect of taxes like he does, and we would be hit hard by his ivory tower thinking.

Just some thoughts on that….
#198450

On December 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm, shimauma2 said:

Smart move on his part. I can now exhale

Well SAID!! and Hoody HOOT!! I’ve got the T-shirt AND the bumper sticker from MONTHS ago. Go Fred, GO!
#198660

On December 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm, Surak said:

Thanks for the info on Fred’s position on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Peculiar position. What’s wrong with going all the way and banning it? If you follow WND’s coverage of the new California law on teaching relationships in the schools, that agenda is really sick.

But consider two things. Which of the leading candidates would be stronger on this issue? None I can think of. Also, the amendment process doesn’t formally involve the President, except as a cheerleader. It must be passed by a 2/3 vote of both houses, and 3/4 of the states. Man, how likely is that?

I have proposed another solution elsewhere: amend the Constitution to say: “Congress shall have the power, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, to nullify any decision of any Federal court.” Amend the state constitutions similarly. This is the fundamental problem we face – judicial supremacy. I think my amendment is the perfect way to eliminate that problem.