1

At this point it seems like a good call. I think it's safe to say Giuliani's going to take it at this point. I'll also call Huckabee as VP. Maybe I'll be surprised by another candidate, but somehow I doubt it.

2

i can sympathize. i really like Thompson's ideas, and from what little i know he seems to have a good track record. mix his convictions with Guilliani's upbeat positivity, I think you'd have a someone who can compete with Clinton: Bill even!

i'm not dropping the ball on Thompson yet, but then again, i'm not very emotionally invested in him to begin with.

3

The Summit might have been a good time to meet the Left's investigators.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/23/125616/80/Front_Page/Checking_the_Scorecard_IRS_may_be_Cracking_Down_on_Religious_Right_Voter_Guides_

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

4

Joe - It is good to see an example of political humility. I think many others are thinking the same thing - but pride is keeping them with Fred. You jumped on the campaign early (an admirable step in it's boldness). But you are willing to readjust and be public about it.
Here's hoping you put your considerable talents towards a Huckabee nomination. We need thoughtful blog leadership covering Hucakabee. Chris

5

Perhaps you could give Ron Paul some serious consideration?-He is consistently pro-life.

6

JohnW,

Haven't seen you around for awhile. How 'bout those Iraqi casualty figures? Only 20 combat deaths so far this month. Pretty amazing. The bandwagon is going to get awful crowded in a few months, better jump on. You won't be able to have the same satisfaction I have for sticking it out even though things looked rough, but at least you can be on the right side of history.

7

Oclarki,

Glad you feel good about our military intervention a/k/a occupation now that the surge is "working". Glad "your side" has been proven right.

I still don't think hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have needlessly lost family members and the 3 million who have been displaced from their homes are considering us liberators now. Do you?

Since we are doing so well in Iraq now, perhaps we should expand our efforts to Iran?

8

Can't say as I blame you, Joe. I was pushing for Thompson early in the year, but so far I've been unimpressed with his "campaign" performance (but... Giuliani? - ugh!). There's still time for things to change, though.

9

You may have to switch again Joe. Have you seen Quin Hillyer's article on Huckabee in The American Spectator online today?

10

JohnW,

Man, I haven't had this feeling since 1989, when I got to celebrate Ronald Reagan's defeat of the Soviet Union! Now that both Sunni and Shia have come to the horror that Al Queda has wrought on their nation we are regarded as the liberators. Why do you think the Sunni tribes in Al Anbar have thrown their lot in with the American soldiers? Because we have stopped the killings, and begun to reconstruct Iraq. Now the Shia are beginning to feel the same way.

It must feel awful to always be on the wrong side of history, but doubly so when it's the result of betting against America.

11

John,

Quin's article is a poorly researched hit piece. It's being discussed here on red state:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mhgoldwing1/2007/oct/24/huckabee_supporters_listen_up

12

Oclarki,

FYI, I love America and I submit you are deluded as to what is going on over in Iraq. Our actions in Iraq have been successful-but not for the reasons you indicate.

Despite the tragic loss of human life and misery our military action has caused, in many ways the effort has been quite successful. By staying over there we can control the bountiful Iraq oil reserves allowing us to break the control of OPEC. This has several beneficial effects for our country. First, gasoline prices will remain stable for the foreseable future and by controlling the oil will be able to check the growing power of China (they'll need more and more oil in the future).

Long live the american empire and may gas price remain forever stable! Those Islamo-fascist countries deserve to suffer anyway. God Bless America!

13

I too am somewhat aggravated by
Fred's slow train, but am not ready
to give up just yet, his poll No.'s
are climbing, and he is appearing
a little more awake in debate. It is
my hope that he will be in full steam
in the next few months. Huckabee is
my next choice also, and I am gratified
to see his No.'s on the rise also.
I would love to see a Thompson/Huchabee ticket,
but a Huckabee/Thompson would be welcome also.

14

After watching Thompson in the debate and going through all the immigration proposals, he's convinced me that he has it in him. A speech at the Washington Summit does nothing to change my opinion. I saw the speech, and it was bad, but here's the thing you have to realize Joe, Huckabee is, right now, what Thompson was in June, unvetted. Now that he's actually getting a little consideration, he will be put under the same microscope as Thompson, Romney, and Rudy. I'm familiar enough with his record and administration to know that he likely will have as difficult time as Ron Paul getting the nod. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Huckabee has a lot to answer to if he wants to win the nomination.

By the way, Quin Hillyer is a very respected journalist.

15

Joe, I think you're confusing refusal to play the "every year the campaign begins earlier" game for lack of energy. Thompson is not allowing date-hopping states, horse-racing news bookies, or even impatient activists like you, to dictate the pace of his campaign. I applaud him for that.

I do wish that he'd show more evidence of "offing" some of his poll rivals, but . . . I'm willing to wait. He may be losing on strategic calls right now, but . . . voters are most influenced shortly before the polls. I think he's got a little while longer to put on the blitz.

I like his candidacy, think he has good odds in the general election, therefore am willing to make the primaries themselves the decider. . . . which is as it should be, no?

Peace,
PGE

16

Easy now, Joe. First you declare support for a candidate at a time when, in a more civilized political era, the primary season wouldn't even have begun, for a candidate who officially announced his candidacy only weeks ago.

Now, you're disavowing that support as a lost cause because of a few (media-spun) comments he made and because he's not running around being Mr. People-Pleaser. Even Reagan made a B- speech once in a while and found time for a midday nap.

And your current BFF Huckabee, up until a week ago, was considered an irrelevant also-ran. His policies or enthusiasm for the job haven't been flesh out yet either.

Why don't you sleep on this decision for a while? Or at least wait until your webmaster gets around to taking down the Blogs for Fred sidebar ad?

17

I have been observing Fred Thompson's campaign and his supporters for awhile now.

I haven't been able to figure why his fans have been so wildly supportive of him.

From what I observe, and from what I know about human nature, including mine, it seems like he just doesn't want this thing -- the nomination or the presidency.

I don't know why he's doing it. Something is motivating him, but it doesn't appear to be enough.

The other candidates seem to really want the opportunity to be the President of the United States.

But the bottom line is ... Fred Thompson's heart just doesn't seem to be into it.

Plus, he doesn't have the experience for the job. Resume is important.

Anyway, Americans like to elect governors. He was a Senator and that was sometime ago. He didn't even like the job.

I don't understand why evangelical conservatives didn't rally behind Duncan Hunter a long time ago.

He's a Baptist, has military background, is really strong on illegal immigration, etc., etc., etc.

I always had this suspicion that people got Fred Thompson mixed up with his tv/movie characters (i.e. Arthur Branch). He seems to be a character actor and plays the tall, strong, no-nonsense, authoritative leader very well, from what I've heard. I've never seen him in anything, so I remain completely objective about him.

Now we're seeing the real Fred.

The sooner that he leaves the race, the better it will be for the GOP. His campaign seems to be a distraction.

The job of POTUS is one of the hardest jobs in the world. It requires 24/7 eternal vigilance and tons of energy.

If a guy can't even manage his own candidacy, how can we expect him to do a good job in the top Executive Position in the country/world?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071024/ap_po/thompson_ap_interview

Just my thoughts.

18

The problem with Thompson, Joe, is that he didn't come into this thing with a burning desire to be president. That and the fact that conservatives of all stripes didn't see one of their own whose name didn't elicit the response - Who? Christians need to remember that all a president can do for their moral issues is nominate judges who don't legislate from the bench.

19

Mike O - FDT's supporters talk about his lack of burning desire to be president as if it's the hallmark of integrity.

The times we live in now require someone who DOES have a burning desire for the job.

I want to know that my President is alert, awake, on top of things, and ready to go!

Fred just doesn't have it.

If he doesn't want this job, then he should go home to Virginia and enjoy his beautiful, young wife and kids.

If he wants to help America there are a lot more appropriate places for him to do it, without putting the national security of our country in danger.

I read the book by Buzz Patterson, "Dereliction of Duty," and the way Bill Clinton behaved reminds me of the way Fred is behaving write now.

He's just not "present" for the duties at hand.

In fact, he just doesn't seem to give a hoot about much of anything.

If that doesn't scare you and make you nervous, then something is wrong with you. Sorry.

20

I've given up on my hopes for Thompson also -- and had transferred interest to Huckabee -- but BE SURE to read Hillyer's revealing insights on Huckabee (American Spectator). You may be rethinking his candidacy as well...

21

Joe, I'm happy to see that you've changed your mind. I too was excited when Thompson entered the race (finally). I was actually waiting to be swept off my feet by him, but it just never happened. Not once did he inspire or excite me. On the other hand, I have become more and more impressed by Huckabee. The more I hear him and see him the more I like him. I have lent my meager talents to supporting him but am excited by the prospects of having your greater talents behind him.

22

Pamela ...but BE SURE to read Hillyer's revealing insights on Huckabee (American Spectator). You may be rethinking his candidacy as well...

Hillyer is a great writer but he failed to do his research on this one. Most of the stuff he talks about was debunked long ago. I plan to do a post to show where Hillyer is in error.

23

But Huckabee will not ever be the Republican nominee. Anybody who has been in politics long enough knows that there is a certain something people who become President have and Huckabee does not have it.

Also, after 7 years of failed "Compassionate Conservatism" we are surely not in the mood for "Nanny State Conservatism."

Huckabee means well and seems like a nice enough man but he will not be President and boosting him now also boosts Giuliani. The better Huckabee does the better Giuliani does and then we get a Rudy/Huck ticket.

Huckabee loves to work with Democrats so working with Rudy is not that far a stretch.
This is a dissaster in the making.

Your choices are Giuliani and Romney, like it or not. They are the only two with the organzation and the money to play this late in the game.

The nominee will be decided in less than 100 days and Huck simply does not have the spring board needed to jump over the 100 million dollars between him and the nomination.

It is time to get pragmatic.

24

I love how the main complaints about FDT is that he looks/acts tired and he isn't charasmatic enough. Personally, I prefer substance over style...and that is what you get with Fred. His campaign is just now getting rolling...he introduced his immigration policy today and is supposed to introduce a social security proposal in the near future. He is the ONLY candidate that actually answers the questions in the debate and doesnt try to sidestep them or change the subject. And frankly, he is the first politician in a long time that I have seen actually take resposibility and admit when he/she was wrong. Why don't you look up his time with ABC radio and review his policy positions....this guy is conservative through and through. And on top of it, a lot of his proposals are realistic(such as on gay marriage...a constitutional amendment that would make state legislatures not judges pass laws allowing gay marriage and it would allow states to not recognize gay marriages from other states). If you are looking for someone that is all style...why don't you just support obama. And those who are turning away from thompson and embracing huckabee...why??? It makes no sense to go from a federalism supporting conservative candidate to a big government, soft on illegal immigration, nanny state candidate (huckabee actually wanted to outlaw smoking...thank you but I think I can make that decision on my own). Maybe you don't actually research the issues???

25

Joe,
Huckabee is for open borders. If you do your research you will see that. Most of the contenders have some shaky records on immigration, but Huckabee's is by far the worst. He supports the DREAM Act. A lot of these guys (Romney) can talk a good game, but that's it. It's all talk. Huckabee is a fine man, but good grief... he's a Bush conservative.

He's flipped completely on immigration, and backed Bush's immigration plan until it became political suicide

Huckabee also questioned what he called the “irrational anger” of some anti-immigration advocates, saying “What some people want is unrealistic, unreasonable and undoable.” He also praised President Bush’s immigration proposal, saying that “This is an issue that’s not going to satisfy everyone no matter what he proposes.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005765.html

Some people have cited the Club for Growth as having a vendetta against Huckabee. I'd understand if it was just the CfG, but it's not.

CATO- Lifetime Grade: D
He’s already been hailed as a viable big-government conservative candidate by some. That seems about right:
Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa581.pdf

*Signed a sales tax hike in 1996 (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
*Supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Reuters, 02/23/04).
*Publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 09/11/02).
Signed a gas tax in 1999 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 06/29/99)
*Signed cigarette tax hike in 2003 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07)
*Signed a bed tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Associated Press 06/29/01).
*Proposed a sales take hike in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
*Opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
*Allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law in 2004 (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

I understand some of your frustration with the candidates, and I also believe Huckabee is a good man, but he is not conservative. He is another Bush. We can't survive as a party nominating someone whose record as governor is so closely matched to our current chief executive.

26

Congratulations, Joe, for having the gumption and courage to change positions and drop your support for Fred. I never understood why you supported him, or why anyone still supports him. He has achieved nothing significant and doesn't have the passion for any cause that I can detect.

Having met Mike Huckabee three times and lived under his governorship, I have some idea of how he rolls. First off, he rolls alot less now than he used to. His biggest passion, as far as I can tell, is convincing people to lose weight.

He is very well-liked by most Arkansans, whereas Hillary evokes extremes of love or hate. I've never met anyone who absolutely loved Huck nor anyone who loathed him. I would think his supporters might be concerned that Hillary has raised more money in his home state than he has.

He pushed through highway improvements, restrictions on smoking, more funding for education, and an outstanding children's health insurance program (ARKids) with the S-CHIP funds. Some of these things required tax increases. Because of the state constitution, increasing the sales tax is about the only way to increase revenue. Sadly, that is a highly regressive tax. Fortunately, Huckabee's Democratic successor (Mike Beebe) is in the process of removing the sales taxes on food and medicine.

Happily, he did not push for the socially conservative restrictions that many of us feared, considering that he is a pastor. He did push through the covenant marriage thing, but I think only a few dozen couples in the state have actually gone that route.

I think one of Huckabee's greatest weaknesses is foreign policy. Is this the time to be turning over leadership to a man who has no experience or interest in foreign affairs?

I don't think Huckabee has the necessary level of hate for immigrants, gays, pro-choice people, the government, or liberals that Republicans today demand. He is a great speaker, quick on his feet and genuinely nice. I don't see him as an especially deep thinker (though he is a genius next to W) or even ideologically driven (he's the opposite of Next). He truly would be a uniter, not a divider.

27

All of this slavering over Huckabee is distressing indeed!

The Huckster is a tax and spend and pander-to-LULAC-and-Tyson-over-illegals Nanny State RINO.

1. Supported taxes (Old-fashioned Tax-and-Spend politician)- engineered a 3% state income tax surcharge (a tax on the tax you paid in income tax) that was supposedly to make up for budget shortfalls - and then kept in in place a year longer than was necessary (and promised).

Raised fuel taxes

Encouraged the use of sales tax as an easy means of revenue boosting.

Opposed all efforts to reduce the sales tax on groceries and prescription drugs, even in years with a budget surplus. Heck, our new Democrat (liberal at that) Governor, under public pressure, agreed to a reduction in grocery sales tax...

2. ArKidsFirst - One of the larges social spending programs in Arkansas history was his baby. I don’t have a problem with helping low income folks get medical care, but I know many folks on it that could afford regular coverage - but why when big gubmint will give it free?

3. Big Government - Huckabee, between his socialist healthcare moves, his heavy hand regarding tobacco use, his mandatory “search lunchboxes of school kids” “health” initiative, and massive expansion of most social programs...

4. Poor record of political appointments - just one example - Sheffield Nelson on the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission - who has single-handedly tarnished the organization and really pissed off sportsmen in the state with his obstructionist and blatantly anti-”regular Joe” initiatives.

5. Illegal Immigration - Huckabee actually called anyone against illegal immigration (those who wanted to prevent free tuition to illlegals, free social benefits to illegals, etc.) non-Christian.

6. Party Affiliation - Huckabee has chosen in the last couple of elections to not be supportive of Republican candidates, including Lt. Governor, when they were a solid conservative choice, preferring more “moderate” or even liberal candidates.”

28

Odds are, comments here are moderated by you, so I'm doubting you'll allow anyone to read this rebuttal. Here goes anyway...

You know Joe,

when I heard you mention the words "sloppy", "lackluster", and "uninspiring", I thought you were talking about your efforts over at Blogs For Fred.

From your little hit piece above, it became rather easy to infer that you agree with the main stream media's premise that Fred Thompson is "lazy."

Say it ain't so Joe?

I had to laugh though when I saw you close your little hit piece with the following:

"If Thompson manages to slouch his way into St. Paul and gets the Republican nomination, he'll have my vote. But I refuse to continue putting more energy into supporting him than he's put into his own campaign."

More Energy? From mid June til the present day, "your energy" over at Blogs For Fred constituted a whopping 31 posts. That's roughly one post every 4 days. Sure sounds energetic now doesn't it folks? Joe was really burning that midnight oil for Fred.... not!

Joe, if you want to "energize" people around a candidate, you might actually want to post things... like maybe everyday.

The other Blogs For Fred sites, Conserva Blogs For Fred and Blogs For Fred Thompson added considerably "more energy" than you did. I tried to look to your site as a source for Fred Thompson news and information, but all I saw was some dopey guy sporting Fred Gear that he was hawking.

It seemed like your site was more interested in "investing" in potential profit for Fred, instead of blogging for Fred.

It was later that I learned that you were (Investing I guess) with a company that creates campaign gear that hoped that they would get the contract to make all of Fred's campaign gear.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/blumenthal

Hey!

I guess that's what you meant about "Sunk Costs" and "Investments?" :)

I'm sorry to hear that "investment" did not work out for you. Is that what took the wind out of your "energetic" sails and made Blogs For Fred so "uninspiring?"

No, I'm sure there were other "principled" reasons why you decided to run Blogs For Fred into the ground.

Who knows, maybe you're just lazy, and couldn't be bothered blogging for Fred despite giving the site that name. Nah, it would be unfair of me to call you "lazy," I apologize. I'll leave that sort of cheap shot to guys like you and the liberal media. Nice company you've got there Joe!

I really would not have cared about you changing your choice of candidates, but under the circumstances that I know and just laid out for the good folks reading this, this response was needed. You could have done it in a decent fashion, but instead you came on here and threw Fred down the stairs.

Joe, in closing, I can only hope that you take the same "energy" and "investment" with you in your support of Mike Huckabee that you did with Blogs For Fred. In fact, I hope you even start a Blogs For Mike, and run that into the ground with your "uninspiring" "energy."

He who cast the first stone Joe,......that's something you ought to think about. ;)

29

From mid June til the present day, "your energy" over at Blogs For Fred constituted a whopping 31 posts. That's roughly one post every 4 days.

Indeed, our output outpaced Thompson's activity.

It was later that I learned that you were (Investing I guess) with a company that creates campaign gear that hoped that they would get the contract to make all of Fred's campaign gear.

Uh, no. We arranged to for a company that was vying for Thompson's business to give free stuff to bloggers. That was the extent of the relationship we had with the Fred Store. (Maybe you should get your info from somewhere other than The Nation.)

You could have done it in a decent fashion, but instead you came on here and threw Fred down the stairs.

Trust me, I am but the first of many that will be jumping off this sinking ship. Aside from his lack of campaigning, Fred also has the problem of avoiding taking strong conservative issues. Fred's campaign even told us that he was focused on attracting "moderates" and didn't want to be aligned to closely with issues like FMA or abortion.

I understand your frustration. It's easier to lash out at bloggers than to blame the candidate. The fact that he's 8 weeks away from the primaries and has done almost nothing to win in Iowa or NH should be disconcerting.

But I think you'll find that I am but the first wave of people who have grown disillusioned with Fred.

30

All you need to know -- have ever needed to know -- about Fred's run is right here:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/762135560_80605eec8f_o.jpg

31

Joe,
Hello. Conservatism revolves around a lot more issues than FMA and abortion. Good grief. What about reducing the size of the federal government? What about realigning power and getting rid of excessive spending? What about judicial overreach?

But another contradiction,
The conservative platform is a lot larger than FMA and abortion.

32

I am a Huckabee from the get-go and glad to see others climbing on board. If he were to get the Republican nomination (still a long shot, though looking better by the day), I would like to see him pick J.C. Watts as his running mate. No idea if J.C. would be interested, but I think it would be a great ticket for a number of reasons.

33

What really saddens me is that people will read ONE article (i.e. Hillyers'), and that makes or breaks their decision to support a candidate. Go find out the information yourself! Go look at primary sources! Go research the charges and see what the final outcome of the charges were. EVERY candidate is going to have charges leveled against them because every candidate is going to have enemies. Whoever you support, don't be beholden to the MSM...be a knowledgeable citizen and find out the truth for yourself!!

34

Glad to hear you're dumping Thompson Joe. Sorry to hear you're picking up Huckabee.

Huckabee seems like a decent sort to me but he's not going to win in the first five primary states.

Then what?

I hope you have the wisdom and sense to vote for Romney when it's between him and Giuliani. Romney has the best organization and his conservative credentials are better than Huckabee. It's that organization that is going to win him the nomination, or at least get him really close to Rudy.

I'd hate to see a bunch of my fellow Christians throwing their vote away for Huckabee and giving the nomination to Rudy.

35

So you are basically saying that your principles are not important to you and that you would support a Rino rather than someone that does not adhere to your idea -- or seek your approval of -- how he runs *his* own campaign.

How arrogant and disingenuous is that?

Oh, and before you come back with all the little loser sayings about how you think Huckabee is a genuine conservative republican, consider this: He refers to himself in the same way Bush did in 2000 -- "A Compassionate Conservative".

As far as I can see, that is just code word for someone that doesn't want to be called a Democrat but still wants the Federal Government as highly involved in our daily lives as possible.

It's the Constitution, dummy!

36

It's unfortunate that you are explicitly choosing style over substance. Fred Thompson says what he means and means what he says and doesn't play PT Barnum -- and that's considered bad? I don't think so.

The MSM meme that Thompson doesn't "want" it bad enough is exactly that -- a metanarrative pushed by those who can't fight his substance. Fred Thompson, simply by entering the race, has taken a firm second place in most races, and is increasing his position in almost all of them. He has a firm lead some states, such as Georgia.

And what are you choosing to support instead? Someone who has no chance at all! Amazing.