Stanley Kurtz, William Ayers and Barack Obama's Attempt to Suppress Free Speech
The Barack Obama Campaign seriously does not like discussion or reporting on the relationship between their candidate and the unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers. Recently National Review columnist Stanley Kurtz found out just how the Obama people don't like it.
View more »

Ready to Serve

Just Words II

Just Words

Where Does Obama Stand on Iraq?

He once told us not to tell him that words don't matter. Do his words matter?

Democracy by Democrats

Listen to Barack Obama's Spiritual Leader

Barack Obama has chosen this man to be his pastor and spiritual leader for over 20 years.

Mrs. Obama, I am Proud of My Country.

Unlike Michelle Obama, I am proud of my country. I always have been. I definitely have been proud of my country my entire adult life. The more I learn about America and the more I learn of other countries' histories, the more pride I have in America. I am grateful and blessed to be an American, and whether Mrs. Obama knows it, she is also blessed to be an American.

It deeply disturbs me to hear the possible future first lady state that this is the only time in her adult life that she is really proud of her country. So let's just say that Michelle Obama's adult life began when she was 20 years old in 1984. What has happened to make Americans proud of their country since 1984?

Since 1984 America has been responsible for the fall of the Evil Empire, which resulted in the freeing of tens of millions of people from the iron grasp of communist tyranny. America led the fight to save millions of ethnic Albanians, many of whom were Muslims, from a systematic genocide. America saved Kuwait from an invasion by Saddam Hussein. Americans have freed millions in Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taliban. Americans have given Iraqis the opportunity to create a society for themselves rather than be dominated by a dictator. Most importantly, many Americans have given the ultimate sacrifice for these other people. America has not asked for much in return.

What else should Michelle Obama be proud of. Well lets start with the fact that she is an ivy-league educated successful lawyer who is married to an ivy-league educated successful lawyer/US Senator/candidate for President of this great country. Mrs. Obama's country provided the opportunity to obtain the education she received. She was also guaranteed opportunities that she would be hard-pressed to realize in many other countries around the world.

Michelle Obama should be proud of the fact that our country provides anyone with the desire and work ethic the opportunity to achieve what many peoples around the world wish to have. She lives in a country where people from around the world risk their lives to enter illegally because being illegal in this country provides more opportunities than being legal in their home country. People fight to come to Michelle Obama's country because of the opportunities this country provides people. People do not fight to get out of Michelle Obama's country.

Personally, I am deeply offended that a person who will possibly be this country's first lady is only proud of this country now that it might elect her husband as its leader.

There are many reasons to be proud of America. One would hope that America's president and first lady are and have always been proud of America.

In an article on News Busters, Noel Shephard provided some questions that the news media will not but should ask Mrs. Obama.

• Were you proud of this country when you graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1985?
• Were you proud of this country when you graduated from Harvard Law School in 1988?
• Were you proud of this country when you were hired by the law firm Sidley Austin?
• Were you proud of this country when the Berlin Wall was torn down in 1989?
• Were you proud of this country when Colin Powell became the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1989?
• Were you proud of this country when we liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein in 1991?
• Were you proud of this country after your husband was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996?
• Were you proud of this country when Colin Powell became the first black Secretary of State in 2001?
• Were you proud of this country after it came together following the 9/11 attacks?
• Were you proud of this country when -- despite Iran being our mortal enemy -- it led a massive international rescue operation after a devastating earthquake hit Bam in 2003?
• Were you proud of this country when your husband gave a Keynote Speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004?
• Were you proud of this country when your husband was elected Senator in 2004?
• Were you proud of this country when Condoleezza Rice was named the first black, female Secretary of State in 2005?
• Were you proud of this country when Essence magazine named you among "25 of the World's Most Inspiring Women" in 2006?
• Were you proud of this country when Harvard named you amongst its 100 most influential alumni in 2007?

Did any of these events make you proud of this country, Mrs. Obama?

My question for Mrs. Obama is this: What exactly is it that finally has made you proud of your country for the first time in your adult life?

(Listen here to hear Mark Levin's message to Michelle Obama.)

Romney Receives More Conservative Endorsements

Rick Santorum endorses Mitt Romney



Laura Ingraham endorses Mitt Romney



Sean Hannity endorses Mitt Romney

Conservatives! Rally for Romney!

An article in NRO by Mark Levin on why John McCain is the wrong choice for Republicans.

Rally for Romney
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.

By Mark R. Levin

I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.

I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.

Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.

I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.

Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.

And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?



As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.



Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.



Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?



But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.



Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.

But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).

McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

— Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.

Its a New Day

Now that Fred is out, I have decided to put my support behind Mitt Romney for President in 2008. I have questioned Mitt's changes of position in the past on key issues. However, his actions do speak louder than words. He has consistently made the right choices when the decision was put before him. I have confidence that his judgment is sound and that he stands on principles. There has never been a question in my mind that he would be excellent on economic policy. I urge all Republicans to vote for Mitt for the Republican nomination.

When the general election comes, I will vote for any Republican who wins the nomination. Even Huckabee and McCain. I cannot vote for a Democrat. There is no doubt in my mind that our country will be less safe under the defensive strategies that the Democrats will employ fighting the Jihadists. I owe it to my unborn children and my nephews. It is our responsibility to the future of our country that we have courage in this fight. I will not sit out the election based on what is best for the Republican Party. I will vote for what is best for America, and that is to ensure that one of the four Republican candidates wins in November and not Hillary or Obama.

A Message from Georgia Friends of Fred

This message was emailed to me by a Georgia Fred Head. It sums up perfectly where we are and serves as a reminder that we have to keep going forward.

Friends of Fred,



Tuesday marked a sad day in America as a true conservative removed himself for consideration as President of the United States.



The campaign for Fred Thompson was always about promoting conservative principles as the guiding philosophy for our nation. Unfortunately, this message, and our messenger, did not carry the day.



As with any political effort, faults can be found, but Fred and Jeri Thompson campaigned for our values and for that they will always have my enduring respect.



While we conservatives re-group and make our choice for President, please know the message of Fred Thompson is still the only hope for America. As Ronald Reagan said “We represent the last best hope of man on earth.”



I urge us all to reject the notion that the conservative principles of Reagan and Thompson have somehow outlived their usefulness. This is now our “Time for Choosing”. We can accept a candidate for President who promotes greater government involvement in our lives and the inevitable dependency it breeds or we can choose a message of individual liberty, economic freedom, and national strength.



The stakes of our children’s future are too high to accept moderation on these issues.



Thank you for your support of Senator Thompson. The opportunity I was given to lead this effort in Georgia is something I will never forget. The friendships I have made with many of you mean more to me than you will ever know.



As we move towards the Presidential preference primary on February 5th, I only ask that you join me in demanding our nominee hold true to our values. Winning is important, but not at the price of selling our conservative soul.





Chip Rogers

Executive Director - Georgia Friends of Fred Thompson

State Senator 21st District

Fred Needs to Stay in Until February 5th!!!

The following article from the National Ledger says what many conservatives believe. That the Republicans cannot defeat the Democrats with a moderate. This is why Fred needs to stay in the race. Many conservatives have expressed an unwillingness to vote for any of the more inconsistent conservatives in the race. Without the conservative base of the Party, Republicans will lose. It is hard to compromise principle because you like the other guy less. Conservatives form the base of the Republican party. Fred is the only candidate who stands on a complete conservative foundation. If a three legged stool is missing one leg, it does not stand. That, I am afraid, is where we find our party.

Fred Thompson in Trouble: Are All Other Republicans as Well?
By JB Williams
Jan 21, 2008

Fred Thompson was drafted by the conservative base of the Republican Party for two very simple reasons. One, the Republican National Committee offered no other viable conservative choice and two, only a true traditional conservative can challenge today's Democratic Socialists. Thompson was not planning on running for an office he never aspired to hold. He was asked to put his personal life on hold, and answer the call to serve his fellow conservatives in desperate need of real conservative leadership.
Fred Thompson in Trouble (Image: Wenn)
Fred Thompson in Trouble (Image: Wenn)

Thompson didn’t enter the race late. The other eight eager beavers entered the race a year early, throwing the nomination process into a confusing tailspin and the nation into unwanted perpetual campaign mode. Those who claim Thompson’s late entry cost him the nomination need to answer why the early “front-runner” Rudy Giuliani, is in worse shape than Thompson in the polls?

No conservative including Thompson, had any chance of winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan or Nevada, all heavily liberal, which delivered three different winners in four primaries. So Thompson bet his farm on South Carolina, where conservative candidates normally do best.

But Thompson finished a distant 3rd instead of 1st or even 2nd, after pundits had been painting Thompson as “lazy” – “no fire” – “slow” and “disinterested” since the day he announced his campaign. And now, Thompson’s campaign is in real trouble coming out of South Carolina a distant 3rd.

But, every Republican emerges from South Carolina in trouble. John McCain thinks he emerged from South Carolina a victor. But what did he win? McCain won South Carolina the same way he won New Hampshire, with Independent votes, not Republican votes. So what did he win and how can he turn that into a national victory in November?

The answer is - he can’t turn it into a national victory in November, no matter how much he tells himself he can. He’s simply running on ego, ignoring an overtly obvious reality.

NO Republican can win in November without the support of the Republican base of the party. And none of the new front-runners, McCain, Romney, or Huckabee will enter November with the base of their party intact. Thompson is the only Republican candidate who can bring all Republicans into the voting booth in November, yet too many Republicans choose to ignore this reality.

Clinton – Obama in 2008

Liberals are nothing if not symbolism over substance. For more than a year now, I have been predicting a Clinton – Obama Democrat ticket come November. It’s a ticket the left can not afford to overlook. It is the dream ticket of the last one hundred years of Democrat history. There is NO way these two will not be united on a ticket by the DNC convention.

Liberals can not pass up the opportunity to “make history” by electing the first ever female President and the first ever black Vice President in U.S. history. Half of the Democrat Party loves Hillary and the other half, who hate Hillary, love Obama. Uniting the two on a ticket will prove an irresistible historic opportunity for liberals and the apparent lack of qualifications for the job will not even enter the equation.

The nation wants to “make history,” not protect and preserve future security, freedom and prosperity. The black vote will go to the black candidate and the female vote will go to the female candidate and combined, Democrats will have a ticket that almost no Republican can defeat in November.

Three November losers in the making

Foolish is as foolish does. As a result, no matter which “moderate” Republican emerges the RNC nominee, be it McCain, Romney or Huckabee, without the base of their party behind them, none of them can challenge a Clinton – Obama ticket in November. That means that ALL Republicans are in trouble, not just Thompson.

* New Yorkers like their New Yorker, Giuliani

* Evangelicals like their evangelical, Huckabee

* Old soldiers like their old soldier, McCain

* Mormon’s like their Mormon businessman, Romney

* Anti-Security Isolationists like their anti-war isolationist, Ron Paul

* And old conservatives like their old conservative, Thompson

And together, divided, we will all fall… None of these voters are looking at the big picture in 2008. It’s every man for himself in the Republican Party and come November, every Republican will lose as a result. Thompson’s campaign is in trouble. But so is every Republican’s future as a result.

Republican voters have failed to heed the warning shots fired in 2006. The conservative base of the party will not slide along into the socialist abyss by supporting another “compassionate conservative” (aka; RINO – or – Moderate) in 2008. They told you so in 2006 and they have been telling you so ever since, going so far as to reject eight declared Republican candidates and drafting their own conservative representative.

The message was clear. The base is serious this time around. No more “lesser evils” in November. They demanded a real choice, a real traditional conservative like Thompson or Clinton-Obama in November. Republican voters have chosen poorly and are leaving conservatives with only one remaining alternative.

To vote for real change

Conservatives are being asked to choose a second choice candidate, since Fred’s campaign is not advancing as planned. But to have a second choice, there would have to be a second conservative in the race and the only other conservative in the race, Duncan Hunter, just dropped out. So there is no second choice for conservatives.

Fred doesn’t have a “fire in his belly” for the office, like all other candidates do. This is a sign of sanity, not laziness. Fred has a fire in his belly for his country and conservative values, and is only a reluctant participant in the insanity we now call campaigns. It’s too bad so many at Fox, The Weekly Standard and National Review, have entirely missed the conservative boat.


Conservatives understand that America has exactly the government it deserves at all times, as it always has the government it elected. Before the government can change, the people who elect it must change.

If Republicans are not yet ready to nominate a conservative, then the nation can not elect a conservative. Real change begins with a change in the people. So long as the people insist on sending pretenders to Washington, they will find Washington full of pretenders.

Republicans are well on their way to plotting their own defeat in November and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Thompson has been telling it exactly as it is, but only core conservatives are listening.

There’s nothing left to do, but to allow all other Republican learn the hard way. The Republican Party is either America’s conservative party, or it is an obsolete unnecessary evil. Republican voters are choosing to make it the latter.

--News Analysis by JB Williams.

Fred Thompson on Huckabee's Living, Breathing Constitution

Here is what Fred said:

The Constitution is Not a “Living, Breathing Document”
Posted on January 18th, 2008
By Fred in Law, Judges

This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.

He does not appear to understand that reliance on the notion that the Constitution is a living, breathing document is precisely the kind of wrong-headed thinking about the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion across our nation, and Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized sodomy.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

I fear that this loose language about our Constitution calls into question Governor Huckabee’s appreciation and understanding of the issue of judicial activism and raises questions as to what kind of judges he would appoint were he to become President.

.

Fred Thompson: "The Most Substantive Candidate to Run for President in Many Years"

The following article characterizes Fred Thompson as the candidate for President that we have all heard so many people say they yearn for. A true statesman with a clear, coherent agenda defined by strong conservative principles that are grounded in the Constitution. If Americans are seeking a candidate for president that has a sense of purpose beyond simply adding another notch on their exemplary resume; they have one in Fred Thompson. I just hope they realize it.

The Anti Soundbite Candidate
By Rick Moran

Fred Thompson is not the most inspiring speaker in the GOP race for President. Nor is he the best looking or the smoothest talking among the candidates running. He doesn't have Mitt Romney's hair or Mike Huckabee's glibness. He isn't as aggressively positive as Rudy Giuliani. And while his personal story is compelling, it can't compete with John McCain's inspirational journey from POW to the gates of the White House.

But Fred Thompson is perhaps the most substantative candidate to run for President in many years. He has taken the time to think about what should be the relationship between the government and the governed. He has framed his thoughts within the context of a set of bedrock conservative principles that animates his thinking and generates sound ideas about where America should be headed.

There is a heft to Thompson, a seriousness of purpose that none of the other candidates can match. It is most pronounced during the debates where Thompson's answers to questions are more subtle and nuanced than those of his rivals. His sometimes laconic style zings his opponents with brutal accuracy. Often, the candidate will answer a question by stating "Yep" or "Nope" and pause a few seconds to gather his thoughts. What follows is almost always coherent and is informed by years of experience in government.

His now famous moment during the Des Moines Register debate where he refused to raise his hand like a schoolboy when the moderator asked who believed in global warming was a metaphor for the entire Thompson campaign; keeping the Mickey Mouse to a minimum while trying to be as substantative as possible with the voters. In short, Thompson is running the campaign his way and not in a manner dictated by any previous candidate's success or any criticism that comes his way from media pundits.

He has well thought out policy positions - "White Papers" the campaign calls them - have won him almost universal praise from sources as wildly divergent as the Washington Post and the National Review.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal had this to say about Thompson's tax plan:

"However, what's refreshing about the Thompson plan is that it goes well beyond the current Republican mantra to make "the Bush tax cuts permanent." That is certainly needed, but the GOP also needs a more ambitious agenda, especially with economic growth slowing. The flat tax has the added political benefit of assaulting the special interests who populate the Gucci Gulch outside Congress's tax-writing committee rooms. Lower rates and simplify the tax code, and you instantly reduce the opportunities for Beltway corruption. It is both a tax policy and political reform.

ABC had this to say about his plan to save Social Security:

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson's plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from standard election year pabulum on the subject in one key way: He's actually treating voters like adults.

If all of this is true, why is Fred Thompson fighting for his political life this Saturday in the South Carolina primary?

It is a question that, if Thompson's bid falls short, will be asked by many who saw the former Tennessee senator's entry into the race as a godsend. In the end, the candidate must look to his own efforts and the way the campaign began.

Leaving aside the question of whether Thompson's September entry into the race could be considered "too late" there is the reality of how that campaign was conducted. Looking back, one could see it was unfocused, even aimless, in its first weeks with the candidate himself trying to find his voice. His early efforts were spotty and sometimes dreadfully boring. By many reports, voters came away perplexed and not a little disappointed.

Thompson's Socratic style of addressing those early crowds was a good way to discuss issues on a substantive level but a lousy way to run for president. Voters more attuned to snappy, one sentence solutions to the problems of the world coming from other candidates found that when listening to Thompson, they had to think, not react emotionally.

In this way, Thompson appealed to people more on an intellectual level. This was fine as far as it went but it brought him few converts and elicited nothing but contempt from the media.

How often have we heard the refrain that the American people wanted a campaign that dealt with issues not personalities? Well, here was Fred Thompson supposedly giving people what we were told they wanted and his once robust poll numbers began to plummet. Seeking an explanation, reporters and pundits who saw Thompson arrived at the conclusion that the candidate didn't want it bad enough, that he had no "fire in the belly," that he hated campaigning and didn't extend himself as the other candidates were doing.

There may be a glimmer of truth in some of that conventional wisdom. Perhaps the candidate believed it was enough that he put his ideas on the table and let the American people decide whether or not they were worthy of consideration. Indeed, Thompson has said as much in the past. What perhaps the candidate didn't realize is that fighting for those ideas and tying them to overarching themes is the most effective way to reach the voter.

But for whatever reason - the befuddlement of the press over his style of campaigning or a perceived lack of energy and desire - the candidate found himself at the end of November trailing badly in the polls. It was then that the campaign seemed to find itself and Thompson found those themes as well as his issues and tied them together. Crowds began to react more positively. It appeared the candidate himself was more energized and active.

But Thompson was pushing against weeks of very negative press and a conventional wisdom that had all but written him off. It was a daunting task to turn the campaign around but he has. Now he must convince voters in South Carolina and beyond that the conventional wisdom about his candidacy is wrong and that he deserves a second look.

His most recent appearances in South Carolina have shown an entirely different candidate than the one who appeared unfocused and low key during the first three months of his campaign. He has now found his mission; that the campaign is for the heart and soul of the Republican party and the future of the old Reagan coalition. When speaking in this vein, the candidate exudes a passion that may have been lacking in his earlier campaign stops. It carries over into his contrasting the records of his opponents with his own as he hammers away at their lack of true conservative credentials. He still talks specifics and issues but in a way that delineates his positions from those of his rivals. In short, he has found the bridge between a way to campaign effectively without sacrificing his belief that the voters hunger for substance in their candidate.

Thompson still pauses and thinks before he answers questions either from the media or voters. He speaks in complete sentences. He treats voters like "adults" as ABC mentioned above. In this sense, he is the anti-soundbite candidate. Whether Thompson's no-nonsense approach to campaigning will give him victory will depend largely on whether voters are moved to support a man who views running for president not as the fulfillment of raw ambition but as a chance to serve the people.

David Limbaugh Endorses Fred Thompson

From David's newest column.

Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted.

The main reason the conventional wisdom is being shattered in the primaries is that conservative voters, so far, have not been persuaded there is an electable, reliable conservative in the race.

But as I've stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he's the right choice.

I was among those who urged Fred to step up and prove to the people he wanted the job. Regardless of whether Fred actually had "fire in his belly," the unmistakable perception out there was that he did not, so I encouraged him to add a little spring to his step.

But I've also appreciated Fred's unwillingness to be somebody he is not. He will not respond like a puppet when a debate moderator tells him to raise his hand to signify a childishly simplistic approval or disapproval of a certain policy. He will not be goaded by interviewers into saying things he doesn't feel comfortable saying. He won't divide us with class envy or pretend we can be friends with rogue regimes or terrorists. He does not promise a chicken in every pot or pander to liberals on global warming.

He will not otherwise tailor his positions to suit the demands of particular constituencies. For example, he has the courage to preach that Social Security is in trouble, but unlike most others, he doesn't surrender to the oppressive populist seduction to urge government fixes for it or for health care. Instead, he courageously tells us -- if we'll listen -- that the answers lie in greater market forces. (Listen up, conservatives.)

Fred does not run from his record -- more to the point, he doesn't need to. He shoots straight without the constant self-serving reminders that he does, as in telling us he's driving the "Straight Talk Express."

More importantly, Fred is right on the issues, and there's little doubt his positions are firm. Research his stances; read his position papers. You'll find he's very strong in all areas important to mainstream conservatives, including national defense, taxes, spending, life, immigration, federalism, appointing originalist judges, health care and education.

I'm not drooling over Fred or saying his record is flawless, but I am saying he's the real deal, and it's a bit disappointing that more haven't taken a closer look.

I think this is due partly to his laid-back personality and partly to his timing. He peaked about the time he was contemplating entering the race but not acting on it. By the time he jumped in, it was anticlimactic, and he still hasn't recovered from that reversal.

There has also been a negative momentum hovering over his already-stalled campaign, acting as a psychological barrier to his catching fire among conservative voters.

There is simply too much herd mentality among us about electability. We tell ourselves a candidate is not inspiring, then pretty soon we're convinced he's unelectable, and, voila, he almost becomes so. Yet, at that very moment, he's proving to us that he is quite presidential, quite electable and quite motivated for the job -- if we can only shed our predispositions against his "electability." Since electability is often a matter of collective perception, it can turn on a dime, as with the reversal of the respective fortunes of screaming Howard Dean and somniferous John Kerry in 2004.

This primary season, relatively speaking, has just begun. But Fred is now up against the wall. How can we expect him to have done much better than he has to date with everyone prattling on about the overwhelming odds against him? The "experts" continue to be wrong at almost every turn, so why can't they be wrong about Fred, too? It's time to quit empowering them by following their dictatorial doom-prophecies. It’s encouraging that John Zogby's latest South Carolina poll shows that while levels of support for McCain and Huckabee "have remained static," Fred is starting to move up.

Supporters have asked Fred to step up, and he has -- he has shone brilliantly in the last month, setting himself head and shoulders above the pack in many cases. Now it's time for conservative voters to step up and quit placing artificial limitations on Fred, and on themselves.

Fred has answered the conservatives' call. Shouldn't we answer his?

Posted by David Limbaugh at January 17, 2008 07:32 PM

Fred Thompson Always a Consistent Conservative

Always Conservative

Consistent Conservative

Go to www.Fred08.com and contribute to Fred's campaign. Lets make sure that we elect a president in 2008 that understands that the principles and values that form the foundation of our country still apply today. The only candidate that understands that is Fred Thompson.

Huckabee Supporters Begin Push Polling

Medal of Honor Recipient endorses Fred Thompson

Major General James E. Livingston, USMC, Ret. Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient on why he supports Fred Thompson.

Latest SC Rasmussen Poll Shows Thompson Surging!

See Thompson's Surge here and while you're there, you should contribute to his campaign.