Posted on 12/31/2007 1:41:43 PM PST by lancer256
It's time to step up, Fred. Conservatives need a leader about whom we have no major reservations. The only one looming out there about you is your failure, so far, to persuade voters you want the job.
All of the GOP candidates are vastly superior to all of the Democrat candidates, but here's the way I see the field now.
Rudy is a strong leader and very good on national security and the war. But he is a social-issues liberal, whose pledge to appoint originalist judges is encouraging -- but not completely convincing.
John McCain is a war hero and a patriot. He has been strong on Iraq but disappointing on Guantanamo, tough interrogation techniques and other war-related issues. He is not a supply-sider and is abysmally bad -- obviously -- on campaign finance reform and thus free speech. Also profoundly troubling is his history of sycophancy toward the liberal media elite and, in turn, their sporadic love affair with him.
Mike Huckabee, I believe, is a strong and sincere Christian. That means a lot to me. It doesn't bother me that he wears it on his sleeve -- assuming he's not being exploitive of his religion, and there, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Every candidate's worldview guides his beliefs and agenda, and it would be far worse for Huckabee to deny the strong influence of his worldview in forming his identity and contributing to his ideology. It's one thing to be upset with Huckabee if you believe he has used his Christian credentials subtly to highlight and demean Mitt Romney's Mormonism, but I don't believe that's what he's done. Christians shouldn't be accused of attacking other faiths when they are simply promoting their own.
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlimbaugh.com ...
If David is saying it, Rush is thinking it! THIS IS HUGE!!
Let’s hope .
Most excellent!
Is David using the half of Rush's brain that is tied behind his back just to make it fair?
He is in Iowa and he is proving it. It is nice to see David Limbaugh’s almost endorsement. Rush has pretty much did the same. Ann Coulter aside, who can’t seem to think straight around Mitt. The most conservative of conservatives, the ones who took down Dan Rather and forced Bush’s hand on Miers are largely supporting Fred.
I wonder if that means Limbaugh has reservations about Duncan Hunter. It seems to me Hunter is the only one Conservatives would have no reservations about. I realize the guy can't get any traction but that's what puzzles me even more.
Other than that, Limbaugh has hit the nail on the had. As usual.
It’s time to step up, Fred. Conservatives need a leader about whom we have no major reservations. The only one looming out there about you is your failure, so far, to persuade voters you want the job.
All of the GOP candidates are vastly superior to all of the Democrat candidates, but here’s the way I see the field now.
Rudy is a strong leader and very good on national security and the war. But he is a social-issues liberal, whose pledge to appoint originalist judges is encouraging — but not completely convincing.
John McCain is a war hero and a patriot. He has been strong on Iraq but disappointing on Guantanamo, tough interrogation techniques and other war-related issues. He is not a supply-sider and is abysmally bad — obviously — on campaign finance reform and thus free speech. Also profoundly troubling is his history of sycophancy toward the liberal media elite and, in turn, their sporadic love affair with him.
Mike Huckabee, I believe, is a strong and sincere Christian. That means a lot to me. It doesn’t bother me that he wears it on his sleeve — assuming he’s not being exploitive of his religion, and there, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Every candidate’s worldview guides his beliefs and agenda, and it would be far worse for Huckabee to deny the strong influence of his worldview in forming his identity and contributing to his ideology. It’s one thing to be upset with Huckabee if you believe he has used his Christian credentials subtly to highlight and demean Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, but I don’t believe that’s what he’s done. Christians shouldn’t be accused of attacking other faiths when they are simply promoting their own.
My problems with Huckabee concern his political agenda. Huckabee is probably the strongest social-issues conservative, and since his views are driven by his strong faith, I don’t fear he’ll change for expediency or other reasons. But it does bother me that he appears to believe — erroneously, in my opinion — that his faith requires him to endorse an unacceptably expansive role for government. Extremely problematic are his views on foreign policy — applying Golden Rule principles to implacable, deadly terrorists and dictators and sometimes even convicted murderers; his nanny-state, big-government tendencies, including advocating a federal smoking ban, greater government involvement in health care, and opposing school choice; his ambiguous record on taxes; and his pandering to liberals on global warming and class warfare, especially in borrowing from their lexicon to pile on George Bush concerning his approach to Democrats and to foreign policy.
Mitt Romney is a man I’ve warmed to as the campaign has unfolded. I began with great skepticism because of his major, far-too-recent flips on major issues. Certain aspects of his record — even after his conversion — cast doubt on his commitment to the unborn and traditional marriage. He also strikes me as a bit too coiffed, too robotic and too much of a politician. But I do see Romney as a very likeable man who is saying almost all of the right things, pun intended, and who, if he is the man he holds himself to be, will make a great president.
That leaves us with Fred. I must confess that Fred is the only one I don’t have major reservations about — apart from his electability. Yes, I worry that he supported McCain-Feingold and that he might not be a strong supply-sider. But on most issues, he seems reliably conservative and appears to have a solid and strong character. I do believe that with Fred, we know what we are getting.
I find his lack of “fire in the belly” refreshing. He strikes me as one of the few presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan whose primary motivation is not personal aggrandizement but rather serving and leading the nation in very troubled and dangerous times. I see him as almost being drafted into this project, and his refusal to drool publicly over the prospect of becoming the most powerful man in the world is positively delightful.
That said, he needs to make a more convincing case to the voters, which will require a greater display of enthusiasm that he views these as both perilous and promising times and that he is the best man, overall, to navigate the ship of state through these times.
So, Fred, please, as distasteful as it may be to you, it’s time to step up and prove you want it. Time is short.
“Fred Thompson has, over his career, much better defined federalism than almost anybody else in Washington. He is one of very few people voting against feel-good popular legislation that was not the proper domain of the federal government.”
-Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth
“the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson.”
- Rush Limbaugh
“he shows great political courage in taking on half of the single most important long-term economic issue facing this country (the other half being the long-term Medicare mess). On this proposal, conservatives ought to be rallying to Thompson’s defense, not greeting him with silence.”
-Quin Hillyer
”Good for Fred. Good for his excellent, broad based, tax-cut plan — including a flat-tax option and a corporate tax cut… Good for Fred for mentioning National Review and Investor’s Business Daily for speaking positively about his candidacy… Good for Fred for showing fire, energy, and animation throughout the interview. It’s the same fire in the belly that I witnessed in our CNBC interview earlier this month.
I vastly prefer positive policy visions to down-in-the-mud trashing. (I know, I know, criticizing each other on the issues is a key part of politics.) But my great hope is that the Republican contenders will emphasize their key policy visions as the race heats up.”
-larry kudlow
”That’s why I’m pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring. Thompson has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism. In a recent speech, he argued that “centralized government is not the solution to all our problems…this was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007. Thompson rightly argues that the abandonment of federalism has caused a range of pathologies including a lack of government accountability, the squelching of policy diversity between the states, and the overburdening of federal policymakers with local matters when they should be focusing on national security issues. Federalism “is a tool to promote freedom” as Thompson puts it. So for the supposed heirs to Ronald Reagan who are running for president, let’s hear more about expanding our freedom by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size.”
- Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policies at the CATO Institute
“Fred Thompson says that he will base his campaign on the ‘first principles’ of ‘individual freedom and limited government.’ If he follows through, he will have an opportunity to position himself as the only small-government conservative in the race. … Does Fred Thompson, then, offer an alternative for small-government conservatives? While he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, a look at his record shows that he has generally supported limited government. … Of course, spending the last several years in Hollywood has enabled Thompson to avoid taking positions on many current issues. Now that he is in the race, he’ll have to be much more specific about his positions. But, given the fact that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives, Thompson has an opportunity to seize the small-government mantle.”
- Michael D. Tanner, Director of Studies at the CATO Institute
One reason President Bush has lost the trust of the American people is his secrecy and the extension of the executive arm. Out of all the Republican candidates, only Thompson has clearly made the case of a more open White House. Thompson is a candidate who holds a cautious view of executive secrecy. Matthew Nather, of Congressional Quarterly, thinks this has everything to do with his professional experience.
According to Nather in the 12/20/07 issue of CQ:
”As the counsel in the 1970s to the Republicans on the Senate Watergate Committee and as the Chairman in the 1990s of what is now the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Thompson has much more experience than any other candidate in leading congressional investigations of presidents. He has spent much of his career, in fact, thinking like a prosecutor and standing up for Congressional oversight responsibilities.”
Nather also reminded readers that it doesn’t mean that Thompson would necessarily give away presidential power:
As one of the main authors of the 2002 legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, Thompson defended Bush’s insistence on having maximum flexibility on hiring and salary decisions for the departments employees. He claimed that a Democratic alternative would “actually diminish the president’s national security authority that other presidents have had.”
Fred Thompson can rally conservative democrats in the general election. None of the other candidates could do it.
And that my FRiends is called a bull’s-eye.
I wish Hunter was doing better. I think he is an unquestionable conservative. That said I’m one hundred percent behind Fred he has that special something. He has had to fight a Press that has tried to lock him out and Christian Judases who have questioned his Christianity. I wish those same word realize their is nothing Christlike in big government and taxes.
Well said. He neglects to mention McCain’s problems with illegal amnesty, but otherwise he gets most of it out there.
He’s a lot more polite than I would be, but no harm in that.
So. It’s not as if Fred isn’t very personable when you see him, but he still evidently needs to break through. Although I must say I don’t really trust the poll numbers. If the folks in FR, through all our discussions and disputes, still overwhelmingly back him, with Duncan Hunter second and all the rest far behind, can the rest of the conservative base be stupid enough to have the wool pulled over their eyes?
Certainly a few nudges from the Limbaughs would not be amiss, because if the party nominates the wrong candidate, our country will be in serious danger of a real disaster. If the wrong person gets the nomination, the Republican party will destroy itself and one of those otherwise unelectable Democrats will walk right into the breach.
There’s no use saying “I’ll vote for anyone with an (R) after his name, because there are millions who won’t. So let’s not settle for second best or even worse.
If El Rushbo could bring Fred back from the dead, he would, but he can’t, so I expect both Limbaughs will be overt and closet Myth Romneybots shortly.
Sounds like a setup for Rush to give national exposure to Fred’s “message to Iowa’s voters” on Wednesday.
From your words to Rush’s ears!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VblJq4j0_SE
Fred has made an eloquent case. The media is determined to define him as the lazy man who does not want the job. In truth, he is the principled man who simply wants to serve.
If people like David Limbaugh and his brother Rush believe in Fred, as so many of us do, they need to get behind him and help him swim against the tide of the MSM. If they want him to win, it would be a huge help if they and others would dispense some "equal time" by being as vocal and as repetitive against these false claims as those who make them.
I think Rush doesn’t want to endorse in the primary and risk having his endorsement defeated . It wouldn’t look good for him .
His brother David can do it though , as he has far less street cred to lose . This is a quite telling development .
bump
Other than being too nice to Huckabee and McCain, David Limbaugh is where I am and I suspect a lot of other people. My ranking, Hunter, Thompson, Romney, Guliani, Paul, Curly, Huckabee and McCain.
Of us real Dittoheads, its not been hard to read between the RUSH lines to see good feelings for FRED.
With 50% of Iowa Republican Caucus goers undecided, could it be that FRED pulls off another “impossibility” in spite of the MSM (including Fox NC)? Nothing to put my finger on, but that feeling is coming on strong.
Sorry Fredheads, this is David Limbaugh’s endorsement of Mitt, and a complaint of his main reservation about Fred - electability, without electability, all this is pointless.
I’m planning to vote for Fred in the primaries. He’d be a great candidate.
LOL!
I think you’ve got your glasses on backwards!
Hey David, you should have posted this months ago. Better late then never, I guess.
I think with the fire in the belly garbage and the "I don't want to run" BS over the weekend, Rush could compare and contrast Fred's words with media spin. It wouldn't be an endorsement but would get the message out. I think that's what we all really want anyway.
Fire in the belly again. When a candidate has already spent $20 million of his own money before the first vote, I say that man wants the presidency way too much.
Go with that feeling. Fred has been dead before, and said boo right to his opponents face on game day....
Again....
You’re kidding right ? Why would DL even bring Fred up or write the article if he truly wants Romney ?
Hint : He doesn’t want Romney ....
Mitt is spending a lot. I hope he studied the concept of Return on Investment in Grad school. It may come into play for him soon.
Rush has made his preference for Fred as clear as possible. Short of building a float and hiring a blimp, I don’t know what else he could do.
Rush on Mitt Romney. “It may not be Morning in America yet, but it is a long way away from midnight...”
I wish Fred Thompson well. If he can start persuading and motivating voters, all the more power to him. He just has not done this up to this point, and shows little chance of improving.
That's what Fred is not - a politician. He was drafted to serve, not eager to gain power.
As far as the 'lackluster', the Capitol Steps has a song about him, and it does not attack his policies. It attacks his looks and "laziness".
If you are in a room with Fred, you know he is not lackluster. I was about 12 feet away from Fred and Jeri. He has presence. There is an underlying comfort and energy from someone who knows himself and his beliefs. What did he talk about that day in NH? Mainly about how the Constitution puts limits on the Federal government.
Sorry Fredheads, this is David Limbaugh’s endorsement of Mitt, and a complaint of his main reservation about Fred - electability, without electability, all this is pointless.
So David Limbaugh wrote this article to promote Mitt? Not only is that an illogical conclusion -- it is ROTF funny!
Reading David Limbaugh’s article for a second time I dont see your view. I reference the following:
Mitt Romney is a man I’ve warmed to as the campaign has unfolded. I began with great skepticism because of his major, far-too-recent flips on major issues. Certain aspects of his record — even after his conversion — cast doubt on his commitment to the unborn and traditional marriage. He also strikes me as a bit too coiffed, too robotic and too much of a politician. But I do see Romney as a very likeable man who is saying almost all of the right things, pun intended
That leaves us with Fred. I must confess that Fred is the only one I don’t have major reservations about — apart from his electability.
There is plenty of time to work on someones electability. But fakery and flip flopping cant be fixed.
In some men’s league, spending 40,000 on a fishing boat is a statement. In Mitt Romney’s league spending 50,000,000 on a run for President is less likely to affect his lifestyle than a vanity purchase. Notice how no one questions his desire or motivation for the job. If only a Fredhead could brag about such....
I thought his take on Mike Huckabee was on target too. It was worded differently but with an understanding of Huckabee’s problems.
His words on Fred were mostly praise, a little pushing him along, a little bit of criticism. Good column by David. It was better when I read it, than seeing this headline.
Time to make a house call, Fred. Go over to Limbaugh’s house and prove to him you want the job. Seems like he doesn’t have a tv, a radio, or an internet connection, and he doesn’t already know what you’re up to. Take a coloring book and some crayons.
David wrote this article to educate Fred. I have done my best to educate the rest of you about Fred around here. David’s conclusions about Mitt are the same as my own, Mitt is electable. I like Mitt and I am glad he is courting my vote. I doubt that David has met Mitt. Rush has held court with Mitt for forty five minutes, and found him in no way to be phony or robotic.
Rush likes Mitt and Rush intends to hold Mitt to the conservative agenda.
Truly remarkable statement. Did not say a thing about affecting his lifestyle. But you can bet your last dollar that for Mitt, this is a vanity purchase. His "stated" platform is no different than any other, he is not offering anything new. Therefore he is spending (you say) $50 million for a $250k a year job. Not about power or vanity huh. Guess he should buy a 40k boat, heard he's a lifelong fisherman too.
ping
I disagree that Rush likes Mitt. The only time he’s fawned over Mitt was his religion speech. Rush liked the content and the premise. Apart from that he is very guarded when he speaks of him and has made it clear he has no conservative record to stand on. I think he’s worried Mitt could win and he may have to support him over Hillary, but that’s not “like”.
As Rush said, it is his sandbox the liberal media types only play in it and he is tired of carrying the GOP's water...
IMHO he will not go quietly and and carry the RINO water of Rudy McHuckney like he did for Dole, those days are over for us all, Rush included.
David Limbaugh if you lurk here, tell your brother to go for it when he gets back Wednesday and endorse Fred!
He needs to come out and say it and shock the liberal media and the RINO infested RNC.
We want our party of Reagan back, I for one have had it.
I have read your post on the thread regarding Mitt and his money. It is true the man is self financing. 50 million is going to be a low ball through the general though. He has spent a fifth of that just on advertising alone to get to where he is now.
So now it is time for a new term to come into play, something not new in politics, but this case is unusual due to it’s scale. It’s called Return on Investment. I don’t know if Mitt has looked at it seriously or not, but others are. Iowa will be the first “lab” for this.
It is also part of the electability question. How much of Mitt’s electability has been tied to expenditures and how much has he spent on retaking the same ground over and over.
I giving up his acting carreer, and other sources of income, Fred is absorbing a greater financial hardship, to run for President, than Romney is by merely spending $20M.
Writers strike. ;)
OK, I guess Fred does want it. Whew.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.