Excellent analysis.

In other words,

SUPPORT FRED THOMPSON!!

:-)

>>5. Fred Thompson can't get anyone to give him the time of day.<<

Maybe things could change. Fred was on O'Reilly tonight (meaning Jan. 7)

>>1. We expect promises of change from Democratic candidates, but it's disappointing to watch certain Republican candidates yield to that superficially seductive sound bite, too. It's like the global-warming freight train, which few politicians have displayed the guts and character not to board.<<

This is an excellent article.

Fred looked old, tired and confused. Even I, who will vote for him only in the general was dissapointed.

If Fred loses South Carolina, he is finished. If Rudy loses Florida, he is finished. If they both win, then Limbaugh is correct. Otherwise, it’s a Super Tuesday battle between Mitt, John, and Mike, with whoever wins Florida having the edge. Always seems to come down to Florida.

“Fred looked old, tired and confused. Even I, who will vote for him only in the general was dissapointed.”

What? I’ve been caring for a grandparent for decades. I know what “Old, tired and confused” looks like. Fred did NOT look like any of those things. He looked upset at the direction the debate was going and knew darn good and well he was being shafted on time. Lets be realistic, how are you supposed to “appear” like you are engaged with the debate... when the moderators won’t engage you? Don’t shoot the candidate for things he can not control. I try not to do that to other candidates I don’t like either. I intensely dislike Ron Paul, but I don’t think the media should be deciding that a man who took 10% just a few days before in a state can’t be in a debate. That’s far too close to them outright telling us who can be a candidate. If they can do that to Ron Paul this week, they can do it Fred next week and Rudy the next and Mitt the next and so on until the election is decided for us. Not good.

For the brief moments Fred was allowed to speak he did great. It was easy to tell at the end he was upset, due to not getting hardly any time he had to plow through all his talking points in the closing comment. He knew there was no time to elaborate and it was a calculated insult to him. Anyone would be frustrated and upset by then, and he did a great job of not losing his temper which would be far easier than staying on track, and far more damaging to his campaign. Another sign of a good President. One who can wait for his moment without doing something foolish. This treatment from the MSM has to stop because if the public ever wakes up and figures out how much manipulation is going on this election cycle there will be major consequences in terms of viewership of their programs. I’m not just talking about Fred. The pump, dump and ignore that has been going on for each candidate for the sake of good ratings and forwarding the agendas of media moguls is disturbing in the extreme.

The reference wasn’t to how Fred looked on the debate, but on O’Riley’s show tonight.

Actually, I thought that Chris pretty much ignored Fred and Rudy.

Fred looked old, tired and confused.

Fred has never looked any other way to you, has he? You have dumped on the man whenever the opportunity arose since the first post I saw from you on the subject. Well, to me, Mitt Romney looks over-caffeinated, panicky and desperate.

No argument from me! You are really astute.

Good old Mitt :

Taxpayer responsibilities & penalties

As provided by the law, taxpayers will have to prove that they had health insurance coverage in effect as of December 31, 2007, when they file their 2007 state income tax returns. Most taxpayers with private health insurance, either purchased on their own or obtained through an employer, will receive a Form MA 1099-HC, Massachusetts Health Care Coverage, from their health insurance carrier. This form will contain the information that taxpayers will need to complete Schedule HC. Taxpayers should not submit Form MA 1099-HC with their tax return, but retain it for their records. DOR will verify an individual’s coverage, by matching the information reported on the taxpayer’s Schedule HC with information provided by insurance carriers on Form MA 1099-HC.

Taxpayers should be aware that penalties will be imposed if they do not comply with the law. Those who cannot show that they have health insurance even though health insurance was deemed affordable will lose the tax benefit of their personal exemption on their 2007 Massachusetts income tax return (or one-half of the exemption amount if they file jointly).

For tax year 2008, individuals must indicate on their returns whether they had health insurance coverage in force for each of the 12 months of the taxable year for which the return is filed. The non-compliance penalty will increase significantly in 2008 to a fine equal to ½ the monthly premium for each month uninsured in the tax year (a gap of 63 days is permitted).

And beginning in 2009, the level of benefits must meet “minimum creditable coverage” — the minimum level of health insurance coverage that residents must have in order to satisfy the requirements of the individual mandate.

Exemptions
There are two exemptions to the requirement to have health insurance. A religious exemption is available to those who have a sincere religious belief that is the basis of their refusal to obtain and maintain health insurance coverage. However, taxpayers who claim the religious exemption and receive medical care in the taxable year, for example an emergency room visit, will lose their personal tax exemption. Taxpayers who can afford insurance based on the “affordability scale” may obtain a certificate of exemption from the Health Connector indicating that no health insurance offered through the Connector was deemed affordable for that individual because of a hardship. The certificate must be obtained prior to the tax filing season.

Appeals

Yeah, by all means the GOP should pick this guy as the nominee.

In bizarro world.

If he becomes President, (Romney) is going to SO sell us out, it wont even be funny.

Reminds me of backstabbing types in the business world I have had to contend with in the Board Meetings, taking credit for others's work, brownosing their own way to the top, and firing competent folks who become a threat.

I dont like Huck, but he made a good statement about Romney the other day in this regard.

I think a lot of Americans will be turned off by the slickness, and being reminded of MBA corporate types that fired them to advance their own careers or cover their own mistakes.

For the Campaign '08 Obsessive Who Has Everything

A campaign 2008 holiday gift guide. --Rachel Dry 3:53 PM ET | More »

Candidate Watch

Romney's 'Flip, Flop, Flip'

Romney at Planned Parenthood fund-raiser, June 12, 1994.

"Every piece of legislation which came to my desk [as] governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life."

--Mitt Romney, NBC "Meet the Press", December 16, 2007.

It is becoming difficult for Mitt Romney to keep track of his twists and turns on the abortion issue. The photograph above shows Romney back in June 1994 during his first big political campaign, running against Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. It was taken at a fund-raiser for the pro-abortion rights group, Planned Parenthood, in Cohasset, Mass. The woman with her back to Romney is Nicki Nichols Gamble, former president of the Massachusetts branch of Planned Parenthood, which accepted a $150 contribution from Romney's wife Ann (in a white jacket to Romney's right.)

The "pro-choice" candidate for senator, and later governor, of Massachusetts is now the "pro-life" candidate for president of the United States. His record as governor is controversial, however. Interviewed by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Romney claimed that he took a "pro-life" position on "every piece of legislation" that came before him. But that is untrue, at least by his present definition of what constitutes "life."

The Facts

Romney announced his conversion to "pro-life" views in an editorial in the Boston Globe on July 25, 2005, the day after vetoing a bill expanding access to the so-called "morning after" pill, which required that it be made available to rape victims. See my detailed and updated chronology here. Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood expressed shock at the governor's change of heart, after he had personally signed a pledge to support increased access to the "morning after" pill. "Pro-Life" groups hailed the decision.

That was not the end of the story, however. The controversy over "emergency contraception" continued to haunt Romney. In October 2005, another bill came to his desk, seeking a federal waiver to expand the number of Massachusetts citizens eligible for family planning services, including the "morning after" pill. Romney signed that bill over the objections of his new anti-abortion allies. On this occasion, he was applauded by "pro-choice" advocates.

The issue came up yet again in December 2005. After weeks of agonizing, Romney instructed all hospitals in the state to comply with the terms of the emergency contraception law, and make the morning-after pill available to rape victims. He acted on the advice of his legal counsel, over the objections of half a dozen Catholic hospitals, which had previously refused to provide emergency contraception on the grounds that it conflicted with their religious views.

"Flip,flop,flip," editorialized the Boston Herald, on December 9, 2005. "Yes, Gov. Mitt Romney has now executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception."

Views on the acceptability of the "morning after" pill vary greatly, depending on exactly how you define "life." Many "pro-life" advocates, including Romney, take the view that life begins at the moment when a female egg is fertilized by the male sperm. They are opposed to the "morning after" pill, because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. "Pro-choice" groups argue that life begins much later.

Romney's gyrations on abortion have upset both sides. "For Mitt Romney, this has been not just a flip-flop, but an extreme makeover," said Angus McQuilken, vice president for public affairs with the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. "Where he stands on any issue is always a moving target."

"I don't see how he can sign bills like that and say with a straight face that he is taking a pro-life position," said Joseph M. Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League, which is opposed to all forms of abortion. "There's no way we can accept that.".

UPDATE THURSDAY 11:30 A.M.: I just spoke with Nichols Gamble, the Planned Parenthood official who accepted the $150 cheque from the Romneys in June 1994. She says she had no reason to believe at the time that Romney was "not 100 percent behind the pro-choice public policy position." She now thinks that Romney "tried to have it both ways and every way to Sunday" on abortion, depending on what political office he was seeking.

The Pinocchio Test

Romney has changed his position so often on abortion that he lacks much credibility on this one. The Romney campaign did not respond to a e-mailed request to clarify the governor's position, so he loses the argument by default on this occasion. Three Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale.)

When it comes down to it, Fred dominates Romney. This is not something that can be measured by how “excited” a candidate appears, by the speed of articulation or quantity of words coming out of his mouth, or even by how well he’s managed the winter olympics.

Leadership is gut level, and we recognize leaders by instinct.

The MittBot's will say it's all a lie, and that photo is a fake, and stop attacking Mitt.
The MittBots are delusional to think he is conservative.

Fred is old, but tired and confused? Never. He’s as sharp as ever.

Leadership is gut level, and we recognize leaders by instinct.

*****************

Exactly right, which is why the thought of Romney as Commander in Chief is so frightening.

On Huckabee:

He would dilute the conservatism of the Republican Party and deliver values voters to the cause of liberalism – something the disingenuous Democratic overtures to "values voters" has never been able to accomplish.

Very scary. Very very scary.

>>Fred looked old, tired and confused.<<

I think maybe coldwater creek meant that Fred appears a little less “slick” in his answers than, say, Romney. Earlier in the campaign, I thought Fred appeared a little rusty, with too many long “uhhhhhhs” in his answers. (I thought that was a sign that he was actually thinking while he was talking, which is a good thing, but his style would be perceived negatively). I think he has improved his “slickness” greatly, and even FReeper pissant said he did well on O’Reilly.

Fred looked old, tired and confused. Even I, who will vote for him only in the general was dissapointed.

Bulldung. You have a consistent posting record that calls you a liar. You have consistently been anti-Fred on virtually every thread about him. Your constant Fred degradation (Fredgredation...see, even I can make up new words, LOL) is so pervasive one could believe Fred stole your girl/boyfriend, was caught kissing your mama, or was dipping into your wallet all the time. What is your problem with Fred? You've been asked, but I've yet to see a concise answer. You've said you know Fred as he was your senator, but that is still no reason. There are many FReepers, myself included, who were served well by Fred when he was a senator, and we don't have your negative take on his service. Spell out the reasons for your dislike of the man or have yourself a heapin' helpin' of STFU.

It is disingenuous, and a disservice to Free republic, to constantly troll threads repeating the same vague innuendo about a candidate many of us consider to be the best option (note, I said best option, not best man) in a field of mostly neocon rinos. Only two men currently running can be considered conservative, and Fred is one of those (Duncan Hunter is the other). Ron Paul is a libertarian and the rest are social progressive liberals/moderates. You don't like Fred. That is your prerogative, but if you know something about Fred that would sway us about his positions or policy, tell us so that we may have the full knowledge to make the correct choice before we vote.

I know this post starts out on a combative note, and I don't mean or want it to be, but you need to make us understand why you consistently have the need to disparage Fred. It is my opinion that Fred has had an epiphany. I have posted before that I believe his run for the presidency is based on his wanting to point the USA in a better direction because of his two very young children. I still believe that, but I think his brush with cancer has lit a fire under him because he now has had to come to terms with his own mortality. It is my belief that even if he wins, he will be a one term only president, and because he only wants the one term, he won't be afraid to push the conservative agenda harder than someone trying to run for a second term during his first. If you know something about the man that would be damning enough for me to change my opinion, share it. I am not married to any one candidate and am willing to make adjustments in my position if, and that is a a big if, someone can provide me with new information or some new context to old info. Thanx for your time,

Surt

>>Fred looked old, tired and confused.<<

Fred knows how to say “nuclear,” unlike our current POTUS.

Sorry, I was born on the West Texas boarder. That is the way folks speak. It is the dialect, just like those in the Eastern states pronounce words that sound funny to me.

People also talk strange in West Tennessee where Fred went to college, and I now live.

I never got past the word liar.

Do not ever post me again. I have not lied. These are my person opinions, as I have stated over and over. I got them from having Fred as my senator for 8 eights.

Yes, Chris Wallace did focus mostly on Romney, Huck and McCain. It was blatant.

Fred did well, the few times he was asked questions,,,very well, in fact. Rudy seemed disinterested--and was really, REALLY lucky they virtually ignored his strong conservative social credentials (gun-grabbing, pro-abortion, gay rights crusader).

Wallace gave Rudy a huge break by ignoring social issues!!

correction= 8 years.

Fred looked old, tired and confused.

I'm assuming you are a Mitt boy because, well, you lie like him.

Fred looked old, tired and confused. Even I, who will vote for him only in the general was dissapointed.

Bulldung. You have a consistent posting record that calls you a liar..

Your reading comprehension is not too well developed I see. I did not call you a liar, I said your own posting record makes the above statement a lie. I also note that you have no answer for the questions I posed of you. You are a troll and nothing more. Rest assured I will not post to you again. I have no wish to correspond with people who lack integrity. Goodbye.

Fred was a good senator and he sure cleaned up a lot of corruption in Tn. when he was a prosecutor. You sound as if you have a personal reason for your intense dislike for him.

David Limbaugh Endorses Fred Thompson
Posted on January 17th, 2008
By Sean Hackbarth in Announcements

From David Limbaugh’s latest column:

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.

…

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?

http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2008/david-limbaugh-endorses-fred-thompson/

http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx