Free Republic

FWIW, Georgette Mosbacher is NOT a Finance co-chair; is NOT even a member of the RNC Finance committee.

When Bush allowed offshore drilling, the price of oil fell and fell. When Obama banned offshore drilling, prices went up and up.

The reason is simple. Today's price depends in part on the expectation of future prices. When oil producers expect future prices to be lower (due to a larger supply from offshore drilling), they lower today's prices. When they expect higher future prices (due to restrictions on the supply of oil), they leave their oil in the ground until the price rises.

Fred and Hunter would be more to my liking.

But that does not change the political calculus at all. Fred and Mitt together would IMO swamp all the other candidates. Also, Mitt has the managerial ability to run a huge organization, and wring out lots of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Whether Mitt Romney is acceptable to conservatives is debatable.

Debatable perhaps but National Review's endorsement of him indicates that he is acceptable to many solid conservatives. (I wish they had endorsed Fred.)

If Fred and Mitt joined forces I think they would be a shoe-in. Fred ought to win SC; Mitt could win MI. But in the worst case scenario where neither wins, the joint ticket should beat all of the other candidates.

The New York Times? THE NEW YORK TIMES?? It’s almost impossible to believe but the NYT actually wrote a fair piece about a Republican. It might even do Fred some good.

It is fair use, not a violation of copyright to copy a sentence:
“The Iowa Republican Party announced today that presidential candidates Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson are scheduled to headline the annual Ronald Reagan Dinner on October 27.”

I hope you’ll let us know how it turns out - how your soldier likes the fish and sauce, how the platoon likes it, etc.

re: Tort reform

Fred thinks that tort reform should be left up to the states. Most problems are better handled by the states than by trying to solve every problem at the federal level. Somehow whatever the federal government does often makes the problem worse.

Fred is a solid conservative. He got his start by reading Conscience of a Conservative.
More than that he is a federalist - something that has been missing for far too long in Washington. He believes that the federal government should do a few things well and leave the rest to the states. If the federal government starts to do things well then we might give it a few more things to do. He has demonstrated the courage of his convictions by being on the losing side of a few 99-1 votes.
He is an excellent communicator. His radio spots on the Paul Harvey radio show were simple and to the point, easy to understand. I think he can explain to the people why the federal government should be smaller and less intrusive.

>According to GOA he voted pro gun 19 times and anti gun 14 times.

That’s a deceptive statistic. Most of those “anti-gun” votes had nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
- three of those votes were for McCain-Feingold which GOA opposed. Most of us think that McCain-Feingold was a terrible bill - but it has nothing to do with gun ownership.
- three of the votes were for anti-terrorism bills, e.g. one was about wiretapping. Now, one might think the bill was a bad bill but again it has nothing to do with gun ownership.
- two of the votes were to confirm presidential appointments, a judge and the surgeon general. We might think those were bad appointments but those votes should not count as “anti-gun”.

Subtract those eight votes that have nothing to do with RKBA and it would be much more accurate to say that Thompson voted pro-gun 19 times and anti-gun 6 times. And even those six votes were marginal issues, e.g. related to teenagers possessing semi-auto weapons.

On the principle of RKBA, Thompson has always understood that it is a fundamental right. He understands that firearms are crucial to self-defense and defense of community.

I’m not sure that Mitt Romney understands that the right to own firearms is a fundamental human right. Anyone who even mentions “hunting” in the context of gun ownership has no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is.

Try:
Friends of Jon Bruning
PO Box 84614
Lincoln, NE 68501-9979

To those who may not have seen it live, the video is at http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html.

>>many FReepers think that Fred Thompson is the best choice.
>...because?

He is a conservative, more than he is a federalist, and he is a great communicator.

Other candidates may be conservative, but how many are federalists? Which of them would say, “This is not something that the federal government should be involved in” - even if they are on the losing side of a 99-1 vote?

Thompson speaks (and writes) simply. He is plain-spoken, saying what he thinks, not necessarily what he thinks you want to hear.

I met Thompson once at some event here in NH. He was standing alone at the back of the room waiting to speak. Every other politician would have been circulating, introducing himself, would have had one or two staff members with him. Thompson is not your usual politician.

bump

Due process does not necessarily mean in a civil court. However, the civil judiciary can take this on at any time.

Agreed. It doesn't even have to be a full court trial. It could be nothing more than a hearing where the government merely shows cause to believe that Padilla is an enemy combatant. Then, after Padilla has had opportunity to meet with counsel, and has had opportunity to oppose the presumption that he is an enemy combatant, and assuming that the court agrees that he is in fact an enemy combatant, then the President can lock him up for the duration of the war.

What has been wrong so far is the government's insistence that the President alone without any due process of law can deprive a person of liberty.

This is a war, not a criminal preceding.

The Constitution still applies even in time of war. The President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Amendment V states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

If the President can deprive Padilla of liberty without due process of law, then he can deprive you or me of liberty without due process of law. Would you like a President Hillary to be able to declare any political opponent an enemy combatant and hold that person indefinitely without any judicial review? If you don't want a President Hillary to have that power, then you should support Padilla's right to due process of law.

"At the very least, there must be a judicial hearing to show that Padilla is in fact an enemy combatant."

There is, but only if the judiciary chooses to. Daschle and Ginsburg would us Habeaus Corpes faster that grass passes through a goose. There is a check to the presidents power to do this, both in congress (withdrawing authorization) and through the Judiciary.

If Daschle and Ginsburg can use Habeas Corpus then so can Padilla. The government argues that the President, having named Padilla an enemy combatant, can hold him without Habeas Corpus. If the President can hold Padilla without any judicial review, then he could also hold Daschle or Ginsburg, you, me, or anyone without judicial review.

The same Constitution that protects you or me also protects Padilla.

... plucked American citizens off American soil and executed them after a military tribunal ...

A military tribunal qualifies as due process of law. So far, Padilla has not had due process of law.