Fred Thompson, who challenged John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination, cast his former rival Tuesday as a man of integrity with the will to shake up Washington.

The former Tennessee senator and actor also sought to rally the party faithful behind McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Palin has faced intense scrutiny this week after a series of personal and political revelations, including news that her unmarried teen daughter is pregnant and the disclosure that she had backed federal funding for a controversial bridge in her state that McCain and others had held up a symbol of pork-barrel spending.

In a McCain administration, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments, sources close to the McCain campaign and to Thompson tell us.

The rumors of his demise have been greatly exaggerated.

After a failed run for president, Fred Thompson is getting back to pretending to be commander in chief.

Hollywood's high-powered William Morris Agency announced this week that it has signed the actor/politician, signaling a return to the screen for the former senator from Tennessee.

Thompson most recently appeared as grizzled district attorney Arthur Branch on "Law & Order" and has played authority figures in the films "The Hunt For Red October," "Die Hard II" and "In the Line of Fire."

Thompson dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Jan. 22.

Well, the inevitable finally happened. John McCain secured the 1191st delegate, winning the Republican primary. How did we end up with him, with a few liberal stances on some key views, when we had tons of other strong candidates?

The candidates

At first, 2008 looked like a great year. We had two guys with a 99 from the American Conservative Union (Brownback and Tancredo), the guy from 2004 who everyone kinda liked America's Mayor who was tough on crime and a real likeable guy, a fairly conservative Massachussetian named Mitt Romney, a representative no one knew about but whose positions everyone supported (Hunter), a libertarian, and a Southern Baptist minister. Plus, we had movements to draft Fred Thompson (the ultra conservative from the GOP's point of view) and Newt Gingrich (the guy who led us to power in the House a decade ago).

Unfortunately, a few things happened. First of all, McCain quickly lost the popularity he had originally had when he worked with Ted Kennedy on an amnesty bill. Tancredo got off to a horrible start thanks to his one-issue campaign (immigration), Hunter got too little endorsements, Brownback was too little known outside of Kansas, and Ron Paul was a libertarian running for a conservative party. So with all the "true" conservatives out of the race, we settled back and waited for Fred Thompson. Since the rightwingers were planning to vote for the man who wasn't running yet, Giuliani and Romney leaped to the top. That was our biggest mistake. Because Thompson was going to announce in February. Then March. Then April. Then May. Then June. And finally, when he announced in September, he had lost much of his momentum. And then... he flopped. He had virtually no charisma, was boring, and looked awkward. The conservatives grew disillusioned. Many knew that he had no chance in a runoff against the charismatic Hillary or Obama. Then, a miracle happened. A small unknown Southern Baptist preacher-turned-governor started putting on steam. I had been following Huckabee since he announced, and for the longest time he had no support (most didn't know who he was). But suddenly, a surge of evangelical Christians brought him into the spotlight. And thanks to his FairTax (and Romney's abortion flip-flop and Giuliani's social liberalism), the smooth talking Bible thumping preacher began to get looks from the conservatives. Soon, they had put him second to, and then in front of, Rudy Giuliani.

The caucuses and primaries

Well, it began with a bang. Huckabee did the unthinkable and took Iowa with 34%. Everyone suddenly began considering Huckabee as a legitimate candidate. Romney came back with a huge victory in... Wyoming. And then in New Hampshire, John McCain pulled off another upset. Michigan put Romney back in the spotlight. By now, it was obvious that it was a four man race: Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani as a longshot. But McCain then took the strongly evangelical South Carolina, bringing the attention onto his campaign again and led to him being dubbed, "The Comeback Kid". Huckabee fired back with another win in Louisiana. Florida came, but Giuliani's lack of early campaigning as well as Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain did him in, with McCain winning Florida. Then, Super Tuesday arrived.

Huckabee pulled off yet another surprise in West Virginia. But it wasn't enough, and all Huckabee did was manage to steal Romney votes and help McCain win the nomination. Romney promptly dropped out, and McCain virtually sealed the nomination.

So what happened?

Well, a few things. First of all, we were too enthralled with Fred. If we had looked at some of the other candidates (Romney didn't look so bad towards the end, but was ridiculed as a liberal in the beginning), perhaps when Fred flopped we could have had another choice. Second, we shouldn't have been so quick to jump on Huckabee's bandwagon. I admit that it was probably mostly the fault of us evangelicals, who heard the words "Southern Baptist preacher" and started wearing Huckabee 2008 pins. So basically, next time we need to see the bigger picture.

According to Yahoo News (a breaking story it won't allow me to seed), Rudy Giuliani is in talks to possibly endorse John McCain.

In his recent memoir, Alan Greenspan says he's been pushing a constitutional amendment of his own devising. It reads: "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office." If the Greenspan amendment is ever enacted, it will at last clear the field for Fred Thompson, who might then become president. But not until then.

If McCain loses in Florida, the Republicans may well be headed to a deadlocked race and convention. And history teaches us that the likeliest candidate to emerge in that scenario is someone like Warren G. Harding: the prototypical, less-than-stellar candidate to which conventions turn when the going gets rough.

This year's Harding? Believe it or not (are you sitting down?), despite the fact that he's withdrawn from the race, is Fred Thompson.

Former US Senator Fred Thompson has withdrawn from the Republican presidential race, after a string of poor finishes in early voting rounds.

"I have withdrawn my candidacy... I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort," he said in a short statement.

It follows his third place result in Saturday's South Carolina primary - a state he had said he needed to win.

It's no longer speculation or rumor: Fred has issued a statement that he's withdrawing from the race.

He's still with his ailing mother. "He's just being a good son."

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time. He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson. I am also told, "he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position." At an "appropriate time" he will outline his plans for the near future.

"His rivals would do more in a day than Fred would do in a month," said one disaffected Thompson insider. "He created the perception, fairly or not, that he was just going through the motions."

And so we come to Florida for the ultimate clarification, much as Rudy Giuliani predicted. Can John McCain win a race that includes only Republican voters? Can Mike Huckabee win another state at all? Can Mitt Romney parlay his financial advantage to victory in a state not predisposed to support him? Will Fred Thompson even bother to campaign?

Fred Thompson supporters are being asked to register their opinions on who they'll support if Fred drops out. As of this posting, Romney is way ahead.

This blog posting asks Fred supporters where they will go if, as it appears, he withdraws from the race following his weak third place finish in SC. . Interesting reading. This, of course, is not a scientific survey, but it's obvious that for many of them, Mitt is the obvious choice, even if Thompson endorses McCain.

The current political turmoil in the presidential race of 2008 for both parties is a reflection of the turmoil in the nation. We know that the world is different in 2008 than it was in 2000. The world has different problems and those problems require different solutions than the problems that we as a nation have overcome before. The presidential candidate that can most artfully articulate a vision of where our country would be after 8 years of their rule, and what problems they will solve, will win the presidential race.

I think that it would be interesting for myself as well as for others here on the vine to articulate their own vision for where they would like the country to be in 2016 (I am assuming that a successful policy, if carried out, will result in a reelection of the person). I'll show you mine, you show yours?

First let me say that I strongly feel that there is a positive way forward for us in the near future that will result in a much better country and a better world should these things proposed come to pass. In the 1990's the boom that resulted in our country was not the result of raising taxes, it was the result of a weaving of many new technologies into the fabric of American life.

Think about it, it was only 1993 when the internet exploded onto the scene. That large numbers of people are reading this thread from all over the world is merely a testament to that seismic change. Cell phones were few and expensive in 1993 but today the world has changed so much that we now can watch TV over the Internet on our cellphones! Add to this out of this world technologies such as satellite GPS positioning, satellite radio, and even satellite Internet. There are many secondary changes that resulted from the major ones but these are the ones that count. Fundamental technological change has dramatically improved our individual lives, and our collective productivity. However, these changes are beginning to mature, and with that maturation, the majority of the benefit in terms of growth and change.

It can then be reasonably stated, based upon what our past experience has been over the last 50 years, that continuing investment in technology and the science that underpins it, be emphasized. This is a nice statement but what does it mean? It means that we as a nation, need to make investments in science & technology in order to result in more world improving gains. The question then becomes, what technologies and sciences need investment in order to provide additional results akin to the previous techno-boom.

As a technologist and systems designer (Our founding fathers counted many engineers & scientists, something that needs to be revived today) it is apparent that our most pressing problems today overlap each other and this overlap provides an opportunity to use a common approach to solve. Our problems related to war, oil, the economy, the environment and climate change (perceived or real), in the end come down to energy and resources. Solve this problem, and solve it for the world as well as ourselves, and we create a legacy that will remain and honor us long after a couple of presidential terms.

Energy is the key. We need to dramatically ramp up, in a manner akin to the Manhattan project, our research into energy toward the production of electrical power & transportation fuels. This would include solar, wind, geothermal, as well as a focus on the hydrogen economy. For solar, the demonstrated means of encouraging it is through tax breaks. Although an irresponsible congress just terminated the investment tax credit it has been shown as a clear winner in encouraging solar. The proposal here is to increase the federal tax credit to a full 50% of the installed system value. This would be for ten years so that companies making investments in this area can have a certainty of a return on investment. This 50% rate would be limited to American produced solar equipment including panels, produced from American produced solar cells and American grown silicon. A lesser 30% incentive would be provided to solar products bought from the global value chain. This would have the effect of increasing American jobs and not transferring money derived from these tax credits to hurt our balance of trade. The above credits as well as the existing 5 year accelerated depreciation for business solar investments, should result in a factor of 20 fold increase in solar utilization across the nation, and would generate tens of billions of dollars in new American solar business and an increase of 100,000 jobs. By 2016 the United States will lead the world in this technology and business.

As good as solar is, it is not the whole solution. Ultimately, we must make the investment necessary in science & technology to finally develop practical nuclear fusion. While work has been done and is being done related to making fusion a reality, the United States congress voted this year to strip all funds from the 11 nation collaborative effort. The U.S. must expend the investment in taxpayer dollars necessary to bring fusion based power generating plants into being, both in a robust engagement with our international partners, and for a reinvigorated national program that not only extends our knowledge, it finishes the work of decades to make commercial fusion generated power a reality.

Fusion, with its extremely limited radiation potential is a better investment than building new fission power plants. The benefit to the nation is that by 2016 we probably won't have completely solved the issue, but the nation will be in the position to reap the benefits within another few years, making this a program that reaches for the goal of eventually freeing us us entirely from our dependence on fossil fuels. This is our only truly sustainable path, and one that leads to greater prosperity here as no longer are we sending $400 billion dollars per year out of the country for energy.

A nation and a world not dependent upon oil anymore is a much less dangerous world. No longer can nation hold nation hostage and initiate large transfers of wealth that weakens our economic vitality. It is clear to everyone, left and right, that unless something is done, we will eventually reach the point to where we will be fighting over that ever shrinking resource. Would it not be better to spend the blood & treasure of the nation an amount of money that is less than for a war, on technological innovations that lead to improvements, that transcend former limits. This is the hope, and this what is seen as a vision for fundamental improvements if just the above is carried out.

This is not just another government program but a national commitment to change directions toward what may otherwise not be a fun future for our people. The world is changing dramatically today. From Mumbai to Mobile, a vast cross section of our planetary family can sit at a computer and read the same news, know the same songs, and even root for the same teams. Communications across the planet of large sums of data, video's and other cultural/scientific information is bringing us together as a planetary civilization and we must understand what that means to us, and our role as a part o that civilization.

The United States has been criticized for using a disproportionate share of the resources of the planet to support our lifestyles. This may be true but resources change. In a world where energy is literally drawn from sea water, we transcend one of the two barriers for a prosperous world, where everyone consumes the same amount (not wastefully) of energy and is equally prosperous, not equally poor. That is what fusion can contribute toward bringing into being for all of us and a good legacy for the United States to leave the world. Energy is not all but it is the most important problem to solve and by solving it, we do change the future for the better for not only us but for the world.

Next

Space's role.

More later, It would be interesting to read other "visions".

Early last year while shopping at an Embassy Suites gift shop, I spied a Fred Thompson campaign button and snapped it up because the idea of another actor running for the highest office in the land intrigued me. This was months before Senator Thompson actually entered the 2008 Presidential race with what the MSM has continually described as a lackluster effort. I've noticed the negligent media coverage of Thompson's campaign and it makes me wonder if the mainstream press considers him far more formidable than it would like. I've watched the debates, listened to the positions of all the candidates and I like Fred Thompson because he's running as an adult, not an entertainer.

If I were a South Carolina Republican voter on Saturday, then for parochial, tactical, and philosophical reasons, I would vote for Fred Thompson.This doesn't mean that I would not have voted for Mitt Romney in Michigan on Tuesday, if I were a Michigander, or that I would not vote for Rudy Giuliani in Florida later this month. Voting in each state, especially in a drawn-out nomination battle, involves particularly local considerations as well as national ones.

All of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Romney, are broke. What money they have left they are deploying in South Carolina and Florida and hoping that the results there will enable them to raise more money to compete in the February 5th Super Tuesday contests.

Huckabee has been complaining for two weeks about negative attacks from Romney, Thompson, the Club for Growth, etc. Now his supporters are using dirty tricks to attack Romney and Thompson and the SC prosecutor has been asked to prosecute the robo-calls, which are against the law in SC.

NRO's The Corner Blog reports that Huckabee's supporters are resorting to dirty tricks against Fred. They're getting desperate, folks.

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is emphasizing his plans for national security as he campaigns in South Carolina.

The former Tennessee senator and actor said yesterday in Aiken the United States must rebuild its military. Thompson says he would sit down with congressional leaders, but if that doesn't work he says he would campaign directly to the public.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson cast himself as a consistent conservative during a lunchtime stop at the Golden Corral restaurant in Rock Hill this afternoon.

Speaking to a packed room of about 200 people, the Republican presidential hopeful touted his national security credentials and voiced support for school vouchers.

Thompson is spellbinding as he explains, in his Southern-grandfatherly way, where we are and were we should be if we will start observing the Constitution once again. If the great mass of Republican voters are given the chance to see and hear this speech I have no doubt that he will be the GOP presidential nominee for 2008.

It reveals him to be the candidate all Republicans have been saying that want to carry their banner this year.

Fred Thompson is for real.

GLENN: Running for President of the United States, Mr. Fred Thompson. Hello, senator, how are you, sir?

SENATOR THOMPSON: Hello, Glenn, I'm doing good.

GLENN: Very good. Good to have you on the program. I know South Carolina is a big state for you and right now it's really between you and Mike Huckabee. What would you say the biggest difference is between the two of you?

GOP Candidate Fred Thompson

SENATOR THOMPSON: Well, first of all I'm not sure it's just between us.

Looks like our guy Fred is gaining in South Carolina at the expense of Mike Huckabee. Folks, Fred is the man to lead us into the next decade of the 21st century.

Go Fred!

Over the past several days, the only real movement in South Carolina's Republican Presidential Primary has been a four-point gain for Fred Thompson and a five-point decline for Mike Huckabee.

The hottest topic among South Carolina Republicans right now is the fire in Fred Thompson's belly.

Unlike the other candidates who still are trying to convince voters of their philosophy and credentials, Mr. Thompson finds his biggest challenge is trying to convince voters he's serious enough about his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. It's a curious position for a candidate to be in — one where his supporters seem to want him to want it more than he does.

"Get rough, Fred, get rough," shouted one woman at the beginning of a town-hall meeting Friday at Gilligan's, a restaurant in Moncks Corner.

John and Ann Berenberk dutifully watched the umpteenth Republican presidential debate on television on Thursday night and had an epiphany. It was about the candidate they had previously referred to as the tall, silent one. Fred D. Thompson.

Mixing theology and social issues on the campaign trail is rare for Fred Thompson, but he discussed it today answering a question from a member of the audience. A woman asked him if he would "as a Christian, as a conservative" continue President Bush's programs to combat global AIDS. "Christ didn't tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it," Thompson said. "The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other."

The campaign has raised more than $300,000 online just since Fred's dominating debate performance on Thursday night. Fifty-six percent of all online donors since Thursday night are first-time contributors. We have had 14,296 contributions since the Iowa Caucus with an average contribution of $98. To date the campaign has more than 166,000 total donors and 283,000 people have signed up online as "Friends of Fred." More than 200 volunteers from all over the country have descended on South Carolina to help get out the vote. On the heels of Thursday's debate, Fred was endorsed by Human Events, the influential conservative publication. In addition, his debate performance has been praised by Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett and virtually every conservative blog and pundit. It is no overstatement to say the campaign is being flooded with support.

"A lot of people nowadays think that we have to be moving away from our traditions of the Republican party," he said. "Most of the populist rhetoric you hear winds up in bigger government and more government programs. Why else have that rhetoric? I mean, what are you talking about if you're not leading with the government coming up with the solution? ... The way they interpret compassion is more government. I don't agree with any of that."

Candidates in the race to the White House have set their focus on South Carolina. Republican John McCain started his day in the upstate while Fred Thompson made a trip to the Lowcountry.He spoke to supporters in Lady's Island today at a meet and greet at Barbara Jean's restaurant. Hundreds packed the eatery to hear his thoughts on health care, politicians, and what keeps him motivated.

The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It's been more than five decades since such a race didn't feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.

As the primaries and debates speed by, we would like to see Sen. Thompson continue to invigorate his campaign to carry him successfully through Tsunami Tuesday and to nomination at the Republican convention.

Mike Huckabee will be the GOP candidate. Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Ron Paul will not run as a Constitutionalist or Libertarian. These are just some of the radical predictions I have in store for you.

Republican Nomination

Huckabee - Most probable nominee

Mike Huckabee will be the 2008 GOP nominee. He's got the momentum. He's got Iowa, and a strong showing in New Hampshire for what he did there. He'll easily win South Carolina unless Thompson turns on the steam. And his folksy, down-to-earth style will destroy any opposition. Even if he doesn't win, he has a good chance at getting the VP nod from Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (they need an aw shucks guy to help win the rural vote).

Giuliani - Sick, dying, dead

Giuliani meanwhile has adopted the wrong strategy. He thinks that winning everything on Super Duper Tuesday will be enough. But it won't. Because he'll have to win it first. And since he's been ranking next to Ron Paul in the early debates, he has zero momentum. Maybe even negative. Add that to the fact that he's starting to get boring (while Huckabee is all fresh) and all the scandals are coming out, and he's almost dead. So because everyone thinks he'll lose, the city will vote Romney or McCain and the country will vote Huckabee. Giuliani's only hope is in a strong Florida victory, after which he'll have a small chance to win Super Duper Tuesday.

Thompson - Done for

Fred Thompson did better when he wasn't running than he is now. Simple fact. All the conservative bloggers and journalists in the world can't help him. He's out and out boring. Look, I think he's the best candidate on the issues. But he's got no chance convincing anyone that he's the right man, unless he picks up real steam. And I know he did a "good" job last night, but that's not what I'm talking about. He needs real charisma (and maybe some anti-monotone lessons).

Romney - Longshot

Romney is almost completely done for. His flip flopping (whether true or not), health care, and immigration got him into trouble. See, he thinks money can buy everything. But it can't buy him first place in Iowa (especially when Mike Huckabee, penniless a few months ago, won) or New Hampshire (anyone remember the Newsvine story about John McCain's near-bankruptcy?). He won "silver" both times. But for the amount of work he put in, he should have gotten first. Except that the voters didn't like him. And he can't campaign like that on Super Duper Tuesday. Simply put, Romney is next to dead.

McCain - Longshot getting shorter

John McCain. He was almost bankrupt six months ago. Yet when he won New Hampshire a few days ago, he suddenly looked like he could come out of the McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy "scandals" that hurt him so badly early on. Now McCain needs to immediately capitalize on his New Hampshire win with a couple more. If he can, we may see him in the White House after all.

Paul - Dead on arrival

Look, we all know Ron Paul has a huge internet following. But you can't turn that into a huge electoral following. Especially if you're a libertarian running for a conservative (moving left) party. So Ron Paul will lose.

Democratic Nomination

Hillary - Most probably nominee

Yes, we all know Obama is coming on strong. But as the Economist pointed out, Obama needed everything to go right. That includes New Hampshire. And everything didn't go right. So while Obama is still in the race, I'll put my money that the gender card will trump the race card in 2008.

Obama - Chance, but lost NH

Obama won Iowa and everyone thought he'd take off from there. He was expected to win New Hampshire easily, and with those two in the bag, sweep on to take the rest of the primaries. But Hillary started sobbing, and Obama lost New Hampshire. This will set him back quite a lot.

Edwards - Super longshot

Look Mr. I-hate-all-corporations-in-the-world. We know you want to become president. But even your wife admitted that "We can't make [him] black, we can't make him a woman". And that's why you won't be accepting the Democrat nomination.

Third-party nominations

OK, no one really cares about the Constitutionalist, Libertarian, or Green Parties. There are only three candidates anyone cares about. Ron Paul will decide very carefully about running. In the end, I think he'll decide that a moderate conservative is better than letting a socialist get into office. It will also depend on who it is. If it's Huckabee, he might consider it. If it's Giuliani or Romney, I think he'll definitely not run.

Mike Bloomberg is different. He's an Independent, which means he doesn't really love the Republican Party that much. But since he's been pretty mum about it, there's not a huge chance he'll run.

Lastly, Ralph Nader will run. He called Hillary "a panderer and a flatterer." He never said no. He'll be in the Green Party Presidential Debates. And the Green Party is trying to draft him.

Presidential Run-off

Huckabee and Hillary will square off with a bang. Hillary will take the urban vote, Huckabee the rural vote. But Huckabee's honesty (whether real or feigned) will triumph over Hillary's political maneuvering. If it was Giuliani who ran against Hillary, it would be a whole different story. Both would fight to see whether Giuliani was corrupt or if Hillary was a maneuvering politician. If Obama won, he'd probably win the presidency against Giuliani. Against Huckabee... I couldn't make a prediction. Ralph Nader will receive less than 1% of the vote. Ron Paul will also receive a few write-ins if he doesn't run, and a small percentage of the vote if he does.

Oh, and look for Newt Gingrich as a vice-presidential candidate. Especially if Mike Huckabee is elected.

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C., Jan. 10 -- The leading Republican presidential candidates used a Fox News debate Thursday night to draw contrasts with their rivals on the economy, U.S. relations with Iran, immigration and political change in advance of two primaries next week that are expected to winnow the field.

In their last televised meeting before critical contests in Michigan and South Carolina, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) of pessimism about the nation's economy for saying that some outsourced jobs are never coming back to hard-hit communities. "I'm going to fight for every single job," Romney said in the opening moments of the debate.

McCain responded by saying that he was offering the kind of "straight talk" that voters appreciate, and that the government is obligated to help laid-off workers through a "rough patch" by offering training and other programs. But he did not back off, saying that "there are some jobs that aren't coming back to Michigan. There are some jobs that won't come back here to South Carolina."

Moments later, former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) lashed out at former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, charging the winner of the Iowa caucuses with a litany of conservative heresies, including supporting taxpayer-funded programs for illegal immigrants, a smoking ban and liberal economic policies, as well as opposing school vouchers.

"So much for federalism," an animated Thompson said. "So much for states' rights. So much for individual rights."

Huckabee, who is jousting with Thompson and McCain in South Carolina for a victory in the nation's first Southern primary on Jan. 19, dismissed the accusations. "If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target," he said. "I'm catching flak; I must be over the target

It is pretty much the general consensus that Fred Thompson won the debate in South Carolina last night.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters:

"Who put the vitamins in Fred Thompson's oatmeal? We have waited for Thompson to show up on the campaign trail, and tonight he finally did. He had energy, focus, a command of detail, and a willingness to finally engage with the other candidates on the stage. He took almost everyone else aback, and seized momentum that he only occasionally relinquished."

NBC's Chuck Todd writes:

Fred Thompson was funny, biting and energetic. Easily, his smoothest performance...

From The Moderate Voice:

THOMPSON lived up to his advance hype in this one. Finally. Endearing, witty and sharp.

The New York Times:

But it was Mr. Thompson's performance, in which he shook off the laid-back style that has defined his candidacy, that provided some of the liveliest moments of the debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C..

Peter Robinson at National review Online said:

Thompson need only sustain this performance for a couple of days before votes, and money, start moving in his direction. But tonight the one consistent and authentic conservative in this race made himself the man to watch. When Fred roars, he roars."

The question is: will Fred's performance result in a bounce for him or a win for McCain? There is a few that think it is the latter.

The idea goes, if Fred can peel a some voters away from Huckabee to him, it doesn't hurt McCain, who is leading in South Carolina. Fred would have to really make up some ground to catch, let alone pass McCain in South Carolina primary. But it is possible this debate could lead to just that result.

It was not that long ago that Fred was the leader in the Palmetto state. And considering the polling debacle that happened in New Hampshire, I wouldn't be surprised to see Fred win there.

If Fred is going to pull this off, he has got to not only tear Huckabee down for his liberal tendencies, but attack McCain for his. Go after the McCain/Kennedy amnesty plan. Go after McCain/Feingold. Go after the fact that McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, not because of a lack of spending cuts, but because of the same class warfare reasons the liberals did.

Thompson's campaign is far from dead. He has picked up a lot of endorsements recently, and is supposedly getting a big endorsement today. Fred's performance in last night's debate is just what he needed to do to revive the energy people had when they drafted him I think Fred's performance helped him more than it helped McCain, but that is dependent on how he builds on it.

Voters say they want a substantial debate of the issues and the candidate's proposed solutions. Yet, the minute a serious discussion commences, eyes glaze over and the subject is changed. Many people apply about as much thought to their vote for President as they do to selecting their favorite breakfast cereal. Fred Thompson, despite the fact that he is an accomplished actor, and could simply try to parlay that fact into a successful campaign in this star-struck culture, trusts the average American to engage his or her brain in tackling the issues facing our country.

When Fred's frank, intelligent, common-sense approach is allowed to actually filter down to the people, a level of respect is instantly earned and a bond is formed. Unfortunately, the media believes that candidates should come kowtowing to them for the mere privilege of having access to the airwaves and print media.

Fred Thompson's political views are firmly rooted in his conservative "core principles". During a recent interview, this fact completely baffled PBS's Charlie Rose when he posed a question as to what being a conservative means today. Fred answered, "It means things that are consistent with God's design for man, it's consistent with human nature, it's consistent with the lessons of history, the lessons of ages. They found form in the Constitution I think and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understood that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing."

An excellent presentation of Fred Thompson's strengths, conservative principles, and issue positions with a one-paragraph summary on each of these GOP candidates: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudolph Guiliani.

Today Fred Thompson announced the endorsement of Citizens for Life, the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee.

"Granite State voters like no-nonsense candidates who stand up for their beliefs. Fred Thompson is such a candidate," said Roger Stenson, Citizens for Life Executive Director. "Fred Thompson had a 100% pro-life voting record as a member of the United States Senate. For all of us who care about the dignity and sanctity of human life and the most basic freedom upon which our nation was founded - the right to life - Fred Thompson is a leader of great promise."

Citizens for Life is the 14th state pro-life organization to endorse Senator Thompson for President.

YouTube video: Fox News Channel, 7 minutes 2 seconds. Neil Cavuto interviews Fred Thompson.

Right Now: Fred Thompson on the New Hampshire Primary.

At 2:40 "... Governor Huckabee ... has got a past of, ah, being weak on the issue of illegal immigration. Ah, He practically wanted a sanctuary state in Arkansas, not just a sanctuary city."

It's time to wake up, conservatives! It's time to face the hard truth of the Fred Thompson candidacy for President of the United States, time to take a look at the ugly truth. It's time to find out just what Fred Thompson hasn't done as a U.S. Senator from Tennessee.

It has become apparent that Senator Fred Thompson has ignored far too many issues during his years in office. He ignored government surpluses by voting for tax cuts that President Bush signed into legislation. Instead of leaving taxes high, he voted to spur economic growth, and help keep the country from depression after the September 11th attacks.

Senator Thompson even had the nerve in 1999 to vote for the Nickles Amendent, an amendment that called for an across-the-board spending cut. He could've voted no, allowing Democrats and big spending Republicans to plummet the Social Security Trust Fund. He didn't.

Ultimately, when we make up our minds we should think about the qualities the candidate would bring to the Oval Office--and not just whether or not they would make a good candidate.

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson today questioned whether political reporters covering the race for the White House have enough ambition for the job.

"Most of these journalists seem to lack what you might call fire in the belly," said the former Tennessee senator. "When's the last time you read an in-depth story about what the presidential hopefuls actually believe, or have accomplished? How often have you seen a reporter place a candidate's views in the context of the Constitution, the sweep of American history, the intricacies of global geopolitics, economic theory or even basic political philosophy?"

Mr. Thompson said most reporting on the race fits one of three categories:
1) Results of the latest opinion poll.
2) Embarrassing gaffes and nasty remarks.
3) Reaction to one of the above.

"I'm not sure if it's laziness, lack of ambition, or just apathy," said Mr. Thompson, "But the American people need to know that the reporters whom they entrust with this solemn responsibility have a burning desire to fulfill the obligations of the Fourth Estate. That means you need to hustle, do your homework, ask tough questions about significant issues, put quotations in context, filter out your own natural bias, and place more value on accuracy than on speed, more on integrity than on your own petty celebrity."

After making the remarks at a news conference, the candidate, who's running third or fourth among Republicans in most polls, refused to answer reporters' questions about his reaction to Mike Huckabee's attacks on Mitt Romney.

There has been a lot of talk lately about comments that presidential candidate Fred Thompson made concerning his bid for the White House. I have been a vocal critic of Fred's lack of enthusiasm and in a recent interview he addressed the "fire in the belly" issue. He said,

...I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I want the people to have the best president that they can have.

When this talk first started, it didn't originate with me. There were a lot of people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up. And of course, you always look better at a distance, I guess.

But most of those people are still there and think its a good idea. But I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, it probably ain't going to be a very good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that I have the background, the capability, and the concern to do this and I'm doing it for the right reasons. But I'm not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I'd make a good president.

This made me sit back and think for a second. It was a little unusual. It was...candor.

And then I thought about another person in the history of the greatest country in the history of man. This man resigned his post when everyone thought he would be taking over as head of state. He not only resigned, but he told people he wasn't going to be running for any government positions. People were stunned. It was honestly staggering that this man would not be interested in ruling. When he resigned, the King of England called him the "greatest man alive."

He then went back to his home to live out his days, but was called for and once again served his country. Because of his help, state after state responded positively to a new Constitution. Following the creation of the Constitution, electors in each state cast ballots for the office of the president. While it was widely suspected he would win the election, he was reluctant. His friends and family responded by reminding him he did not campaign for this position and did not seek the office. He was chosen by the people.

When the ballots were finally counted on April 6, 1789, it was official. He had won. He had not sought the office of the president, but George Washington accepted the position and said, "I cannot give a greater evidence of my sensibility for the honor my fellow citizens have done me, than by accepting the appointment." Later, when writing in his personal journal, he did not write about winning an election, but of his need to respect and serve 'my country in obedience to its call.'

After recalling our first reluctant president, and comparing his sentiments to Senator Thompson's, I came to the conclusion that I owe Fred an apology. I am sorry for wanting you to be something you are not. I am sorry for demanding that you fit the modern mold of a presidential candidate. While I agreed with a majority of his positions, I wanted Fred to put on a better show. I'm sorry for wanting a lot of flashy packaging instead of being satisfied with a quality product.

Having reflected on the first reluctant president, and reading Fred's comments above, there is only one thing left to do.

I fully support Fred Thompson for president of the United States of America.

This is a response directly from Fred Thompson related to a crap story put out that he did not care if he won the election or not. Agenda driven journalism, our worst enemy.

Fred's own words on this subject.

Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today's technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.
Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.
Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn't even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.
In referring to me, she reported "he doesn't like modern campaigning, isn't interested in running for President, and will not be devastated" if he doesn't win.
Below is a transcript of what I actually said in response to a question by a local Burlington resident which was the basis of the reporter's story.

Campaign 2008, CSPAN, Road to the White House.
35 minute 12 second CSPAN video. Friday, December 28, 2007.
Town Hall meeting from the Smokey Row Coffee House, Pella, Iowa.
2:40 introduction. Moderated by Bob Leonard, KNIA/KRLS Radio.
Only 4 questions.

I've finally come up with a tentative endorsement for the next president of the United States.  If you would have asked me a year ago if I thought I would still be undecided just days away from the Iowa Caucus I would have probably laughed.  We had good candidates testing the waters and other good candidates waiting in the back drop.  But here we are.

If there is time to 'vote your conscience' then obviously it's during a primary match-up.  It requires a combination of selecting a candidate who can change the Party in the direction you want it to go and win in the general election.

And there is a third facet which so many adhere to above all others:  selecting the person who you personally like the most, who shares most of your views or who makes you feel good, with no regard to the Party, the election, the office or the potential of the candidate.

One of my trademark sayings is "idealism is fine until it butts heads with reality".  If you aren't prepared to deal with reality when conducting this sacred exercise than what are you really expecting to accomplish?

There were over 120 million votes cast in the 2004 presidential election.  You are not casting a vote for your own little island, even if somewhere in your childhood you were convinced that this were so.  Supporting a candidate is of course done with some element of the personal involved; however, it shouldn't be all personal.  There is a difference between voting with your heart and voting with your head.

One of the more tiring buzz-terms that gets recycled every election year is the adage of voting for the lesser of two evils.  It's an ignorant claim made by hyper-cynical people who think the path to enlightenment requires an outsider mentality.  That argument could be made when there are no good choices or contrasting choices but the reality is that both sides (and especially the Republicans) aren't suffering from not enough good choices but rather from too many good choices.   That doesn't relegate me to making a painful choice between two evils.  And when the Republican takes on the Democrat in November, I will have a clear choice between a candidate who will move the country in the direction I want it to go and a candidate who will move the country in the opposite direction.  

It's not about choosing the lesser of two evils; it's about making the best choice. 

And here is my rundown, my countdown if you will:

8. Alan Keyes:  out of the question.  I don't have much more to say.  The guy is certifiable and an embarrassment to the Party.

7. Ron Paul:  out of the question.  A likable guy?  Yes.  Do I share some of his political philosophy? Yes.  But nutty as a fruitcake and supported by many of the worst elements in society.  He has been an ineffective political leader and has no chance of winning the primary or the general election.  If he miraculously accomplished both, he would face obstruction from both parties.  He is a disaster in every sense of the word.  I most likely would not support Ron Paul in the general election.

6. Duncan Hunter:  I like Duncan Hunter.  A lot.  But he was never a real candidate and I'm not going to give my support to someone who is not in to win.

5. Mike Huckabee:  doesn't excite me.  I have problems with some of his platform but in the general election, I would see him as the candidate that keeps the country on track.  I wouldn't support him in the primary however because I don't think he could win in November.

4. Mitt Romney:  I was very interested in Romney in the beginning.  He never really connected with me and his campaign has unfortunately been held hostage under the shadow of his religion.   I do like him however and think that he has a knack for getting things done.  I would be happy to support him in November.  But again, I think winning in November would be a steep uphill climb for him.

3. Fred Thompson:  I like Fred, I think he would make a good president.  I'm sorry that his campaign didn't catch fire like some of us thought it might when he joined in the race.  He is great when he is on target and when he exercised that charming and sharp, no-nonsense Southern wit of his.   He is a solid conservative.  But he has to campaign like he wants it and I don't think he's convinced enough voters that he does.  I would enthusiastically support him in the general, but his campaign would have to light a fire under him if he would expect to beat any of the Big Three Democrats.

And finally, the problem I face:  who am I going to back for the Republican nomination in the weeks to come?  I'm split almost 50-50 between these two guys and I'm truly torn.

Both of them have solid and patriotic political backgrounds.   Both have records they can boast.  Both are icons in the post-911 conflict.  Both support winning.  Both have the right economic vision.  Both have run good campaigns.  And either of them could very realistically win in November.  

2. Rudy Giuliani:  I've always liked Giuliani.  I think he deserves the Republican nomination.  As recently as last week I have been telling people that he would be my guy.  He's an effective politician and I have yet to see any real counter against the miraculous turn around of New York City, the nation's largest and at the time, more troubling cities.  He left an undeniable positive impact on the city.  He boasts his accomplishments as he should.  While a Hillary Clinton slogan is that she has always cared about children, Giuliani's slogan is that abortions decreased and adoptions increased under his leadership.  He, unlike some his Republican rivals and virtually all of his Democratic rivals, has real and undeniable results he can point to.  And yes, despite opponents to Giuliani's insistence that it's limited or inconsequential, his leadership on 9/11 is a valuable asset to his campaign.  How a leader acts in the face of the unfathomable should have an immeasurable weight on how we assess that candidate.

1. And finally, my support for the next president goes to John McCain.  A year ago McCain would have been near my 'out of the question' level because the man has done some things to infuriate me.  But in hindsight I have to give him credit:  some of the things I thought he was wrong on...he proved himself right.  He was wrong on opposing the Bush tax cuts but he was right on opposing them on the grounds that they didn't include spending cuts.  That should be reassuring to conservatives.

I was angry over the 'Gang of 14' stunt - but in the end, he was proven right.  He got the Democrats to back off while preserving the filibuster.

I thought he was wrong on his insistence that greater force was the answer in Iraq.  This summer's troop surge in the war that Harry Reid dubbed "lost" nine months ago proves McCain right.

Despite the rhetoric surrounding Ron Paul, John McCain is the true fiscal conservative.  He has been a fighter against government waste, rejects earmarks and opposes agricultural subsidies.

McCain was obviously wrong on campaign finance reform and I believe him when he acknowledges it as a mistake. 

The biggest problem I have with McCain is his position on interrogations.  I'm not going to even try to question or challenge his perspective on torture (and very of us should) - though I don't agree with his view on waterboarding.   But I don't think any leader in Washington at a time like this should be advertising our intelligence gathering techniques or limitations.   

To put the icing on the cake, McCain is the only Republican candidate who polls with the best chance of defeating each of the Democratic candidates.  RealClearPolitics national poll averages shows that he is the only candidate who beats Hillary.  He ties Obama and he is within a few points of Edwards.  He would be a more legitimate Commander-in-Chief in that he has served (and then some) and has two sons currently serving overseas.  I say legitimate in that it would end the 'chickenhawk' rants once and for all.  He has name recognition and has run the cleanest and most stately campaigns of all of the candidates - he is often the straightest talker on divisive issues and has been a gentleman throughout the campaign.

John McCain walks softly and carries a big stick.

So there you have it.  It's not to say that I may be swept with an urge to pull for Giuliani as I'm approaching the polling booth, but as of now, my support and my money are with John McCain, the next president of the United States. 

Fred Thompson, the clear conservative choice.
The Thompson campaign has raised $266,000 in the last 48 hours to fund a TV ad campaign in Iowa preceding the January 3rd, 2008 caucuses.

6 minute 59 second CNN video. John Roberts in New York interviewing Fred Thompson in Pella, Iowa on Pakistan.

12) Mike Huckabee attacks Romney's religion: In an interview with the New York Times magazine, Mike Huckabee asked, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Why Huckabee chose to give Romney's supporters a chance to bash him for being "anti-Mormon" just for asking the question is unknown, but the comment, which Huckabee later apologized for, helped enable his detractors to paint him as a man exploiting his faith to help win an election.

Fred Thompson is flooding this state with his best asset — himself — hoping voters are tired of the other Republican presidential candidates and willing to take a second look at his own candidacy before next week's caucuses.

A 5 minute 14 second CNN video interview of Fred Thompson speaking on the global conflict against the Islamic terrorists, on Pakistan, and on the tragic assassination of Bhutto.

Thompson is unapologetic on his views and is a straight-shooter.

"These are clearly challenging times. I don't think we've fully come to terms with the kind of world we live in," he told members of the Courier editorial board recently.

The time is now to reform the American economy.

He says the country needs "market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes."

Thompson said "it is a moral imperative that requires action now" and he wants a full account of the government's fiscal books for "all to see and understand."

The man from Tennessee is no-nonsense, speaks plainly and believes action is needed now, not later.

"There's very little credibility coming out of D.C. to deal with these problems, so I think there's an opportunity for someone who is willing to speak the truth," he said.

Fred Thompson will do just that.

The Associated Press -- once the gold standard of fast and accurate reporting -- changed during the Bush presidency. What was liberal bias has reshaped the wire service into one of the most politically activist media outlets. This is a cautionary tale for every Republican candidate. What AP tried to do to Fred Thompson is going to be repeated against any conservative candidate who exudes a whiff of conservatism in the primaries and whichever Republican gains the presidential nomination.

AP's defense of Kerry -- his words could be nothing other than a direct insult to our allies -- was an unpaid campaign contribution to the liberal Dem. And AP has only gotten worse since Bush defeated Kerry. Its coverage of Iraq got so bad that editors from newspapers all over the nation were critical of what AP was writing. Even the New York Times -- the Frankenstein laboratory for Bush Derangement Syndrome -- was forced to cover the AP's coverage.

At that second hearing, Hillary's strident verbal assault on Rumsfeld was a big yawn. But not to AP. "Reporting" on the hearing, AP's Clintonistas wrote, "The showdown between Clinton, a potential candidate in 2008, and Rumsfeld, the public face of the Bush administration's war effort, included the strongest criticism of the Iraq war she has made to date...The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack..."

As I wrote at the time, AP's characterization of Hillary's histrionics and Rumsfeld's calm rebuttal was fable, not fact. I called AP Washington Bureau chief Sandra Johnson and night editor Robert Glass for interviews for both print and radio. Johnson never returned my calls and Glass shuffled me off on another editor, Alan Fram, who also didn't return my calls. Caught Hillary-handed, AP hid in the tall grass.

Video: Congressman Steve King endorses Fred Thompson and explains why; Iowa Caucus-goer Lew Oswald also.

Congressman Steve King (IA-5) was kind enough to take time out of his evening yesterday to speak to us about why he endorsed Fred. Congressman King sees it. Caucus-goers like Lew Oswald in Dubuque, Iowa see it.

Well, he still has a ways to go, but Fred's continuing to show why he's my favorite candidate.

Update: One of the comments below pointed out that this ad doesn't conform to federal campaign laws. I think I know the reason... I went to Fred's website, and found it is billed as "Video: Special Christmas Holiday Message" which leads me to believe this is not a paid commercial as such but rather an internet generated and disseminated video. According to the American Thinker blog, there have been over 30,000 hits on You Tube and bloggers are praising it profusely while linking to it.

Good article on Fred Thompson on the campaign trail in Iowa.

Go Fred!

The Republican primary in Colorado will soon be upon us; and even before Iowa and New Hampshire, one thing should be eminently clear: there is only one candidate who throughout his career has been consistently Conservative and who will be able to lead a prosperous America into the second decade of the 21st century. Sen. Fred Thompson is from the mold of Ronald Reagan, a man who will work with Congress to defend all life, to secure our borders, to cut spending and taxes, and who has pledged to improve our defense system, in part by increasing the numbers of those in our armed forces.

It simply does not make sense to spend our time for and send our money to candidates who cannot win in the primary, much less the general election, such as Rep. Tom Tancredo. In Sen. Thompson we will have a President who will do his utmost to close the borders to illegals whose numbers undoubtedly include dangerous members of violent gangs and foreign terrorists. In Sen. Thompson we will have a President who will have enough members of the armed services so that America will be able to meet and repress threats wherever they may occur. Americans will know more safety at home and abroad, our small businesses will thrive because of a smaller tax burden, and because of judicious appointments to the federal bench, the threats to our unborn children will steadily decrease. For any Conservative elector, there simply is no intelligent alternative to Sen. Thompson.

About the nicest adjective some analysts have applied to Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is he's laid back.

More often, they're apt to call his campaign lethargic, dull, lazy, sleepy-eyed — or in the words of a conservative columnist, "fizzy as day-old cherry Coke."

Thompson, if he cares, doesn't show it.

In fact, he seems to wear his demeanor — and his campaign's pace — quite proudly.

Fred's tour bus in Waterloo and Waverly Iowa.
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 013, Issue 16 - 12/31/2007

When the door to the bus swings open, Thompson's wife, Jeri, emerges first. She skips down the stairs and thrusts her hand toward the first person she sees. "Hi, I'm Jeri Thompson," she says cheerfully, offering a warm smile. Fred follows her lead. As he lumbers toward the door of the newspaper's headquarters, he makes small talk with those who have come to see him. He is cordial, even friendly, but his wife outshines him.

After a quick meeting with the staff of the newspaper, Thompson climbs aboard the bus for the four-block drive to the gleaming new building that houses the fire department. He and Jeri walk down the line of firemen assembled to greet him. When someone presents him with a fireman's helmet to wear for a photo-op, Thompson holds the helmet away from him to get a good look at it and laughs. "I've got a silly-hat rule that I'm about to violate," he says, raising it toward his head before thinking better of it. "I ain't gonna do it," he says, laughing.

"I'll put it on," Jeri says with a wide grin. "I'll be the good sport. I get lots of points for this, guys." And indeed she did; the firemen laughed along with her as they posed for pictures.

Well it looks like Fred Thompson's folks had ticked off a so called journalist and there was retribution in the form of a scathing article on politico.com. However, since we are no longer in the dark ages (that some would like us to return to as citizen journalism is "risky") and we have the internet, the guy was outed. This article with malice distorted a Fred Thompson moment at a fire house regarding wearing a hat.

Read the rest.

Simon quoted Thompson as stating that "I've got a silly hat rule."

As the CBS video clearly showed, that was only part of Thompson's statement.

What Thompson actually said was, "I've got a silly hat rule that I'm about to violate."

Thompson then takes the Chief's helmet and starts to raise it if he is going to put it on, and then says, while laughing, "I ain't gonna do it... I ain't gonna do it."

At this point Jeri Thompson steps in and Fred puts the helmet on her. Throughout the video, you can hear those assembled laughing, including Chief Dan McKenzie, who handed Thompson the helmet to begin with. McKenzie is shown smiling widely at the end of the clip.

Go Fred!

Transcript of a 7 question interview with Fred Thompson with National Journal On Air today.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has fallen 13 points since November and is now tied with Mitt Romney nationally in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, Giuliani and the former Massachusetts governor are tied with 20 percent support among Republican primary voters.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was in third place with 17 percent support, followed by Arizona Sen. John McCain at 14 percent and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 11 percent, the poll found.

Giuliani had been the clear leader in all previous NBC/Journal polls and led the field with 33 percent support in the survey last month.

Thompson is on a bus tour of Iowa, a place very familiar to all the presidential candidates. He started on the eastern side of the state and is working his way westward.

Behind a backdrop that said, "The Clear Conservative Choice" Thompson provided the audience of about 150 with a mixture of jokes and policy.

"It was getting so cold in Washington that the politicians have their hands in their own pockets," he said and was greeted with laughter.

Thompson's resume is impressive.

GANNETT NEWS SERVICE: A recapitulation of Fred's Political skills, Communication skills, Policy vision, Decision-making style, Management skills.

Thompson has an informal communication style, often speaking from notes instead of reading his speeches. He is laid-back and slow-paced in his drawling delivery, almost the caricature of the country lawyer whose corn-pone style masks his acumen.

Thompson responded that he has always done things his own way. "I don't do frenetic," he said of the pace of his campaign.

Well it looks like Fred's momentum might be starting to take off again. Redstate has endorsed Fred for the GOP nomination.

Start with the issue of policy substance. Thompson has loads of it, as this editorial makes clear. Thompson has made detailed and specific proposals concerning the issue of entitlement reform, oftentimes in the face of overwhelming and widespread political fears that to mention the need for entitlement reforms is to kiss one's chances at electability goodbye. There is something refreshing about a candidate for President willing to risk his electoral chances to speak some hard policy choices and Thompson is to be commended for his bravery. As the editorial makes clear, Thompson has also presented innovative and intellectually rigorous ideas concerning immigration and the size of the nation's military. The Adam Smith Institute comes out with justified praise for Thompson's tax plan and notes that Thompson has a very interesting and original idea on how the United States could be transitioned to a flat tax system. Anything would be better than the current "progressive" scheme and Thompson is one of the few Republican candidates who has come out with a workable alternative tax system for the United States to adopt.

U.S. Rep. Steve King endorsed Fred Thompson for president on Monday, a move Thompson supporters hope will provide fresh momentum in the final two weeks before the caucuses.

And your top concern is that he is "lazy" enough to drive around in a golf cart?

Thompson's plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabee's weaknesses on illegal immigration. And unlike the other candidates, most notably Huckabee, Thompson reassuringly has extensive foreign policy experience, and identifies national security as his top priority in light of the greater war against expansionist Islamic radicalism.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America's armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com. I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

... there's the AP dog-and-pony show, wherein they ask the candidates stupid yearbook questions, instead of dealing with substance. Thompson's responses, while certainly not pleasing to the AP (that is, they wouldn't have been had the AP gotten the joke) were sure-fire crowd-pleasers to those of us who understood where Thompson was coming from:

What's your favorite joke? Presidential debates.
What's your favorite keepsake? Trophy wife.
What's your favorite nickname? Mr. President.
And, of course, there's my new favorite poke in the eye: What do you like to do on a 'lazy day'? Campaigning.

Note to Associated Press: we're electing the Leader of the Free World — not choosing the next American Idol. Thompson understands this, and gives these idiotic questions all the attention they deserve, while simultaneously taking some well-deserved shots back at the press.

Read the whole thing.

Anyone else thinking that it might be a good idea to elect a President who is willing to stand up to the media like this?

A very good article about Fred Thompson for president.

So there you have it. Even in noting Thompson's many strengths, I sort of hedged my bets. But here's the deal: As Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee savage each other about immigration, abortion, religion and everything else under the sun, Thompson just keeps plugging away while being poised to pick up the pieces. And as Huckabee finally receives the long-overdue scrutiny for his bad record on clemencies (see my colleague Philip Klein's excellent piece) and ethics (as reported most recently by NBC's Lisa Myers), the Arkansas governor's lead in Iowa is likely to fade. Now, just who is it, polls already were showing even before Wednesday's debate, who was the second choice of the largest percentage of Huckabee's tentative supporters? None other than Fred Thompson.

For someone who's trailing in the polls, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson sounds confident heading into next month's Iowa caucus.

When asked at a news conference if he felt threatened by the gains his Republican rival, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, has made with Christian conservatives, Thompson replied: "I don't fear anybody else or anything else as long as I'm right with the Lord and he's right with me."

"Experts said Howard Dean was a runaway favorite in Iowa. The political pros had it all figured out, only problem was they didn't," Thompson said, referring to Dean's failed presidential bid in 2004.

In light of Mike Huckabee's heartfelt apology to Mitt Romney for making reference to Romney's religion in the New York Times Magazine, we at the Thompson Campaign would like to offer Huckabee our own heartfelt apologies for some references we've made about his record as Governor of Arkansas.
We apologize for pointing out that as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee offered in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. That's something he'd probably just as soon no one talk about.

Tell us, Fred Thompson, about your national security policy.
"The good guys win and the bad guys lose -- how 'bout that?"
Profound.

And your economic policy?
"Free people, free markets, doin' free things together."
Well said.

Do you worry that tax cuts might cause lost revenue?
"It ain't lost, it's in my pocket."

"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing or what political office I happen to be running for," he asserts.

He wants to "bring our folks back home" from Iraq but not "with our tail between our legs."

He still believes that Iran's nuclear energy program is for weapons, because "here's this country settin' on all this oil."

Thompson also makes it clear that he doesn't much like the idea of illegal immigrants, abortion, same-sex marriage and judges "makin' up the law as they go along."

"Let's go together and get it done," he exhorts in closing, then corrects himself: "Get 'er done."

I have a quest of hiring a President or voting for a President that is not going to compromise with evil, and that is in the Middle East, that's, you know, here and abroad, but also not going to compromise with socialism and what I believe is a global movement to turn us away from our own Constitution. Convince me that you're the guy.

I've been wanting to do a sort of guide to the candidates, especially since the primaries are coming up soon. So, I've now finally stopped procrastinating and have started a little series (which you can follow at the 2008-election-predictions tag). Up this week: a conclusion with some thoughts.

The candidates: What sets 'em apart and what doesn't

Many of the candidates are pretty similar on their overall views. Most (claim to) favor keeping the troops in Iraq, making sure Iran doesn't get nukes, privatizing Social Security, wealthcare, and healthcare, securing the border, Second Amendment rights, and lowering taxes. However, there's certainly things that set them apart. Mike Huckabee favors personalization over privatization for Social Security. Mitt Romney believes in private accounts. Rudy Giuliani favors private and homeschooled options as well as public. Mitt Romney believes that we should just reform our public schools. Ron Paul completely opposes the Iraq War, while almost every other candidate supports it. Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both were lenient for illegal immigrants already in their territories, while Fred Thompson would like to end sanctuary cities forever. And so forth and so on.

One issue candidates?

Each of the six candidate mentioned have their own specific issues that they like to focus on. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani would like you to look past their liberal leanings on social issues and instead concentrate on their fiscal record. Mike Huckabee on the other hand plays up his Southern Baptist side on abortion. Fred Thompson wants to cut government programs. John McCain points to his strong foreign policy experience. And Ron Paul... is a libertarian. There's a reason why most Christians are voting Huckabee 2008, Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney have equally divided the fiscal vote, and Ron Paul has all the constitutionalists, libertarians, and a lot of the right-wing independents on his side.

My Predictions

Right now, Rudy Giuliani is the main guy to beat. But Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney aren't far behind. Both are competing madly for Iowa. The winner in Iowa will most likely become Giuliani's main competitor. That race is currently too hard to call at this point. Romney just made a huge Mormonism speech, but Mike Huckabee is on fire. Right now, John McCain and Fred Thompson are basically out unless they make some phenomenal speech or win a crucial debate (neither of which is likely to happen). And Ron Paul? The thing with him is that he's a libertarian running as a Republican. I know a lot of people on the web think he can win the presidential election, but he won't even have a chance in the primaries. He's too libertarian and gets a little over-excited (enough to be termed radical, which will drive away voters).

The headline pretty much sums it up.

New Newsweek Poll of Iowa Voters

The new Newsweek poll of Iowa voters showed Barack Obama has quietly negotiated his way into a slim lead there while Mike Huckabee had taken former frontrunner Mitt Romney behind the woodshed, given him a good whipping and taken the mantle of frontrunner from him while racking up a 22 percentage point advantage.

I have been touting Mike Huckabee for months as at the beginning of this race I saw him as the only good campaigner that had bona fides as a conservative. His two rivals that have a money and fame advantage on him, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, have both been far too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters to swallow. Huckabee's star started to rise at a county fair in the middle of this year where the campaigns were allowed to pay people and bus them in from all over Iowa to vote in the fair's straw poll. Romney won, but not as convincingly as he should have given how much of his personal funds as well as campaign funds he put into the contest. Huckabee, however, spend nearly no money and finished a surprising second. However, Huckabee's biggest break to date, in my opinion, was the CNN/YouTube debate. He had no major slip-ups or mistakes and came out of it with several memorable quotes. I believe this gave Huckabee the kind of nationwide media exposure he needed to be compared with his major rivals, Romney & Giuliani, and he compared very favorably. The debate was very much Romney's to lose while Huckabee was gambling with house money. Romney then proceeded to stumble and bumble his way through multiple discussions about conservative social values, only giving a credible answer on the question of abortion. Christian conservatives were also listening loud and clear when Romney labeled the Bible as the Word of God rather than 100% literally true. Huckabee has been beset by two strikes at his image this week in the wake of momentum shifting in his direction. He is likely to experience more attacks now that he is the confirmed frontrunner in Iowa with a 22 percentage point lead over Romney. The one charge that could hurt him is his involvement in the parole of a man that viciously raped a cousin of Bill Clinton. Republicans in Arkansas believed the rapist got rough treatment at the hands of then-Governor Clinton so, when Huckabee ascended to the Governor's Mansion, he engineered the man's parole according to a member of the parole board. This charge, if Huckabee cannot talk his way out of it and it dominates the news, could seriously cut into his new-found lead. However, the notion that his position in favor of quarantining AIDS patients is going to hurt him is laughable at best, ignorant and ridiculous at worst. Most conservative Christians consider AIDS a gay disease and gays themselves as persona non-grata. Most conservatives that are dedicated enough to caucus believe that people with AIDS are a threat to them and could not be anyone that they know or love so why would a potential roundup and quarantine of people with AIDS disturb them? Huckabee likely has a week ahead of him that will be filled with questions about the paroling of the rapist that went on to rape and murder another woman in Missouri but my political instincts tell me that now that he has a commanding lead his political skills will allow him to navigate this and only lose a few points on his lead. I'll do another analysis when the next compelling poll(s) come out and the fallout from the rapist & AIDS stories has played out and is more clearly visible.

Barack Obama has finally forged a lead that is outside the margin of error, albeit by one percentage point. However, it is a lead and that is a far cry from what this race was a few months ago. Clinton's strategy then was to portray herself as the inevitable candidate, the savior of the party after 8 years of Bush, and the wife (and crucial partner) of the man that made the Democratic party relevant again after 12 years of Republican rule in the White House. Obama was just this younger guy that was inexperienced and made an ill-advised jump into a contest where he was clearly over-matched. This strategy led Clinton to make the proclamation at the Jackson-Jefferson Dinner in Iowa on November 10th that she would not attack fellow Democrats and that she would be directing her criticism towards those that deserved it: the Republicans. Now, however, things have changed. Obama is starting to pull ahead of her and Hillary has reverted to fighting form, forsaking the high road. She claims that this amounts to defense of herself but she made no caveat that she would attack to defend herself. She simply said that she would discuss the issues and avoid candidates. However, it's pretty clear that after KinderGate, in which her camp dug up an essay written by Obama in his early elementary years about his interest in becoming President and used it to prove he has had his designs on the Oval Office long before Hillary, her campaign is not missing any opportunity to poke holes in Obama's balloon as it rises above Clinton's.

I have backed Obama since before he was running for President and I did that because he reminds me of a young, block Bill Clinton. He is highly intelligent, a brilliant orator and has a knack for raising money and inspiring undying loyalty in his followers. Hillary has changed gears but I predict unless Obama makes a major mistake between now and Jan. 3 that he will be the winner of the Iowa caucus. The man has the money, he has the political skills and now he has what he needed to neutralize Hillary's gender advantage. While Clinton has touted herself as the first woman to be a contender in the race for president, women have come to her side in large numbers. Oprah Winfrey, however, has helped Obama counter this and actually carve out a slight lead in Iowan women that are registered to vote. I don't think Oprah is translating into votes for him so much as she is prying at the woman-woman connection Clinton has forged with these voters. Oprah can get them to take a second look and since women are typically against war, I think that Obama's stance against the Iraq war from Day 1 has carried particular weight among female Democrats that are caucusing and Oprah brings female caucusgoers into the picture that haven't caucused previously. He has finally taken the lead among females in Iowa. I think the campaign made a sly move to have Oprah straightly say that she was not telling caucus members what to think, but simply asking them to listen to Obama and give him a chance to convince them he was the better option than their current choice. This also may help Obama take some support from his spoiler, Senator John Edwards. Since Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Clinton vote it has allowed her to appear stronger than she she really is. When one of the two drop out (my money is on Edwards) then I think you will see the other rise by several percentage points as their only realistic option left besides Hillary will be Obama or Edwards.

With regards to all of the candidates the primary season tends to be the time that you want to be peaking. It appears to me that Huckabee and Obama have been able to manage themselves right into the right time of peaking whereas it unfolded thusly for the other contenders:

John Edwards: Edwards peaked early on after he spent every waking moment in Iowa from the time that he lost the Vice Presidential election and has stayed steady or dropped slightly ever since.

Hillary Clinton: Hillary started out very strong once she declared and looked to have a stranglehold on the nomination. She raced up good numbers in polls in the early states as well as good numbers nationwide because of her name recognition as well as the offshoot of her husband's invincibility when it came to beating Republicans. A vote for Hillary was a vote for Bill and the campaign was very hesitant to dissuade that notion.

Mitt Romney: Romney has been beset by problems since the very beginning by garnering the most strong supporters through his money and organization but stalling there essentially. I have seen no real strong movement one way or the other from about the 17 percent range for Romney so unless things change dramatically I don't see him moving past his base support bloc.

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani is the true wildcard here. He has the type of national image that could vault him in front of Huckabee but he also has a less than stellar record on conservative values including guns, abortion and, the faultline issue, immigration. He is likely the only Republican at this point that could pose Huckabee a serious threat because he has the money, he hasn't equivocated nearly as much as Romney on the issues and he has 9/11 under his belt.

Fred Thompson: With Thompson's sallow cheeks, his new attack dog style attitude that he exhibited at the CNN/YouTube debate, his thinning hair and his oratorical style that could move Rip Van Winkle from sleeping for years into an indefinite coma, a surge by Thompson is pretty unlikely at this point. Conventional wisdom was that he was far more popular before he got into the race because Republicans, dissatisfied with their choices, could project the qualities they wanted their presidential candidate to have onto him. Now that he is actually in the game he has had to outline where he stands on the issues and can no longer be all things to all Republicans. The jig, as they say, is up.

More to come... I'm sure there are plenty of fireworks left. ;-)

The top White House contenders are a lot richer than the rest of us. Here's where they got it...and where it goes.

I've been wanting to do a sort of guide to the candidates, especially since the primaries are coming up soon. So, I've now finally stopped procrastinating and have started a little series (which you can follow at the 2008-election-predictions tag). Up this week: former Senator Fred Thompson.

Praise

The former actor has been garnering support ever since he thought about running. He's mostly pro-life (the National Right to Life Committee endorsed him), a strong Second Amendment supporter, wants more personalization of Social Security and education, wants to overhaul welfare, is anti-illegal immigration, and thinks that a constitutional amendment is in order for a balanced budget. In fact, he thinks that:

In a few short years--not a generation from now--a fiscal tsunami that could imperil our security and economic prosperity will hit our nation and place an unfair burden of debt on our children and grandchildren. The tens of trillions of dollars in debt that will be accumulated over the next few decades will do immense harm to our economy. This burden is now estimated at $170,000 per person and $440,000 per family. Time is running out to address this looming crisis.

Criticism

Now that Fred has actually announced (after a whopping six months), some Republicans (including me) are underimpressed. He still is strong on his issues, but is rather... boring. Compared to the charismatic Giuliani or the preacher Huckabee, he speaks in almost a monotone (unless he gets riled up). Also, Thompson hasn't officially announced his position on the FairTax (he vaguely talks about it, but hasn't officially said anything about it).

My Predictions

Fred really hasn't been attacked thus far. This enables him to create a positive aura. However, he has the problem of looking and sounding just plain boring. Sure, this isn't American Idol. But if you can't convince your audience that you're the right man for the job, how will you promote your ideals?

More Information

• Official homepage
• Wikipedia page
• OnTheIssues page

Well, it's now December 2007 and we are just 4 weeks away from the first major primary in Iowa on January 3rd. And this story is not new. We conservatives had waited and waited and no not so patiently all last summer for our Fred Thompson to finally and officially throw his hat in the ring and announce his candidacy for President. And alas seasons change and that day finally came one September evening on the Jay Leno Show, but we conservatives worried about Fred's timing. Some experts tried to reassure us that Fred's late entrance was a sound strategic move that would allow him to seem fresh to the electorate, but was it really? He'd missed all that time on the campaign trail pressing palms not to mention countless GOP debates. We all knew Fred had a lot of ground to make up, but was it too much? And so now that the holiday season is here to distract us until the Iowa caucuses I am still asking myself: "Oh Fred, Fred. Wherefore art thou Fred Thompson?"

You see I liken Fred Thompson to some hero in a Shakespearean play---only I just can't say as yet how Fred's story will end. Will it be a comedy or a tragedy? I find myself watching the republican analysts discussing the GOP field and it seems no matter who is being interviewed be it Ann Coulter or even Fred's own Mary Matalin, the interviewer never pushes on the one question I want the experts to answer: "Why isn't Fred Thompson doing better in the polls?" In all fairness, Tim Russert did touch on this lightly with Mary Matalin two weeks ago on Meet The Press. However, Tim allowed Mary to provide us with the same old canned campaign response that "Fred remains #2 in the national polls." But let's face it unless Fred wins some major primaries he will not be our nominee. It's all but a given that Fred has no chance in Iowa or New Hampshire, so we conservatives look to next February's Super Tuesday with high hopes because his campaign tells us that's when Fred will start to move up dramatically in the polls. But will he?

Conservatives remember with fondness this same time in 1999 when George W. Bush was clearly our man. Now in 2007 we look anxiously at the broad field of GOP nominees and know in our hearts that there is not even one frontrunner for us conservatives to love. Romney….Giuliani? They are both all too blue for the conservative base. McCain? Don't even get me started. He threw us under the bus too many times over the last 8 years and we conservatives like our symbolic party elephant do not forget. So when McCain and the rest of the field eventually bow out just who will benefit? I have to believe that Fred could be the beneficiary if he himself manages to keep his horse in the race.

For the record, well it looks pretty grim, I have not yet given up on Fred Thompson. As I noted in my article: "The Hillary 24/7 Show" while Fred may not end up our GOP nominee for President he could still earn a VP nod. I can't help but recognize some similarities with our current VP Dick Cheney – at this stage in their careers both very experienced in Washington insider politics and both plagued by some serious health concerns.

And so my question remains unanswered: Why isn't Fred Thompson doing better? What is the primary (no pun intended) reason? I can think of many potential answers to the question and maybe its some combination of them all. Let's consider the possibilities:

-He's too late to the race and is not likely to deliver a come from behind win.
-His campaign team is an administrative mess despite having that gem Mary Matalin on board.
-He is lackluster in debates---the real Fred Thompson just isn't as powerful as his Law & Order persona.
-He has health issues and though in remission his lymphoma is still troubling.
-The Lazy Factor: He just doesn't seem to want it as badly as Giuliani or Romney

So since the answer to my question apparently is not forthcoming from anywhere else I turn once again to you my fellow viners. I ask you to please participate in my LISAED poll. Tell me what is the number one reason why Fred Thompson continues to lag. I thank you for once again sharing with me your opinions and Happy Holidays!

Relevant Link: "The Hillary 24/7 Show"/ http://lisaed.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/04/1003172-the-hillary-247-show

Fred's speech (26 minute video) plus photos of his visit to Orange County California, Saturday, 12-1-07. Also a (video) interview with Fred Thompson, 12-1-07. Fred and Jerri Thompson's appearance on Larry King Live on Friday, 11-30-07 (16 minute video) [plus links to seven other video clips on Fred Thompson].

John Ziegler's introduction (video), Tom McClintock's speech (5 minute video), and former State Senator Dick Mountjoy's endorsement of Fred Thompson (4 minute video).

And so ends in embarrassing failure the great YouTube Debate Experiment of Election 2008. Which is not to say that it wasn't entertaining, in the same way that David Letterman's "Stupid Human Tricks" sketch is a riot. But as far as revolutionizing the way presidential debates are conducted, taking a question from a Dick Cheney cartoon doesn't exactly measure up to the advent of television.

As a political medium, the YouTube technology is useful for pretty much two things anyway: 1.) Capturing candidates' more telling moments for endless replay to a universal audience; and 2.) giving candidates the ability to speak directly to voters, without the hassle of buying airtime. Those are two very significant developments, and because of them, we can correctly say that politics has entered a "YouTube Age."

...Fred Thompson finally walked on the set here last night and turned in the performance his long-suffering supporters have yearned for all these months.

The "Law and Order" star's positions were more polished than ever. He attacked Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney sharply and effectively.

And he stayed above the fray when the fights around him got downright nasty.

Where Giuliani stumbled, Thompson soared.

"Cut taxes for eight years when I was in the United States Senate. Never met a tax I liked," he said simply when asked if he would ever sign a bill to raise taxes.

The GOP CNN/YouTube debate is now over. Did it change your thoughts? Because it sure changed mine. Personally, I'm going to think more about Giuliani and Thompson and less about Huckabee (though he's still my guy).

In a nutshell: Giuliani shone if he stayed away from social policies like gay marriage and abortion (he did). Huckabee shone if he stayed away from his tax increases as governor (he sorta did). Thompson shone when he got passionate about fiscalism (he sometimes did). McCain... what did he do? Paul may have scared a lotta normal Americans. Romney showed the world that he would have to ask a council before he decided on anything. Anderson Cooper likes to say "time".

NOTE: I didn't include Tancredo or Hunter. If they had done an outstanding job, I would have. But right now, it looks like they have no chance. Sorry. I like both of them. But that's my feeling right now.

NOTE2: This is an opinion article written by a conservative Christian. Please treat as such. No one can be truly unbiased.

Giuliani: I'm taking another look

To me, Giuliani came out the best. And if you don't know me, you have no idea how different that idea is from the ideas I had two days ago. Not that I'd vote for him. Yet. But the man really seems like a strong fiscal conservative. He repeatedly points to the lower taxes New Yorkers saw. In fact he points to a lot of things about New York. Not to mention he's a strong guy on foreign policy.

Even socially, he's not as bad as it sounds (at least he doesn't want to sign an amendment promoting abortion). He's tough on crime. He wants the states to decide on abortion (not as bad as I thought). Of course, he's still going to lose Christian votes. Especially after he said:

Giuliani: I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.

So, yes, I believe it. I think it's the great book ever written. I read it every... frequently. I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.

Hey Rudy, guess what? Some of us Christians actually believe Jonah was in the belly of the whale! That was NOT a good example to pick. He should have done an example like Huckabee ("Go and pluck out your eye"). Despite this, the fact he's not a Christian doesn't bother me as much as other Christians I know.

Still, he does quite a few scandals hanging around (as Romney helpfully pointed out). And on immigration, most of the conservatives are upset with him. Even so, I'm taking another look at my former mayor.

Romney: Say good-bye to Iowa

On the other hand, Romney may have lost his shot at the presidency. Why? The guy dodged questions! A few succinct quotes:

Question: Do you believe every word of this book [HOLDS UP BIBLE]? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?

Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.

Cooper: Does that mean you believe every word?

Romney: You know -- yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God.

The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.

So he said... what? If you can understand what he just said, you're a genius. And then of course, Huckabee gets to answer next. But even worse was a question about gays in the military:

Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?

Romney: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...

Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?

Romney: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of...

Cooper: Is that a change in your position...

Romney: Yes, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask/don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me.

And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.

Cooper: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?

Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.

I couldn't see him, but I'll bet a lot that Romney's campaign advisor was hanging his head. Romney did not answer the question. If that wasn't bad enough, they then asked his opinion on waterboarding:

Question: Is waterboarding torture?

Romney: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.

And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.

Those three questions may have ended Romney's campaign in Iowa. As for me, I used to like Romney more than Giuliani or McCain. Now, I definitely don't. Oh yeah, and he's a Red Sox fan too.

Huckabee: A huge beneficiary

For the first time, the people actually looked at Huckabee as a contender. And he shone. He did struggle a little on the fiscal questions (attacked by Thompson as a taxer). And he stated that he hadn't raised the overall taxes, but hadn't lowered them. But... I thought Republicans were trying to LOWER taxes? How does leaving the taxes as they are help us? I think that would have been a great chance to jump in with his support for the Fair Tax (he did mention that "Most people in this country are more afraid of an audit than they are of a mugging, and there's a reason why").

But on social issues, he garnered tons of applause. His ad says:

Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me. I don't have to wake up every day wondering what do I need to believe?

Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now, not ever.

I believe life begins at conception.

We believe in some things. We stand by those things. We live or die by those things.

He also handled a death penalty question (you're a follower of Jesus, but would Jesus support the death penalty?) extremely well, stating that:

Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix.

He also was able to make a great contrast against Romney and Giuliani about his faith. And since Romney flopped and will probably lose points in Iowa, you can expect Huckabee to bounce higher and higher.

Thompson: Proved that I should vote for him and that few other Americans will

I was one of the most excited people in America when Thompson jumped in. He just sounded like a breath of fresh air. Then, he started going down hill. But at that CNN debate, he showed me that he could be my candidate again. When asked what government programs to cut, he said:

The OMB has come out with a list of over 100 programs. I would take all 100 of them, the ones that are full of waste, fraud and duplication. I filed a report in 2001, when I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and identified billions of dollars that we should be saving.

But Thompson suffers one big problem: lack of appeal. Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani use their skills as an orator to woo the crowd. Ron Paul gets all excited. But Thompson drones in a monotone. He's got the solution, but not the appeal. And unfortunately, that's not going to impress the average American. Maybe the intellectual, but not the average American. Quite frankly, he seems... boring. When was the last time a boring speaker was elected president?

Ron Paul: Scared the pants off of everyone

Most in America have never heard Ron Paul speak before. But that night might have scared them all. Because while Thompson had a dry monotone, Ron Paul was almost literally jumping up and down in excitement. Add to that the other candidates' attacks at isolationism and the fact that Paul wants to remove every single government program (which scares most Americans), I just can't see him as our next president. Personally, I'm a supporter of his fiscal policies, but completely against his foreign policies. But although he scared America, he definitely relieved all the other Republicans:

Question: Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican party is never going to give you the nomination. But I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run.

My question is for Ron Paul: Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent?

Thank you.

Paul: Now that's what I call a tough question, because I have no intention of doing this.

I am a Republican. I have won 10 times as a Republican and we're doing quite well. We had 5,000 people show up at a rally in front of the Independence Hall with blacks and Hispanics and a cross-section of this country.

John McCain: ?

McCain certainly did not come out well from this debate. Immigration has killed him before and killed him that night. He claimed that he would veto any bill regarding amnesty, then said:

But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. And we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion.

McCain's fiscal speeches aren't great either. He rejects the Fair Tax and agrees we need a new tax code, but has no idea what it should be. And on the 2nd Amendment, he noted that he had used guns (in Vietnam) but didn't say anything about whether we should use them in peacetime (he doesn't own one). His biggest moment was when he explained:

Well, I would do a lot of things, but the first and most important and vital element is to continue this surge which is succeeding and we are winning the war in Iraq.

(Applause)

That's the first thing I would do. I would make sure that we do what we can to help reconstruct the country, to help the Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible to train the police.

But I'll tell you one other thing we're -- I'm going to do, is we're going to fight back the Democrats' efforts to set a date for withdrawal which is a date for surrender.

(Applause)

Now, my friends, I'm the only one on this stage -- I'm the only one on this stage -- that said that the Rumsfeld strategy was failing and was doomed to failure. I'm the only one on this stage that said we've got to have a new strategy, and that's the strategy we're employing now.

And I got a lot of heat when I said that that strategy was failing and it had to be changed, because I've had the experience and the background and the knowledge of every national security issue we've faced in the last 20 years.

And I'm telling you, that if we continue this strategy, we can succeed. And if we had done what the Democrats said to do six months ago, Al Qaida would be telling the word they beat America.

Conclusion (IMHO)

The end result? My feelings have been changed about the candidates. Below, I've ranked how I used to feel about them:

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Thompson
4. McCain
5. Giuliani
6. Paul

... and what I feel about them now:

1. Huckabee
2. Thompson
3. Giuliani
4. McCain
5. Paul
6. Romney

"[T]he former Tennessee senator has produced the most courageous proposal of the campaign." (Washington Post Editorial, 11/16/07)

"Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration." (National Review Editorial, 11/14/07)

"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 pablum on the subject in one key way: He's actually treating voters like adults." (ABC, 11/9/07)

"Conservative economic experts applauded Thompson for offering specifics on an issue considered to be politically dangerous." (Tennessean, 11/10/07)

"...Thompson has released more detailed policy proposals than the other major GOP candidates." (NBC's First Read, 11/26/07)

"Surprising many skeptics, he has issued substantive policy proposals on reforming Social Security, dealing with immigration and enlarging the U.S. military." (Time, 11/23/07)

"Presidential candidates hate telling voters what they plan to do for fear of scaring them off. Kudos, then, to Fred Thompson for being the first to unveil a plan to solve our looming Social Security crisis." (Investor's Business Daily, 11/13/07)

"Thompson wants to tell the truth about Social Security and force everyone else in the game to respond. This issue is a real character-building definer for Fred Thompson. No one else on the campaign trail, in either party, is willing to discuss Social Security in such frank terms. But that's the revitalized Fred Thompson. The more I challenged him, the more animated he became. He simply refused to stand down." (Larry Kudlow, National Review, 11/19/07)

"The other candidates say that they want to fix entitlements and control our borders, but only Thompson has outlined specific, conservative policies." (National Review Editorial, 11/14/07)

"None of the other Republican candidates has put forward a plan that deals so frankly with the challenges of reforming Social Security." (National Review Editorial, 11/14/07)

"A revitalized Thompson has an honest, clear, straightforward message of economic freedom and problem solving." (Larry Kudlow, National Review, 11/19/07)

"[I]n a campaign in which candidates have preferred to dodge difficult choices on Social Security, Mr. Thompson's proposal has attractive elements and deserves applause for making some tough choices." (Washington Post Editorial, 11/16/07)

"[Thompson is] the first candidate of either party to offer a detailed proposal to fix the nation's retirement system." (Washington Post, 11/10/07)

"Mr. Thompson's plan...was more specific than what the Bush White House put on the table when it sought to overhaul the system. It also varied substantially from the traditional conservative approach of focusing primarily on personal investment accounts." (New York Times, 11/10/07)

"Thompson's proposal will solve what is without question the biggest fiscal problem this nation faces over the next century: paying for the surge of baby boomers who start drawing Social Security next year." (Investor's Business Daily Editorial, 11/13/07)

"But his proposal to create add-on savings accounts to Social Security and to reduce the program's cost by changing how initial benefits are calculated could be the foundation for a bi-partisan compromise. At the very least, Thompson's policy proposals prove that he's not running just on his acting skills and regional appeal." (Time, 11/23/07)

"Two Cheers for Mr. Thompson" (Washington Post Editorial, 11/16/07)

"Thompson's most recent proposal is a detailed plan to increase the size of the military...This is a welcome development; additional detailed proposals like Thompson's would be even more welcome." (National Review Editorial, 11/14/07)

"And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College." (National Review Editorial, 11/14/07)

"Thompson...is seeking to show he is willing to take on tough issues if elected in November 2008, telling a news conference in Washington he was the only candidate to offer an extensive Social Security plan." (Reuters, 11/10/07)

"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, National Review, 11/26/07)

"On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to." (National Review Editorial, 11/14/07)

"In the last few weeks, the former actor and senator from Tennessee has sharpened his message, picked up the pace of his campaign, leveled some clean shots at his opponents, cut two effective television ads, received one very big endorsement and issued some of the most substantial policy proposals of any of the Republican contenders." (Time, 11/23/07)

"It's obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead." (National Review Editorial, 11/14/07)

I've been wanting to do a sort of guide to the candidates, especially since the primaries are coming up soon. So, I've now finally stopped procrastinating and have started a little series (which you can follow at the 2008-election-predictions tag). But first, here's a little introduction to the top six Republican candidates.

NOTE: I have not included several candidates in here. I love guys like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, but let's be reasonable: they have no chance of election. If they start showing signs of recovering, I'll modify this article. I will not do an article on Democrats since I'm not a Democrat and therefore will probably be biased towards the conservative Democrats. I am trying my best to be unbiased, but no one is impartial. If you're wondering, I'm a conservative Christian who supports the Iraqi War. Mike Huckabee impresses me the most so far.

Much of this data has been found via OnTheIssues.org, an excellent site for any student of politics.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York

Economically, he's the Republican dream. He's reduced taxes twenty-three times, cut spending by 7%, and loves the free market. He's got his own firm (Giuliani Partners). He wants to privatize healthcare, but give vouchers to those who can't afford it. He hasn't really said much on Social Security, but he has wanted to privatize it to a certain degree as well. He doesn't like the Fair Tax, but supports removing taxes such as the Death Tax. On foreign policy, the man is also outstanding from the Republican point of view. He's worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities down the road. He also dislikes the Democrat timetable for withdraw (it's "fundamentally irresponsible"). However, he's managed to alienate one of the most critical parts of the Republican Party: the conservative Christians. He's pro-gay unions, pro-choice, There are a few good social things about him according to the Republicans (pro-school voucher, anti-drugs, anti-porn, and has dropped crime in NYC), but the Christian vote is going to impact him hugely (several Christian leaders including James Dobson have threatened to back a third party if he is elected). And his pro-illegal alien stance has not helped either.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee, Arkansas

The conservative Christian's dream. A Southern Baptist preacher who decided to get into politics. Totally anti-abortion and fairly anti-gay. The foreign policy Republicans are fairly happy too. He's not afraid of the UN, thinks that if Iran has nukes that we should take them out, and that Iraq is our responsibility (we broke it, we fix it). Even the environmentalists are fairly happy (here's a candidate who actually supports fighting global warming). But the fiscal conservatives are divided. He claims he wants to rein in spending and is pro-corporation. But he wants to fix health care, not by privatizing it but by adding new measures (though not as drastic as our current system). He won't privatize Social Security either. On the other hand, he is probably the biggest proponent of replacing the current income tax with the Fair Tax.

Senator John McCain, Arizona

Remember this guy? Well, he hasn't changed a lot from what he was like eight years ago. Right now, his biggest problem is that he's fighting basically every section of the party. He is pretty much indifferent to abortion and gay marriage, alienating the Christians (though Sam Brownback has recently come out with an endorsement). He supports amnesty for illegal aliens, hurting him in the Republican Party. He's got no clear stance on corporations, wants to reform Social Security (but has little idea how to), likes the "tax the wealthy" format of our current tax system, and wants to make welfare harder to get (but still wants to keep it around). This has basically gotten the fiscals into another camp. And on foreign policy... your guess is as good as mine. All we know is that he deplores the Iraq War, but needs it to keep going.

Representative Ron Paul, Texas

This guy isn't really a conservative. He's a libertarian (if you remember, he ran twenty years ago for president as a libertarian). So he's doesn't have support from the entire Republican Party. However, he's got a HUGE fan base among the independents and even liberals. Socially, the Republicans are mixed. He's anti-abortion, neutral on gay marriage, dislikes the war on drugs, and is anti-death penalty. His biggest strength is his fiscal policies: he's anti-government-sponsored health care, wants to start privatizing (but not necessarily get rid of) social security, wants to remove the IRS, has a 89% NTU rating, and wants to abolish federal welfare. But on his foreign policy, many Republicans think he's cracked. Sure, he doesn't care about oil profits. But he basically doesn't want the US to interfere with any other country. Which means that the Iraqi War is illegal, Darfur isn't our responsibility, and Iran should be treated friendly and not as a potential threat. This isn't sitting great with the Republicans right now.

Former Governor Mitt Romney, Massachusetts

The wildcard right now. His biggest problem: convincing the voters he means what he says. On abortion, he's changed his mind several times. Same with gay marriage. But if his current stances are really what he means, the conservatives should love him. He talks about how he only raised taxes a little bit (compared to Giuliani), thinks businesses (not governments) should dictate trade, wants privatization of Social Security, pledges not to raise taxes (though dislikes the Fair Tax), and doesn't seem to like to expand welfare (though hasn't said anything about getting rid of it). He thought that the Iraq War wasn't a good idea in 2006, then decided it was and that we need to stay in.

Former Senator Fred Thompson, Tennessee

Socially, he's kinda in the middle. He basically thinks abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states. Fiscally, he's more worried about balancing the budget than lowering taxes. He's not pro-big business, but not against either. He doesn't love or hate Social Security, but wants to reform it (who doesn't?). However, he is a huge tax reformer (let's get rid of the IRS!), and think states should control welfare. He also wants to stabilize Iraq and stop Iran from getting nukes.

A great tax plan outlined by Fred Thompson on Sunday.

You see, Tennessee did not vote for its favorite son in 2000. I was a voter in Tennessee in 2000. Had Gore been able to carry the state that knew him best, there would have been no need for recounts in Florida.

Throughout the three weeks of recounting, the media descended upon Florida. No one came to Tennessee to ask us why we had not voted for our own former U.S. Senator.

Now, Tennessee has another candidate: Fred Thompson. Tennessee likes old Fred. His local version and national version are the same:pro Second Amendment, pro-life, pro-military, pro- small government, pro-strong borders. As a character actor, Fred is the real Hollywood insider, yet his principles haven't wavered. He hasn't even become a vegetarian.

Granted, he didn't become a senator until he was 52, and many of us don't flip-flop much after we are in our senior years. But growing up with yesteryear family values and attending college prior to the hippy era, I doubt Fred had much chance to be an anarchist during his adolescence. Plus, we saw Fred as a public figure as an assistant U.S. attorney, campaign manager for Sen. Howard Baker, co-chief counsel to the Watergate Committee and serving on several high-level committees.

On second look, Gore hasn't flip-flopped either. He has consistently done whatever was politically expedient at the time. He does have a core principle and he stays true to it: Get elected by any means necessary.

Right on time, at 12:40 p.m., Fred Thompson, the former U.S. senator, "Law & Order" television star and Republican presidential candidate, walked to the west wall of 4 Brothers Bar & Grill.

In his second campaign swing through Northwest Iowa, Thompson turned and faced the 55 people gathered at the restaurant and gave a 12-minute speech, delivering one line that drew slight applause. He then fielded four questions over 14 minutes, shook a few hands and held a quick news conference. Thirty-four minutes after his entrance, having said several times that he is the "consistent, common-sense conservative" in the GOP field, Thompson was gone.

The Republican presidential candidate Fred D. Thompson said the top federal tax rate for corporations should be cut, to 28 percent from 35 percent to help keep companies competitive with those in other nations. "We have the second highest tax rate in the industrialized world," said Mr. Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee. "I look at our international competitors and see that 28 percent would be the norm." He said he did not support proposals in Congress to lower the corporate tax rate in exchange for eliminating the tax breaks some companies enjoy. Mr. Thompson said he would release a plan outlining changes in tax policy in the next few days.

Video of the Fred Thompson interview by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson polished his conservative credentials Friday as he emphasized family values and traditional policy pillars in a speech Friday night to a conservative religious group.

During his speech, Thompson preached the conservative gospel of small government, anti-abortion laws and the fight to ban same-sex marriage. And he advertised his senatorial voting record, where he said he voted against federal funding for groups that perform abortions.

He also praised recent Supreme Court appointees John G. Roberts and Samuel Alito Jr., who are popular with social conservatives, and condemned liberal judges.

The re-emergence of illegal immigration in the last two Democratic presidential debates could hurt the party in the general election.

At a Democratic presidential debate last month, Hillary Clinton expressed support for a plan by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. After a public outcry, Spitzer withdrew his plan and Clinton reversed herself.

At a second Democratic debate on Thursday, Barack Obama was the one who stumbled on the question, eventually saying he supported licenses for illegals. That position will likely be used against him by Republicans if Obama advances to the general election.

Seeking to capitalize on these strong feelings in the GOP base, Thompson released a TV ad this week in which he says that "granting amnesty is not the answer."

I'm no tech head, but I think I know a thing or three about the Internet and how it works. And as far as I can tell, it works pretty well.

More than 1.4 billion people around the world seem to be emailing each other a lot, and those emails get delivered a lot faster and more reliably than "snail mail." Lots of people are innovating around the Internet – voice calling over the Internet, e-commerce, blogs, education, employment, and healthcare services, music and video streaming and downloads, and such – and lots and lots of people are profiting from those innovations and the websites and companies that operate online.

So if things are going so well, why is it that some folks are seriously thinking about taking management of the Internet away from the United States and handing control to the United Nations?

FRED THOMPSON may have come late to the presidential race, but the former Tennessee senator has produced the most courageous proposal of the campaign. Mr. Thompson's Social Security plan is not as progressive or as balanced as we would prefer. Yet in a campaign in which candidates have preferred to dodge difficult choices on Social Security, Mr. Thompson's proposal has attractive elements and deserves applause for making some tough choices.

Mr. Thompson would cut benefits for future retirees from the unsustainable amount currently promised; he would combine that move with voluntary private accounts sweetened with a generous match from the federal government. Mr. Thompson points out, correctly, that by 2041, Social Security will be able to pay only about three-fourths of promised benefits, but he assumes -- as do his fellow Republicans -- that the burden of solving the problem should fall exclusively on the benefit side. This thinking is as faulty as that of Democrats who assert that all promised benefits are sacrosanct.

Rather than private accounts financed by diverting payroll taxes from the existing program, Mr. Thompson would offer add-on private accounts. Unless workers opted out, 2 percent of the wages they earn that are subject to Social Security tax (up to $97,500 this year) would be deposited into private accounts.

The lure of the accounts is that the government would match, on a 2 1/2 to 1 basis, contributions from the first $1,000 of wages each month; for contributions from wages above that amount, the government would match 50 cents for every dollar contributed. For those who chose to participate in the accounts, however, their guaranteed benefits would be further reduced -- about 30 percent over the course of a career -- or they would have to work an additional five years beyond the current retirement age (now 67) to receive full benefits. Over time, Mr. Thompson argues, this is a good bargain: Workers would probably accumulate significant nest eggs, more than offsetting the reduction in benefits.

A short and clear message from Fred Thompson.

What to do about the illegal immigration problem?

Secure our borders, enforce the law.