Let's show Fred our support and draft him back in.

I have made the argument many times, why vote Liberal Lite when you could vote for the real thing? I imagine the same holds true for Democrat Lite in US politics. No one has ever listened to me though.

Too bad about Fred, but he was a long shot at best.

What about Ron Paul?

Quit? Apart from a few good nights in South Carolina, he seldom campaigned as if he was really in it.

But this is well worth quoting:

You know, it’s never been about me. It’s never even been about you. It’s been about our country and the future of our country … And because of your efforts and because of our working together, our party is being required to look itself in the mirror, decide where it’s going, decide who it is.”

Indeed.

Damn.

I hope whoever does win takes him on as veep.

I'll miss the fact that Fed was the only one who was not tap dancing around what's now turning into the key issues of immigration and the economy. The GOP race just got a hell of alot more boring that's for sure.

What about Ron Paul? He is the last place guy, by far, and should have quit before Fred. Going by what his supporters say and do, and who supports him, he is crazy. I haven't actually looked at his policy or anything though. I think though, that a man truly can be judged by the company he keeps.

Hell, there goes the (real conservative) neighbourhood. The race for the presidency of the world's only superpower has turned into a Mcdonald's menu: not much to choose from and nothing really good for you.

(cue the "Where's the Beef?" broad.)

The first time I even knew ron paul existed, was when he said something about our being attacked because 'we had been bombing Iraq for 10 years.'

An Outrageously distorted LIE. And he's gotten worse since.

Too bad about Fred. Won't stop me voting Republican though. The only person on the Left I am even close to liking is Obama- and he needs to rise to the level of Joe Lieberman before I'll consider him.

F*ck you, Fred!

“The US Republican party is now in danger of becoming a watered down version of the Canadian Liberal party”

No, because even Obama is to the right of DeYawn and the Canadian Liberal party.

It’s difficult to run on a “true conservative” platform when there very few “true conservative” voters on the planet.

Fred was appealing but not enough voters believed he could deliver; particularly against a Congress and Senate that is not going to be “true conservative”.

A good role for Fred would be as VP for President Romney. He’s a highly articulate conservative and maybe Fred can appear as VP on lots of talk radio over the next few years and try to educate more people into being “true conservatives”.

Then , in 8 years the CBC can hire him to do A "Little Law and Order on the Prairie".

nom, it will either be: McCain/Romney or Romney/Thompson. Just wait.

No, seriously, the rest of republican candidates are narrow agenda based lunatics at best, each with more weaknesses than strengths. Hillary will be the next president, open up your wallets!

Wrong, Aaron.

Hillary will be shot down. Obama is the populist candidates and Americans always side with a populist. The real threat is not President Hitlery, but President Osama, and it's not "open up your wallets" but "open up your property, minds and hearts, or you will be labeled a racist, Christian, bigot, etc."

Ideally, I would have wanted Thompson/Tancredo. Team T&T! Also desirable would have been Thompson/Lieberman, if he could be convinced to abandon the Democrats. Actually, almost any combination that includes Thompson or Lieberman would be not terrible.

Doug, as long as it is not McCain/ Gore …lol

Sometimes I think McCain is whacko enough to anoint the Goracle as his VP of Climate Change.

While I'm sad, I'm still going to vote for the Republicans. I know many of them aren't as fully conservative as I'd like, but I'll take a 60-80% conservative over any of the democrats.

And to help me stomach my decision, I'll just re-read this post by The Anchoress.

I wouldn't want Thompson as President, but he'd be a really great VP. He can confront, he won't play the political dance....

So, a team of Romney and Thompson would be excellent. Or Romney and Huckabee. That's it. I'm leery of McCain - does he really believe in AGW?

As for Ron Paul, he's batty. He's living in some 19th c, 18th c utopian world of isolation of nation-states, each to their own self-sufficiency. Sorry, the world is now a huge interlocked, networked system politically, economically and informationally. I also was furious with him when he actually said that Islamic fascism was due to the US military presence in arab lands!!! Anyone that stupid shouldn't be allowed near a political role.

By the way, the US has maintained military bases in Europe since WWII. When they tried to withdraw them, for example from Germany, the locals complained, because a large part of their economy was linked to those bases!

But, to be that ignorant of ME history, and the ME tribal political infrastructure...that's unreal.

I don't think the Democrats will go for Obama; I think the US economy is too weak and the problem if illegal immigration is too serious for them to want a romantic dreamer without policies or plans. If the US economy etc were robust, they could afford a utopian dreamer. They'll go for Hillary and her Autocratic Teacher-Knows-Best social engineering. Besides, Hillary and Bill won't allow the Democrats anything other than..to select them!

Poor Fred.

He coulda been a contendah, if only he had bothered to campaign.

Get with it!!!

Romney is completely socially conservative (mormon) and a fiscal conservative, not too mention a heck of smart guy. He's just what is required for the U.S. He won't make it though as Great Grandpa McCain will pull it out and then take him on as V.P.

Thompson did nothing, Huck a bee is a guitar playing preacher, McCains over the hill, Guiliani never was serious, and Paul is nuts.

I wnder if Dijon will take some inspiration from this... and end it all?

The GOP left of the Liberals? The Democrats aren't even left of the CPC...so how does that work?

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds Mitt Romney with a slight lead in Florida’s Republican Presidential Primary. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are close behind in what may develop into a three-man race. It’s Romney at 25%, McCain at 20%, and Giuliani at 19%. Romney has picked up seven points over the past week while McCain and Giuliani each inched up a point.

Fred sat at 12% in that poll … I wonder where they will go?

I’m with ET and Antoine ,
I like a Mitt/Fred ticket.

Thompson took too long to get into the race. I suspect a lot of Republicans didn't see him as a serious candidate.

I wouldn't want Thompson as President, but he'd be a really great VP. He can confront, he won't play the political dance...

Agreed. IIRC he was pretty unimpressive during his previous stints in public office, and just because you can talk the talk dosen't mean you'll walk the walk - esp. if you have a track record that works against you. But as VP, he'd be good at the more ceremonial affairs he'd be involved with, and be in a good position to try and keep the P on the right track (pun intended, of course!).

PredictionL if number trending holds, Rudy will be next to drop out and Ron palu will take a portion of Thompson's numbers.

Further Prediction Ron Paul will go down to the 4 candidate primaries as a real contender.

Too bad the MSM is still trying to sell him as a no show or blacking out his media presense...somethings afoot when you see both left and right media ganging up on a legitimate candidate who consistantly carries 12-15% in a full field.

Uh, Ron Paul is polling at about 4% nationally, according to Fox News averaging of the polls. Even if he gets all of Thompson's support, he is still below 20%. How can you see this guy as a contender? It beggars the imagination.

I just checked, all of Thompson's support added to Ron Paul's current support is enough to put Paul in third place, barely. A more likely scenario is that everybody takes a few points from Thompson, and Giulliani remains at double the support of Paul.

Well they're certainly a watered down version of themselves now! Aren't they?

As much as I like Fred I really doubt he'd be good in the Whitehouse....... not that I can see any of the other candidates being worth a crap either.

Apparently Huckabee is on his last financial legs now ...... too bad I was kind of hoping to see the Gomer Pile Whitehouse! ;)

Just when did "millionaire" make the list of qualifications to be a leader in the Western world?

Ron Paul is BY FAR the most conservative candidate. Every other candidate endorses big government one way or another.

Nationally... The Rasmussen Reports, a 4-day rolling avg daily Tracking Poll for Tuesday, shows:

John McCain with a five-point national lead in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. It’s McCain 24%, Mitt Romney 19%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Fred Thompson at 10% and Rudy Giuliani at 10% …Ron Paul …. Ron!!! … Ronnie ???? …. Oh there he is …2%

Kevin “Just when did 'millionaire' make the list of qualifications to be a leader in the Western world?”

When was there a President that wasn’t a millionaire? Maybe Harry Truman … he was a haberdasher.

Wouldn’t it be rather odd if a conservative capitalist was disqualified for making money and being successful?

Ron Paul wrote a book called 'The Case for Gold'- a minority report of the US gold Commission, back in the early 80s.

I bought the book from him, a US Senator at the time and was on his newsletter mailing list for several years.

He was closer to my Western Canada belief in limitied govts than those Liberal wackos 'nanny state' in Ottawa in the 1980s.

I was surprized to see him pop up now.

Get the book, or Google his book at Amazon and read the reviews. He laid out the reason for getting rid of our current fiat currencies and returning to the gold standard.

In fact, one reviewer points out that Alan Greenspan agreed in one of his essays that 'the gold standard wouldn't have the prolonged economic distortion and vicious boom and bust cycles that fiat money systems have'.

Paul's questionable foreign affairs policies can be reworked or moderated.

His astute perception of what has happened to the fiat currency, the stock markets, and the extravagant greed and gluttony that has got the world on the edge of a world depression doesn't need to be reworked.

So what do you want?
A limited size govt adhering to the gold standard.

Or an unlimited size govt using a fiat currency that will wind up taking everything you have.

Last place FredHeads will go is to the Ron Paul camp. The guy is nuttier than an O'Henry bar. He might have had one conservative idea in his head but for every one of those there are a dozen down right zany ones. Libertarian does NOT equal Republican, conservative or otherwise. It kind of makes you miss Ross Perot doesn't it /sarc

I am not saying that millionaires should be disqualified. I am saying that disqualifying everyone else is a bad thing.

Qualifications for President of the US:
party support
millionaire
millionaire friends
ability to fund raise
look good on TV
sound good without saying anything
ability to lie to people's faces with a smile on your face

Notice how policy, vision, stuff like that is not on the list.

Kevin , you sound cynical. Are one of those people who tell me when I’m canvassing :
“I don’t vote because they are all the same.”

That is similar to when the kids would try to over rule me with
“ all the other kids are doing it” …
I’d then say to them , with varying degrees of success.
“ oh well then , I didn’t know that, if all the kids are doing it …go right ahead … sorry that I even questioned your welfare”

Sure ...they are all the same .. all liars … all saying nothing … except Ron Paul of course; who’s still trying to find his way out of Bretton Woods.

Aaron,

I'm surprised that you are so sexually attracted to Fred that you'd make him an offer of that sort..........

"Uh, Ron Paul is polling at about 4% nationally"

Please see the polling among GOP voters in the primaries Paul runs the kind of numbers to be a spoiler for any candidate who does not take his support if/when he drops out...national polling at this point means squat...actually anything about elections from the MSM means squat.

This will be an interesting Gop convention

I believe that alot of Fred Thompson's support with go to McCain. McCain is building up steam and is a force that cannot be dismissed. In a race for the WH between McCain and Hillary, she won't be able to use the "I have the experience" thing. McCain has more experience in his little finger than she has in her entire body and mind. If McCain were to select either Thompson or Giulianni as Veep they would give Hillary a real run for her money. Guys, I see a Hillary victory for the WH alot like divorce. Like Robin Williams says its "like having your testicles ripped out through your wallet".

With a economic crisis brewing Americans would be well advised to elect a DOER with some conservative economic sense...there is nothing in the front runners capable of this...really a sad selection of limp brained political parasites all around Pail and Huck are intersteng and for the dems probably Kusinich is acceptable just for his honesty but he has some kooky economics.

Hillary will destroy America McCain will sit on his thumb as economic disaster continues....really nothing in the front runners to look forward to....one thing is for sure war contractors will profit from the leader of either party.

As for Ron Paul, he's batty. He's living in some 19th c, 18th c utopian world of isolation of nation-states, each to their own self-sufficiency. Sorry, the world is now a huge interlocked, networked system politically, economically and informationally. I also was furious with him when he actually said that Islamic fascism was due to the US military presence in arab lands!!! Anyone that stupid shouldn't be allowed near a political role.

I agree with every word of this. Exactly the same points I made to a friend who only recently got the libertarian bug under my tutelage. I too was extremely angry with his jihad-excusing appeasement -- attributing Islamofascism to US foreign policy. A complete ignoramus on Islam -- the challenge of the era. He also has zero leadership qualities and no executive experience.

A few months ago I read a fascinating piece that argued, correctly I feel, that under a basically benevolent US hegemony, world violence and war has been statistically very low by historical standards.

I'd like to add that he's also a white power militia freak, a nig*er-hater [pro-confederate, states rights, etc], a gay-hater, a jew-hater [abandon our key ally -- "we're making Israel too dependent on us"] a out and out crackpot with a programme he KNOWS has no chance of coming to fruition. As to this "fiat currency" nonsense, for better or worse the whole world works on fiat currencies now. This is a genie/bottle thing: a return to the “barbarous relic” is now politically impossible.

AND: the ultimate hypcocrite: putting in his pork earmarks like the rest of them but then voting against them, knowing they're gonna pass. Like Kerry, "I voted for the pork before I voted against it".
AND, a lying bastard. Pretending to not know about the content of those vile newsletters under his name over several decades.

I'd call him Quixotic, except that Don Quixote was warm and charming.

I'm not to worried about US domestic policies or who is the most anti-abortion, but Giuliani, McCain and Romney will continue to kill terrorists.

Regardless of being Republican, Ron Paul is a moonbat.

He agrees with the Islamists that it is so-called American imperialism that is the cause of terrorism and Islamic fascism. In other words, 'grievance based terrorism.' In that regard he's informed by the likes of Robert Fisk and Noam Chomsky, rather than actual American history.

America first got involved with Islamic terrorism at the time of Independence. Their trade was pirated and whole ship crews taken into slavery by the Barbary Muslims. This went on and on until the demise of the Ottoman empire.

"The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism"

by Melvin E. Lee
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2008

"The fundamental premise of much scholarly examination and public discourse is that grievances with U.S. policies in the Middle East motivate Islamist terrorism. Such assumptions, though, misunderstand the enemy and its nature. In reality, the conflict is sparked not by grievance but rather by incompatibility between Islamist ideology and the natural rights articulated during the European Enlightenment and incorporated into U.S. political culture. Acquiescing to political grievances will not alter the fundamental incompatibility between Lockean precepts of tolerance and current interpretations of Islam: Only Islam's fundamental reform will resolve the conflict."

For those who want to read the rest of this excellent article and find out the real history of America's involvement with Islamic fascism, go here:

www.meforum.org/article/1830

In this day and age, and on this point alone, Ron Paul would be a complete foreign relations disaster, which the world can ill afford.

'as to this 'fiat currency' nonsense' - Me No Dhimwi

I guess that depends on whether you are one of the 70,000 (ie seventy thousand) home foreclosures in the the last year in only 3 counties in the Detroit area alone. (Detroitnews.com)

Ironically, Michigan isn't even on the top 4 states for foreclosures - California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida.

But hey, if NIMBY fits ya, good on you.

Best-case Ticket? Romney/Thompson.

Doomsday ticket? McCain/Paul.

Thompson did nothing, Huck a bee is a guitar playing preacher, McCains over the hill, Guiliani never was serious, and Paul is nuts."

and these out of a nation of 300,000,000.

thats what happens with a 2 party system. mediocrity abounds and boy does it ever.

how long will it take to top dubya's record mediocre performance? not long actually seeing as that is the trend.

seriously, did he ever come up with ANY memorable colloquialisms etc? 'ask not what...', 'four score and ...' kind of stuff?

he's too brain damaged. can an entire world power also be brain damaged?

I think the economy is going to put terrorism on the back burner this election, that's if nothing crazy happens here in the interim. Iraq is winding down and won't be a major issue before the next President's term ends. The economic news is now Page One.

Mitt Romney and Guliani have records of good executive governance to stand on. Let's hope they convey that to voters. I've never trusted McCain on domestic issues.

I'm sorry Fred is gone.

"I'm not to worried about US domestic policies or who is the most anti-abortion, but Giuliani, McCain and Romney will continue to kill terrorists."
Posted by: randall g at January 22, 2008 8:01 PM

I take some consolation from that; you're right, the number one issue is still national security.

[quote]Too bad about Fred, but he was a long shot at best.[/quote]

Fred & his supporters did just fine! If my guess is right he became a "king maker" moving his "Group" to Romney (or Mccain) at the right time. All the contenders have political leverage that can be traded for a Voice in party politics. Fred & the Conservative wing did right fine for themselves.

Hillary is not going to make it to the end. The little melt down with the Boo Boo(NH) was nothing, when they really start pushing her buttons she will need medication. She has already used all her weapons & flipped back and forth like a trained seal. Obama showed he is willing to fight both those freaks.. Thats VERY good.

"As for Ron Paul, he's batty. He's living in some 19th c, 18th c utopian world "

This is a psychotic idea offered by the ruling class junta to convince voters they MUST accept technocratic corporatism , globalism and central control and surrender individual sovereignty, national sovereignty and the empowered citizen to this new statist order. It attempts to defame the ideals in the constitution and declaration as "out dated"...The only people who mindlessly repeat this crap are largely incapable of critical thought and take ALL their cues from the MSM.

It is an attitude manufactured for sheep and slaves and if you allow the MSM and their political owers to convince you that your freedom, independence and self determination must be surrendered to some technocratic super state,and your economic sovereignty surrendered to some global feudal system, answer only with a warning shot over their heads.

If you allow the people with this attitude to "Rule you" ( because this is what they propose) you will be much poorer and less free in the coming years...globalism, big government and corporate oligarchy are NOT a conservative paragon....and in the US they are unconstitutional .

"the world is now a huge interlocked, networked system politically, economically and informationally"

This is an admission of surrender to a economic feudalist order which is the antithesis of democratic process in modern sovereign states...it is a soviet concept...it is the guiding agenda that makes the UN call China the model society of the global community.

Sorry spud...I'm a Canadian and this is Canada, I won't allow foreigners to shape its policy or dilite my vote....and if you call that "isolationism" then I suspect you got your schooling from George Soros.

wlmr - the FACT that the world is economically, politically and informationally networked doesn't negate individual sovereignty. THINK!! If there weren't 'nodes' or 'hubs', ie, individual units (ie nations), then, the whole wouldn't operate as a NETWORK! It would operate as a WHOLE, as ONE.

A network isn't a singular entity; it's a connected set of singular units. That means that certain principles must be common, in order for interaction and exchange to take place. What is exchanged? Information and knowledge. (Are you going to deny this?) People. Goods, in both raw and manufactured form. Services.

Because of this constant movement of information, people, goods and services within the network, as i said - certain principles must be common. That will include economic axioms and rules, currency evaluations, standards of manufacturing and service production, health standards to permit movement between 'nodes'...and so on.

And if you can't understand that...

And don't call me 'spud'. Putting on the 'macho' doesn't impress me.

Oh, and WLMR - a few more points. [I'd only read the bottom part of your post, that showed that you don't understand 'networks' ,when I replied].

Don't label someone who disagrees with you with ad hominem terms (psychotic, etc). Stick to the issues.

You state: "The only people who mindlessly repeat this crap are largely incapable of critical thought and take ALL their cues from the MSM."

Now, that's an opinion, a conclusion. You should provide the reasons that lead you to such a conclusion, otherwise, it's pure nonsense.

I certainly do repeat that the world is politically, economically and informationally networked. And I feel, though you disagree, that I am quite capable of critical thought. Just pointing out that you are offering opinions without reasons is one, albeit minor, proof of that. Oh, and my conclusions don't come from the MSM. They come from research into social infrastructures and information infrastructures.

The global network - and kindly understand what a 'network' is, is not 'feudal'!! How can you arrive at such a conclusion! Define feudal, and you'll see instantly that a network cannot be a feudal system!

A network is a 'soviet concept'! Sheesh- there you go again, flinging out opinions without any knowledge of terms, attempting only to insult. And showing how uncritical you are. A network CAN'T be a 'soviet' concept, understand the soviet as top-down authoritarian. A network is, by its very nature, an open system, a democratic system, where decisions are made within each node and transfer to other nodes, where they are adapted to that different site.

'Technocratic superstate'? What the heck is that? It isn't a network.

wmlr - might I suggest that before you show your deep ignorance about networks and complex adaptive systems, that you do a little, even just a little, research on 'networks', on 'complexity', on informational systems?

[quote]A network is, by its very nature, an open system, a democratic system, where decisions are made within each node and transfer to other nodes, where they are adapted to that different site. [/quote]

Yes why can't people be more like logical Programmed devices. When you manage to create a silicone human clone he will kick your ass!

[quote]A network is, by its very nature, an open system, a democratic system, where decisions are made within each node and transfer to other nodes, where they are adapted to that different site. [/quote]

Yes why can't people be more like logical Programmed devices. When you manage to create a silicone human clone he will kick your ass!

No, philip, a complex adaptive network is not comparable to a computer program. Did you know that the biological system is a CAS (compex adaptive network)? So is the economic system!

You might want to check out compex adaptive systems, which are networks, before making another comment. Try complexity digest for a few examples.

http://www.comdig.org/

Or try Manuel Castell's books on The Rise of the Network Society. Fascinating stuff.