Consider the Source

Former Senator Fred Thompson has something to say about the criticisms heaped on the US by her "allies":

It bothers Americans when we're told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up -- and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we'd rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.

But we cool off. We're big boys and girls, after all, and we don't really bruise that easily. We're also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there's a world war going on out there and they need to pick a side -- the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.

In the meantime, let's be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.

Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can't help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet.

There's more. Read the rest, including why he considers criticism form our allies as a badge of honor.

For someone "not" running for President, he sure as hell acts like he is.

Run Fred Run!

h/t los de Babalu

Fred Nails It AGAIN

Fred Thompson either needs a paycheck SO badly that he's settled for making political commentary, or he's setting himself up BRILLIANTLY for a presidential bid in '08.

Today Fred tackles "healthcare" (**cough, bullshit, cough**) in Cuba, and a possible documentary on same by Michael Moore:

You might have read the stories about filmmaker Michael Moore taking ailing workers from Ground Zero in Manhattan to Cuba for free medical treatments. According to reports, he filmed the trip for a new movie that bashes America for not having government-provided health care.

Now, I have no expectation that Moore is going to tell the truth about Cuba or health care. I defend his right to do what he does, but Moore's talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.

While this PR stunt has obviously been successful -- here I am talking about it -- Moore's a piker compared to Fidel Castro and his regime. Moore just parrots the story they created -- one of the most successful public relations coups in history. This is the story of free, high quality Cuban health care.

The truth is that Cuban medical care has never recovered from Castro's takeover -- when the country’s health care ranked among the world's best. He won the support of the Cuban people by promising to replace Batista’s dictatorship with free elections, and to end corruption. Once in power, though, he made himself dictator and instituted Soviet-style Communism. Cubans not only failed to regain their democratic rights, their economy plunged into centrally planned poverty.

As many as half of Cuba's doctors fled almost immediately -- and defections continue to this day. Castro won't allow observers in to monitor his nation's true state, but defectors tell us that many Cubans live with permanent malnutrition and long waits for even basic medical services. Many treatments we take for granted aren't available at all -- except to the Communist elite or foreigners with dollars.

For them, Castro keeps "show" clinics equipped with the best medicines and technologies available. It was almost certainly one of these that Moore went to, if the stories in the NY Post and The Daily News are true.

Nothing about this story inspires doubt, though. Elements in Hollywood have been infatuated with the Cuban commander for years. It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro. And, regular as rain, they bring up the health care myth when they come home.

What is it that leads people to value theoretically "free" health care, even when it's lousy or nonexistent, over a free society that actually delivers health care? You might have to deal with creditors after you go to the emergency ward in America, but no one is denied medical care here. I guarantee even the poorest Americans are getting far better medical services than many Cubans.

The Cuban "official" story is one of a model of public health success: increased longevity and quality of life based on a preventative health focus.

Folks, the only reason Cuban "healthcare" focuses on preventative medicine is that once people get sick, there's very little available treatment.  The truth of the matter is more like this. (pictures and MORE references, if you can stomach them at the link.  Let this serve as your warning.)

Fred continues here describing his take on Hollywood's love affair with the cagastro regime, and the hypocrisy of people like Michael Moore.  It's well worth the read.

Honestly, the more I hear from Fred, the more I like.  Run Fred Run!

h/t the Babalusians, who are also Fred fans!

Where is the outrage?

Today Fred asks the tough questions about gender oppression in the Middle East and elsewhere:

One of the worst examples of this gender oppression was Afghanistan during the Taliban days. Women were not allowed to go to school, to work outside the home or even go out in public without a male family member. A woman with a medical emergency, but no male relatives to take her to a doctor, was expected simply to suffer or die. An aged woman with no one to bring her food was expected to starve. Too many did.

Life for women under the Taliban and similar governments ought to inspire anger and indignation in everybody, especially human rights advocates. I’m constantly surprised, however, by the apparent apathy among many who say they care about the rights of women and other minorities.

I doubt, for example, that our television networks have spent as much time exposing the horrors of life for millions of women in pre-liberation Iraq and Afghanistan as they’ve spent covering Abu Ghraib. For some reason, everyday atrocities such as the endemic beatings, honor killings and forced marriages of women just don’t seem to be newsworthy.

The other side of that coin is that we also rarely hear about dramatic improvements in the lives of women when they come about due to American actions.

Fred's right.  Where is the outrage at the perpetrators of these crimes?  Where is the praise for those who come in behind and right the wrongs?  Whether the hero is from the US or anywhere else?

Why does the media CONSISTENTLY portray the US as the world's only bad guy?  Because we supposedly know better than the savages who live in other, less-advanced countries?  Are they saying that people from other countries are STUPID?  Or just that we should expect this kind of behavior, as we would from children, or animals who don't know any better?

Evil is evil.  Cruelty is cruelty.  Period.  It shouldn't matter whether it's a battered wife in Peoria or a widow starving to death in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.  Everyone should be brought to task for their bad acts equally.

On the other hand, good is good, too.  And it should be praised.  Yet we never hear the good stories, the uplifting moments, the people and programs that reach out.  All we hear is the bad, when it finally gets reported.

We should challenge ourselves to do as Fred ultimately suggests, to look at both sides of the story and ask "Where is the outrage?  Whence comes the help?" and put these events back into real-life perspective, rather than seeing them only in the harsh blue glow thrown off by the boob tube.

h/t HWNNL

That Fred speech I was talking about? -- UPDATED

UPDATE: This video is a series of highlights. The full speech is presented in four parts below the jump.

Here's last night's Fred speech, as mentioned below:

Also, Weekend Pundit has a great roundup of recent Fred links.

Read More "That Fred speech I was talking about? -- UPDATED" »

Your Daily Fred

Fred sits down with Breitbart on the afternoon after the GOP Debate. The discussion touches the GOP debate, whether he'll run, and what Americans are looking for in a President.

The video is here.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this video is that it's a single shot, no cuts, no edits.

This is honesty, or he deserves about 12 Oscars.

Run, Fred, Run!

Today's Fred

In today's column, Fred responds to George Tenet's questionable recollections about National Security and intelligence in the days leading up to 9/11.

Interestingly enough, Fred seems to take issue more with the MEDIA and their handling of Tenet's claims than with what Tenet has to say for himself.

Some excerpts from the piece:

I haven’t read the book, but I have followed the media accounts. My attention was drawn to Tenet’s statements that al Qaeda is here and waiting and that they wish nothing more than to be able to see a mushroom cloud above the United States.

Naturally, the media emphasis is not on that. Its attention is on any differences Tenet had with the administration. The media’s premise is that Iraq should not have been considered a real threat to us and that the administration basically misled the country into war. While one may take issue with Tenet on several things, I was intrigued that on some very important issues, Tenet did not follow the media script when answering Russert’s questions.

[...]

On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, although Iraq undoubtedly had such weapons in the past, Tenet acknowledges that everybody got it wrong as to whether they would have them at the time of the invasion. On the nuclear issue, he said that the CIA thought that Saddam was five to seven years away from a nuclear capability — unless he was able to obtain fissile material from another source.

A couple of things occur to me here. In the first place, is five to seven years that far away? Since four years have passed since the invasion, that would be only a year from now if we had not invaded. If he had been able to obtain fissile materials, the time could have been much shorter. There are over 40 countries in the world with fissile material sufficient to make a nuclear bomb and much of it is unguarded.

The CIA could have been on the short side or on the long side of the estimate. They have underestimated the capabilities of hostile nations before, such as North Korea’s missile technologies. Also, Tenet acknowledged that before the Gulf War, the CIA had underestimated how far along Saddam was on his nuclear program.

All of this hardly fits with the notion that Saddam posed no threat. As Tenet made the media rounds, he may have helped the administration as much as hurt it, but he was in no danger of having that fact highlighted by his interviewers.

I think Fred makes an excellent point here about CIA intelligence. We KNEW. KNEW. that Saddam had WMDs. The evidence is overwhelming. Just because he didn't have very many LEFT at the time of the initial conflict DOES NOT MEAN that he wouldn't attempt to restock. Or get newer, more dangerous toys.  And the fact that they thought those "new toys" were coming in 5-7 years doesn't detract from the danger.  Ladies and Gentlemen, The CIA's "5 years from now" is NEXT YEAR.  Probably less than 12 months, even.  And what if that was an OVERestimate.

I don't even want to contemplate THAT in the context of the United States NOT going after Saddam.  Do you?

An Open Letter to Michael Moore

Dear Mooreon,

You really shouldn't attempt to play big boy games until you are potty trained and no longer wail for Mommy at the drop of a hat.  Oh, and BTW, not that you care, but you can't hide behind Mommy's skirts and question her parenting skills at the same time....

Love and Kisses,

CTG

Friends and Neighbors, if I wasn't 100% behind Fred before, I am now.  Not only did he best the Mooreon in HIS OWN MEDIUM, it was a timely, witty, and on-point response. 


Can you imagine a President with this kind of response to our enemies?  Fred gets it.  He totally gets it.  For more on this, see Bob Krumm's commentary on Fred and the OODA Loop.

Who said this?

(you can look here for the answer and the rest of the piece if you don't want to guess)

"Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, it's clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution. That's why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago.

I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.

To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isn't an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together, but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it."

Sounds like someone who should run for President, doesn't it?

h/t BethC

Run, Fred, Run!

Fred vs. the Commies

Run Fred, Run!

Today's editorial (too good for a short excerpt):

Well, he's done it. Hugo Chavez was already systematically silencing criticism of his autocratic rule through threats and intimidation. Journalists have been threatened, beaten, and even killed. Now he's shut down the last opposition television networks in Venezuela and arrested nearly 200 protesters, mostly students. It's a monumental tragedy and the Venezuelan people will pay the price for decades to come. Americans are also at risk as he funds anti-American candidates and radicals all over Latin America.

It's equally tragic that the U.S. is in no position to provide the victims of this emerging dictator with the truth. There was a time, though, when Americans were on the frontlines of pro-freedom movements all over the world. I'm talking about the "surrogate" broadcast network that included Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, often called "the Radios."

[...]

Cynics still say that the USSR fell of its own weight, and that President Reagan's efforts to bring it down were irrelevant, but Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev say differently. Both have said that, without the Radios, the USSR wouldn't have fallen. The Radios were not some bland public-relations effort, attracting audiences only with American pop music. They engaged the intellectual and influential populations behind the Iron Curtain with accurate news and smart programming about freedom and democracy. They had sources and networks within those countries that sometimes outperformed the CIA. When Soviet hardliners and reformers were facing off, and crowds and tanks were on the streets of Moscow and Bucharest, the radios were sending real-time information to the people, including the military, and reminding them of what was at stake.

Then we won the Cold War. The USSR collapsed in 1991, and America relaxed. Military downsizing began and the Radios began to reduce broadcast air time to target countries.

Now, of course, we know that the Islamofascists, many trained by the old Soviets, were making plans and plots of their own. Unfortunately, the plans to broadcast a pro-freedom message into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Kurdistan, and Ukraine were shelved or diluted. Reagan's ideological audacity was replaced with a more "diplomatic" tone.

And see where it's got us? Not only has Islamic totalitarianism spread without a true ideological challenge, many of the freed Soviet bloc countries are slipping back into repression. Russia is making the same old threats and even protecting Iran's efforts to build nukes.<

We'll never know if Afghanistan might have rejected al Qaeda if America had actively engaged that country as we did those Eastern Europeans. We can't know if Venezuelans would have chosen liberty over the false security of authoritarianism if they had been challenged to face the issues. I do know, though, that it's time for a new generation of Americans to stand up for freedom — like others before us. And this time, we’ll have a whole new set of media technologies.(emphasis mine --Ed.)

We'll be there to stand up.  I can promise you that, Senator.  Just give us the leadership we have been sadly lacking for so long.

And Fred supports Israel, too!

Wednesday's Townhall column:

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego -- and bragged about it?

I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy's side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.

He's damn right. Read the whole thing. Fred nails the situation EXACTLY.

Run, Fred, Run!

h/t Brian the Sailor at Pereiraville

Ask Fred...

Not invited to tonight's debate, but I'm sure he'll have something INTERESTING to say.

Fred will be on Hannity and Colmes (known as "Sean and Fish Face" in our house) tonight after the debate.

Frank J (another Thompsoniac) says:

Fred Thompson will be on Hannity & Colmes after the Republican debate that's going on as I type. My suggestion for what he should say:

"It was a great debate, but there's one thing I can say that none of those candidates can..."

He turns to face the camera and it zooms for a close up.

"I'm Fred Thompson."

Woo Hoo! Run, Fred, Run! He's already #2 in the polls, and he hasn't even declared yet!

Oh, and as for Scarborough's comments on Jeri Kehn Thompson: Get a life, jackoff. How would you like it if someone asked if your wife or mother "worked the pole"?

One more, here's an interesting Fred story from John Fund in today's Opinion Journal.

Yeah, yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to post, but I had to tell you to watch FRED.

Fred has a blog and he's not afraid to use it!

New to the ImWithFred site, as of today, Fred's Blog. It has a feed, too.  If you're a "Friends of Fred" member you can log in and comment, too.

Here's what Harvey usually refers to as the "obligatory sucky first post":

Folks, I'm on the road, but wanted to drop you a note of thanks for making the ImWithFred.com website launch a huge success.

Also, I'd like to mention that I'll be appearing on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" tonight, June 12. So stay up with us and watch, or record it to watch at your convenience.

You heard the man: Fred. With Jay. Tonight Last Night. I am an idiot. Be there.
If you missed it too, this might be an acceptable substitute: Fred at the Hoover Institute.

Fred! vs the Commies

I find it very interesting that one of Fred's strategies so far has been to talk about the subjects that other candidates shy away from, including Israel and communism in Latin America, most notably in castro's Cuba.  Fred takes on castro again, in this piece, which puts castro AND hugo chavez into some historical perspective:

We're coming up on the 45th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis and I think it's worth talking about. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy faced down the USSR, risking total war, and forced the Soviets to remove ballistic weapons from Cuba. Missiles located less than a hundred miles from America were aimed at the US.

A lot of people, I think, have forgotten. Most schools don't even teach about it in any real detail. Judging by the indifference that many people have to the nuclear arming of Iran, I think it's a lesson almost entirely lost -- except among Cuban-Americans.

Over the years, they've never stopped watching "el Comandante" -- or warning us about him. At the same time, they've been criticized by people who say that Castro is really no threat. Current events in South America, though, have proven that we should have been listening to our Cuban-Americans friends.

Last week, when Hugo Chavez officially killed press freedoms, even a big part of Venezuela's far left seemed to realize that they’d created a monster. Unfortunately, it may be too late. He's already packed Venezuela's high court, legislature and military with his loyalists. Right now, he's operating without any check or balance.

During his rise, Venezuelans say that Chavez spent hours a day on the phone with Castro. Additionally, Castro sent thousands of his Communist apparatchiks to help transition Venezuela from a free country to a totalitarian state.

Without Cuban “help,� Venezuela wouldn’t be in the terrible mess it is today. Castro, after all, has been at this since the 1960's and he's given Chavez the benefit of his experience.

There's one big difference between Venezuela today and Cuba then, however. Castro needed Soviet aid to push his so-called "revolution." Chavez does not. One of his first moves was to bolster the Cuban dictatorship with oil subsidies -- a hundred thousand barrels a day to the tune of two billion dollars a year. One of the main factors preventing Cuba's transition towards democracy is Venezuelan oil wealth. On June 26, that wealth could increase significantly, as Chavez says he’ll nationalize the petroleum industry on that date.

Interesting, no? And most people probably don't remember the backdrop to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Just the outcome.  Sad really.  Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it, right?

h/t Marc Masferrer at Babalu

Guns don't kill people. Global Warming kills people...

Fred Thompson pulls no punches with the U.N.:

Recently, the new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the root cause of the current genocide in Darfur is [wait for it...] global warming. Now if you've been following the tragedy of the Darfur region in the African nation of Sudan, you know how absurd that statement is.

There's not room here for even a good summary, but let me make a few points. Sudan straddles the line between Christian African and Muslim Arabic cultures, bordering Egypt and Libya on the north. Bloody regional warfare stretches back centuries but, in modern times, the country has been in pretty much of a constant state of war since the 1950s. It's safe to say that millions have died in wars that are often aimed at control of the rich oil fields in the South. Today, however, the vastly reduced African Christian population isn't even involved. Two Muslim factions, divided along racial lines, are fighting for control of Darfur.

Now it's true that the return of cyclical droughts has made agriculture and life more and more difficult for the people in the region. The impact of the weather, however, doesn't approach the destruction that generations of warfare have worked on the land and the people. With peace and freedom, the economy of Darfur could have easily adapted to any climate change no matter the cause.

Why, then, would the new UN Secretary General blame climate change? I think it's pretty obvious.

Blaming the Islamic government and groups that have manipulated events in Sudan will get him nothing but enemies. Blaming global warming, however, is basically the same thing as blaming America. America is by no means the only major source of greenhouse gases, but we've taken the most political heat. The reason is that congress rightfully balked at ratifying the Kyoto international climate treaties during the Clinton presidency.

There is simply no downside to blaming America, because Americans don't punish their ideological foes. From the UN, we don't even require sanity sometimes. And there might even be an upside to blaming us, since there are Americans who suffer from such ingrained feelings of guilt, they'll support increased aid to both the UN and Sudan.

There is a lesson to be learned here, though. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is arguably the most powerful man in the international community today. We know he's unwilling to blame those who actually gave the orders to commit genocide in Darfur. And apparently he's happy to shift the blame for ongoing deaths to those living peaceful, productive lives in the West.

Now hopefully we can work toward international cooperation with regard to environmental policies that make sense. It's not very encouraging though when the head of the world's leading international body uses climate change as an all purpose excuse in order to avoid hard realities.

This is the NUMBER ONE reason why I will vote for Fred, given the opportunity. He'll stand up to the international community, and especially the UN.

And I'd be happy to put the title of this post on my car as a bumper sticker, together with the phrase "Fred Thompson '08".

There's nothing I can add here.  Fred calls out the absurdity better than I ever could.

Run Fred Run!

Fred Thompson "gets" the new media

If the left tries to push the "Fairness Doctrine" down people's throats, the market will simply migrate to new media: Podcasts, web radio, and the like.

We've been hearing threats to use the obsolete Fairness Doctrine to go after talk radio ever since the left-leaning talk radio network, Air America, failed. Ironically, I think Air America might have had a shot if its target audience hadn't already been served so well by many in the mainstream media. But regardless, giving the government veto power over radio stations' programming decisions is wrong. I don't think forcing the one sector of the media where conservatives have a clear voice to provide equal time to liberals is the American way. At the very least, it has a chilling effect on station owners.

I understand how the left feels though. For most of my life, the big broadcast television networks and almost all the major newspapers and magazines presented only one side of a lot of issues. Talk radio is a relatively small part of a bigger media picture, but I imagine it aggravates the new congressional majority to hear their opposition's arguments without the old filters.

I would remind them, though, that a few Republicans were elected even when the entire mainstream media was painting us as heartless Neanderthals. I would also remind the current congressional leadership that they managed to win the last election despite talk radio.

Americans are smart enough to recognize news that's biased -- even when journalists pretend they're not. New polls show that more than seven in 10 people recognize that the news comes with an agenda. So maybe we should welcome a new Fairness Doctrine. We could start by requiring that every broadcast television news show be co-anchored by both a liberal and conservative; and all major newspaper staff be evenly divided.

Not much chance of that happening. Nor should it in a free country -- but I'll tell you something that those who want to control the media apparently don't know. Everyday, more people are listening to streaming radio on the Web and downloading podcasts. Some popular talk shows skip radio altogether and go straight to the Internet. You can even hear talk shows on Web-enabled telephones if you want, and that will get much easier and cheaper quickly.

If the current stars of talk were pushed off the radio dial, they'd get their audiences anyway. The era of controllable media is over, and nothing will ever bring it back.

I agree 100%. A free media is NOT controlled by anything but the market. And the market will seek out whatever outlets it can for the exchange of ideas. Including the web. And Fred gets it. Which, I suspect, is why Fred is the ONLY major candidate doing any of the blogging himself.

Fred on Kelo

Yep. Preach it, Senator:

Our Founders placed respect for private property as a key principle when writing our nation's Constitution, and the protection of private property resulted in the United States becoming the greatest economic power in the world and a beacon of freedom to all. This principle is even more important today, as homeownership has become an increasingly integral part of our citizens' aspirations for a better future for themselves and their loved ones. If the Supreme Court will not protect our right to ownership, then political leaders must step up to the challenge.

There's plenty more. See it here.

Ends Justify the Means? I don't think so.

It's official.  The Democrats have decided that Fred Thompson will be the Republican candidate in 2008.  How do I know this, you ask?  Well, lets see:

1.  First they gossiped that Mrs. Thompson was nothing more than a trophy wife, and tried to insinuate that she was the reason his first marriage broke up... except that she's brilliant and professional and Fred didn't meet her until more than a decade after his divorce, and after several serious relationships after the marriage.  (many links here for more info)

2. They tried to paint Fred as a flip-flopper on abortion.  Nice trick there, but it didn't work that well, did it?

3.  Now they're trying to link him to the KKK?  Hey Henry Reynolds, I know you live here in LA la land, but there IS a difference between reality and TV.

So I ask the Democrats: You've got like 9 people running on your side of the aisle.  Are you trying to say that NONE of them measures up to Fred where it counts? (that would be on the record, dirtbags)  Or just that your scared spitless because you didn't see him coming?

Funny how Fred didn't matter to you until he showed you he was a master of YOUR milieu as well as his own.

One week from today!

Thanks Frank J!

My favorite FrankJ cartoon, the Hate-Filled Lefty, is back.  Presumably for the last time!

Fred rulz.

Tomorrow!

Fred announces tomorrow! He's on Leno tonight.

Security-Unity-Prosperity... My kind of candidate.

fred08.com

Fred's In!

He announced last night on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno!

(if the video won't load, here's a transcript of the segment)

And here's the "official" announcement, from Fred08.com:

Run Fred Run!

Win Fred Win!

BTW, if you want to know why I'm a Fredhead, I'll sum it up for you in two words: Testicular Fortitude. Fred has it. The others so far don't seem to. Even McCain who ought to have TF in spades, given his history, but he's just as wimpy and consensus driven as the other used car salesmen in the race. If Fred proves me wrong, then I'll be voting for ABH/O (Anyone but Hillary/Obama)

Fred Update!

The Thompson campaign is officially underway, and Fred seems to be making quite an impression. Judge for yourself. Here's Senior Campaign Advisor Rich Galen's exchange with a local reporter in Portsmouth, NH:

One reporter, rather than asking "what did you think of the speech?" asked: "Don't you think he is missing his opportunities by not having more red meat in his speech?"

The man the reporter was talking to, an actual voter from New Hampshire, said that he thought the speech was just fine and, further, while he hadn't made up his mind, he was now leaning toward Fred.

Unable to stop myself, I dove into the conversation.

"First," I said to the reporter, "you are requiring Thomson[sic] to reach a standard which (a) you, not this man, set and (b) doesn't make any sense in the first place."

"Look at all the people who waited through the storm to see him," I said waiting until he actually turned around to look. "And they're STILL here," I said noting how many were swarming around Fred.

"You guys complain (I didn't actually say "complain" but this is a family blog) about candidates who speak in sound bites and bumper strips. Then when a candidate comes and gives you 20 minutes of substance you tell me you're looking for someone wearing a red nose and clown hair."

"You can't have it both ways."

I doubt that I made that reporter throw away his "Hillary for President" card, but he agreed with me.

I was hoping for a headline in the Sunday Portsmouth paper which read: "Thompson Takes NH by Storm" but while the story was a fair representation, the headline didn't reach my standard.

One at a time, Fred. One at a time!

Because I'm still grumpy and now I'm working on a grant....

Go see what Fred is up to.  Visit Fred's blog and watch some great videos of Fred on the road, including the first blogger-submitted questions!

Why Shrillary is scared of Fred

and just one more reason why I'll be voting for him.

It's Me(ez)

Y'all may have noticed the new animated avatar in the left sidebar. I've had a Meez for a while, but I never bothered to add it. Until I saw (thanks BR!) that Meez loves Fred (well, you can get a T-shirt, background, and sign for any of the major candidates).

And I love Fred. So YAY! If you want to get your own Meez go here, and say I referred you (caltechgirl), and we both get "coins" for special outfits and backdrops. They have some great Halloween costumes, too!

I got nothing, but Fred sure does

You asked Fred what he stands for, asked him to lay it all out there. Well, here it is:

Anyone who has heard me speak knows my firm commitment to what I call "First Principles." These grow out of the documents of our Nation's founding and the wisdom of the ages. They are core beliefs that guide my approach to the issues that are crucial to our Nation's future. I believe in--

Individual Liberty . As Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, our basic rights come from God, not from government, and that among these inalienable rights is the right to liberty. We must allow individuals to lead their lives with minimal government interference.

Personal Responsibility . The corollary to liberty is responsibility. No society can succeed and thrive for any duration unless free people act in a responsible way. All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.

Free Markets . Free people are best equipped to order their own affairs, and the common interest benefits from and is improved by the aggregate success of all. We must reform our tax system, encourage investment, support entrepreneurial spirit, open markets abroad to American goods, and minimize burdensome government regulations to continue to expand the economy and bring increased wealth to all Americans give.

Limited Government . Government must be strong enough to protect us, competent enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the delineated powers in the Constitution.

Federalism . Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom.

Protecting our Country . The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect the nation and the American people. There is no more important task. We must have a strong and effective military, capable intelligence services, and a vigorous law enforcement and homeland security capacity.

Traditional American Values . A healthy society is predicated on belief in God; respect for all life; strong families centered on the institution of marriage: the union of a man and a woman; and self-respect and tolerance of others. While we are all free to live our lives in the pursuit of our own happiness, the government has a responsibility to respect the right of parents to raise their children and to promote the values that produce the strongest society.

The Rule of Law . We protect our liberty, secure our rights, and promote a just and stable society through the rule of law. We owe to ourselves and our fellow citizens our own adherence to the rules, but tough law enforcement and punishment for those who do not. A free and independent judiciary that interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects its limited role in our system of government is essential to our security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role if we are to preserve our republic and freedom.

Conserving Our Nation's Resources . Each of us is put on Earth for a limited period of time. We must always strive to ensure that the resources we use to lead our lives are here for future generations to enjoy and use as well.

We live in the greatest country on earth. We have been truly blessed. This blessing carries with it an obligation: to keep it that way and to leave this country at least as strong, prosperous, and united as when we entered it.

Why Fred Thompson Rulz

My Mother always told me that people who pick on you are just jealous. Same applies to the Presidential race. Jackie Mason NAILS it:

h/t Fred, of course. Well, Sean Hackbarth blogging at Friends of Fred.

FrankJ reminded me

I'd pay to see this film...

Robot Chicken is just an ass-kicking show. If you don't watch it, you should. If you don't get Cartoon Network you can watch episodes on the web!

The Rules

Some rules are real, and some are fake. The trick is knowing which is which. Fred evidently has a knack for this. From Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics:

There are two types of rules in the world. On the one hand, there are real rules. These are the rules that you need to follow, or you will be in big trouble. Stay in school is one of them. You can't do much without a high school diploma - so that is a real rule. On the other hand, there are fake rules. These are rules that most people follow because they think there are negative consequences for disobedience, but actually there are not. In fact, the ones who break the fake rules are often celebrated as trail blazers.

Bob Dylan comes to my mind when I think of those who break the fake rules. In the mid-60s, there was this rule that songs could only be three minutes long, and they had to have three verses and a chorus. But Dylan did these six minute songs that had five plus verses and no chorus. And whose ears don't perk up today when they hear the first bars of "Subterranean Homesick Blues?" Another rule said that folkies could not play rock. That just did not happen. But Dylan hired Levon and the Hawks, and went electric. At first, he was booed everywhere he went (except in the South). Eight years later he went on tour with the exact same group - now called the Band - and received 6 million ticket requests for 600,000 seats.

If you have the intelligence to see which rules are real and which are fake, the respectfulness to follow the real rules, and the guts to break the fake rules - you can get ahead in this world. In fact, people will love you for breaking the fake rules.

I think Thompson might be breaking what really are fake rules. As I mentioned above - the perpetual campaign is only a means to the real campaign. You play the game by the rules of the media to earn your way into the real contest. But there may be other ways to get to the real campaign. If there are, the media's rules are indeed fake. There are no consequences to breaking them. If you find another way into the real campaign, you can break them all you like.

I love that the MSM can't get over Fred doing things HIS way, not their way. Since when is the campaign supposed to be about the Media? I thought it was about the Message.

On a side note, if Fred handle Congress just 1/10 as well as he handles the media, we might be in business.

Read the whole piece. Jay has interesting things to say about how Fred is winning over voters and turning the tables on Rudy Giuliani in the polls. Personally, I suspect the ONLY reason Rudy is ahead in the polls and backed by strongly conservative voters is that they thought he was the ONLY one who could defeat Hillary/Obama. And really, that's how many Republicans see this primary season: pick the strongest candidate. Fred is clearly a strong contender who has the potential to beat whoever the Dems put up. So as Fred brings out his platform, more and more folks agree that he might have the winning horse in the race. And they're walking away from Rudy in DROVES.

h/t Chan at Weekend Pundit, who has a great round up of recent Fred-related buzz

Why vote Fred?

Kudos to Fred!

Fred was the VERY FIRST candidate to submit a position statement on Cuba to "Candidates on Cuba" a forum on Cuba sponsored by Babalu Blog.

But you expected as much from the man who made this video.....

Fred: Kill, Protect, Punch II

Yeah, Hawkins did it again..... I give you Kill, Protect, Punch II:

Original Version in the extended...

Run, Fred, Run!

Read More "Fred: Kill, Protect, Punch II" »

Why, Oh Why did you NOT run a real campaign?

Goodbye, Fred.

You should have punched more hippies. God knows somebody needs to.

Swallowing my bile....

Fred was the man.

Let's face it.  Dropping all the hype and the hyperbole, Fred was the only candidate LIKELY to punch the hippies.  And turn the terrorists into nuclear waste.

Because the truth is, I am a one-issue voter:  National security.  As far as I am concerned, the rest of this bullshit can take care of itself.

Abortion? I could care less what you do with your body

Gay Marriage? See above.

The Economy?  Market forces will foster self-correction.  Together with greed, that's how the market stays afloat, not some shitty presidential policy.

So for me, it's all about Security.  Iraq, terror, the border, all of that.

With Fred out of the race there's no candidate that I trust to have the balls to pull the big trigger.  Period.

Forget the Democrats. They're tripping over their ownselves trying to beat each other out of the middle east, and forget regulating the borders, after all, they want Mexican votes. And they'll say whatever they need to say to get them.

And what about the Republicans?  Huckabee is a whiny-ass pussy, Giuliani is not really sure what he wants, Romney is a slick used car salesman (AND he was Governor of Massachusetts, so his conservative credentials seem rather fake to me), and that leaves John McCain.

Eight years ago, I was on the McCain train when he ran against GWB for the nomination.  Then, he seemed like Fred, the only one who was willing to kick ass and take names.

Which frankly, IS the best job description for the President of the United States, IMO.

Today, I am not so sure.  McCain-Feingold and the Gang of 14 antics, among other things, have made me re-think my McCain-iac status, but all in all, today, I think he's the best candidate with regard to what I consider to be the PARAMOUNT issue facing our nation. He's the only one that I think would NOT be a pussy.

So I'll be supporting McCain.  With a little "s". 

Fred, why oh why were you such a lazy asshole?  You could have won the whole thing.  Late start or no.