Big Girl Pants

the whole thing sickens me

fred thompson has announced his withdrawal from the race.  this is the worst possible news for the immediate future of our country that i can imagine.

McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

as everyone here knows, fred was my guy.  i have been behind him since the beginning.  i still believe that he was our only chance to defeat the democrats, turn back from socialism and recover the vision of our founding fathers. previous post i acknowledged that our founding fathers felt strongly that to limit the press was to limit our abilities as a people, however there is no way they could have envisioned what would become of their free press.  of course there was no television or total dumbing down and turning infotainment into "news" for the masses when these words were penned.  additionally, journalists of the time were in it to present facts and information, not to sway public policy.

james madison (and others of our founding fathers and american patriots through the ages) must be turning over in his grave.  often called the "father of the constitution" in 1798 (in the virginia resolutions) he wrote as a championship of the first amendment:

"The right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon . . . has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right."

likewise, 18 years later thomas jefferson wrote in a letter to colonel charles yancey (1st virginia regiment)

“Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”

today the "press" is primarily made up largely of  leftmedia propagandists who specialize in dolling out their skewed beliefs, sugar-coated, repackaged and gussied under the guise of objective journalism.  they do this with their pollaganda and the way the present information to we the people.

it is this which killed fred's bid for the presidency of the united states.  it is this which is leading us down a path from which there may be no recovery.

for the first time in my life i am ashamed of the media - i have been sickened by them and disgusted with them, but never before have i been ashamed to claim them.  and because they aren't capable, i am ashamed for them.  americans deserve better than what the media is allowing us to have. 

i honestly do not know who, if anyone, i will support now.

answering the charges

  after my yesterday post, both karen and goat made some assertions about fred's record.  their comments/questions are valid concerns and the aim of this post is to address those items with as much clarity and honesty as can be found.

first, goat posited that fred had written mccain-feingold:

"I can spin Fred's record on the issues as well, he wrote McCain-Feingold and voted for it for one."

karen concurred and also stated:

"...on Fred's participation with McCain/Feingold. It used to be called McCain/Feingold/Thompson when it was originally passed and Fred was on many tv interviews taking credit for it, too. I don't have a specific at my fingertips but until he began running for president, he was happy to claim participation."

and then:

"Did a quick research scan and find these two examples right off the bat. Reference to the 105th Congress, Jan. 21, 1997, text of S.25, lists Thompson as a sponsor of campaign finance reform with McCain/Feingold.

A lengthy article in the June 23, 2007 edition of the Washington Times listing Thompson's record as compared to other Republicans/conservatives. As the Senator from Tennessee, for example, he is consistently listed as more 'liberal' than the other Senator from Tennessee, Frist, on social issues and domestic issues."

so now i set out to address these two concerns.

first, senator thompson has never denied that he sponsored mccain-feingold.  for instance, in an interview with john fund of the wall street journal he speaks pretty openly about it:

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend, John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."

his comment on the per person limit is further explained below.  perhaps the reason some are now trying to say he was one of the authors of the bill is because of his hands on approach to the negotiations to get the bill passed.  according to www.campaignfinancesite.org the only senators credited with writing the bill are senators mccain (r-arizona) and feingold (d-wisconsin):

This summary of the McCain-Feingold bill, written by its supporters, Senators McCain (R, Ariz.) and Feingold (D, Wisc.), appears more reasonable and less restrictive of freedom of speech than many commentators consider it to be. It greatly extends the scope of federal limitations on contributions and expenditures and limits extensively political speech outside the confines of federal election law.

Obviously people—an agency of the federal government funded by the U.S. Congress—must be put in charge of making the decisions about what would and would not be permissible under such legislation.

it seems that both mccain and thompson ocassionally referred to the act as the mccain-feingold-thompson act but that seems to be due to his involvement with negotiations not because fred helped right the thing.  i did find several bloggers saying it and an audio clip where laura ingraham says it in an interview with fred and he didn't deny, so maybe that's true.  but it doesn't really matter.  btw, in the interview (09/07/2007) fred attempts to make a case that part of it is ok and the rational makes a kind of sense.  i just happen to disagree with it.

now, we must also remember, that prior to mccain-feingold's enactment, there were already campaign finance laws in place, called the federal election campaign act.  the [flawed] intention of mccain-feingold was to reform that law.  feca was originally written in 1971 with an eye towards increasing disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns; it was amended in 1974 to place legal limits on campaign contributions.  it was also through this law that the fec (federal election commission) was born.  the major provisions of feca (including the 1974 amendment) were:

• candidates were required to disclose the sources of all campaign contributions and campaign expenditures
• creation of the federal election commission
• establishment of public funding availability for presidential primaries and general elections - for those who accept public funding, limits for campaign expenditures were also imposed
• campaign contributions were directly prohibited from:
  • corporations, labor organizations and national banks
  • government contractors
  • foreign nationals
  • all cash contributions above $100
  • contributions given in another's name
• campaign contributions given by individuals and organizations were greatly limited:

  	To each candidate or candidate committee per election cycle	To national party committee per calendar year	To any other political committee per calendar year	Total per calendar year Individual may give
  Individual May Give	$1,000	$20,000	$5,000	$25,000
  Multi candidate committee may give	$5,000	$15,000	$5,000	No Limit
  Other political Committee may give	$1,000	$20,000	$5,000	No Limit

www.salon.com writes a [near] puff piece on how bcra was finalized with thompson and feinstein hoeing the tough road - for the most part it's a good read and has a good bit of information in it.  but mccain-feingold is still bad law (so was the first one) and it should be repealed.  only trouble, now, is that the supremes have upheld the majority of the law.

don't get me wrong, i'm not defending fred's involvement with mccain-feingold, but compared to feca the bipartisan campaign reform act is almost a thing of beauty.  jake tapper from salon.com  wrote a couple of articles on this - well, ok, he wrote a whole bunch of articles about this topic.  the two i am speaking about are from march 29 and march 30, 2001.  both are great pieaces, even if they are [almost] fluff - if you have the time check them out as they put the whole thing into laymen's terms and make the read somewhat entertaining.

now, onto the claim that fred was more liberal than frist during his time in the senate.  according the american conservative union's ranking of congressional members in terms of conservatism.  here is the link to the washington times article that karen mentions in her comment.  it is a great article and if you have the time you should read it. 

i will only say that while bill frist's lifetime conservative rating from acu was slightly higher than fred's, twice during his tenure bill's single year conservative rating was in the 70's.  in 1997 bill's rating for the year was 72 and then in 2006 bill's rating for the year was 76; fred's lowest rated year was 1995 where he and bill both had a single year rating of 83.  additionally, bill isn't running for president so his record really isn't pertinent at this point.  he was, however, key in getting fred to join the race.  he has been a huge supporter of fred in the past and continues to be even today.

again, i'm not saying fred is perfect.  but imho he is better than anyone else in the field this time around.  one last thing to address.  karen also said in her comment:

No one is a 'true' conservative this time around and it's unrealistic to expect any candidate to meet all requirements for everyone. I also think Fred went negative first on the national stage - remember the debate where the candidates produced short videos? His went first and shocked everyone in the audience as it was a negative attack on Mitt, I think, when everyone else's spoke to the candidate's strong points. In the last few days, he has also been short with the interviewers on Fox. Just sayin'.

i disagree with your characterization of the spot fred ran as negative.  i have never understood why it is considered "negative" to expose a truth about another candidate.  this is not speaking ill of another republican, this simply presenting facts from the candidates' record.

a negative attack is when one comes out against something personal in the other person.  for instance huckabee making references to mitts religion - religion has nothing to do with a person's public record, unless of course that person allows his (or her) religion to interfere with the job.  btw, i notice that you don't mention his "negative attack" on huckabee in the same clip.

but i will agree with karen on one point - no one is a 100% true conservative this time around, reagan is gone and there's not another one like him.  at least not yet.  but in terms of performance on the 10 items human events readers say are the most important to the conservative base, fred performs better than anyone else currently in the race.  and that is why he has my vote.

i'm in for $10 at 10

are you registered at fred08.com as a friend of fred?  friends of fred have gathered together and challenged ourselves to really turn things upside down in our support for fred.

the challenge for tonight is for all friends of fred to contribute $10.00 at 10pm their local time.  it’s two latte’s for a week and for a great cause.  fred is up in terms of visitors to his site and he’s on a surge. 

as you all know, hubby and I went to iowa at the beginning of the month to work the caucuses – I even was a spokesperson for fred at one of the precincts.  we, and many others, believe that fred is our only hope for saving the party!

fred's looking really good.  his performance in the debates last week were dominating - he was the clear winner.  people are beginning to take a second look - and a second look at fred is likely to turn into a decision to vote for fred.  and we all need to remember that there are gobs of undecided voters in south carolina and the rest of the country, too.

and right now, fred is the only one seeing an increase in web traffic on his site.  these are good things.

btw, if you haven't registered yet, click on the "contribute" button and it will take you to a page to register.  sign up even if you decide you can’t afford to donate the $10.00 at 10pm…

tide's coming in and fred may be surging...

this morning, glenn over at instapundit posted this:

THE NEW YORK TIMES reports that Fred Thompson is surging in South Carolina. And I just got an email from a journalist who says that crowds at Thompson events are suddenly over-capacity. Is it a tipping point for Thompson, or just a blip? Stay tuned.

everyone in the msm seems to be truly dumbfounded that fred is making an impact - especially since they have all worked so hard to make it impossible for that to happen.  even now, with a solid debate win last thursday, many in the msm are STILL looking for ways to write-off fred.  for instance, from the 'surging in south carolina' link above, paul vitello (who titles his piece "a combative thompson..."), after describing a couple who had realized the wonder that is fred while watching the debates and deciding "he is the one", spins it like this:

Whether this was a new Fred Thompson, or just a sign of mirage-inducing campaign fatigue among voters, many people attending Mr. Thompson’s campaign rallies here on the day after the debate reported having similar revelations.

and then:

Mr. Thompson, who remarked Friday that he had “always been laid back — laid back when I became a U.S. prosecutor at 28, laid back when I became staff counsel to the Watergate committee at 30, laid back when I ran and won election twice to the United States Senate” — was clearly more combative on Thursday night than he had been in past debates.

and yet when others weren't scoring major points, but the infotainment news media decided they were the winners, the others out there got wonderful, rave reviews.  no bias here, right?

i believe that fred has a real chance to continue this way and surf into the nomination on the surge tide that's forming.  my husband thinks this was part of his plan all along.  either way, things are really looking up for team thompson!

on friday 04 january 2008, after taking 3rd place in iowa, fred08 challenged supporters to raise $539,492.00 by friday 11 january 2008.  through thursday afternoon, contributions were going along at a pretty nice clip ($512,000 on thursday afternoon) and then something magical happened.

the latest republican debate was held in south carolina and fred dazzled them.  and us.  and then the contributions started to skyrocket.  by friday morning, when the $539,492 had long been met a new challenge was issued to reach $750,000 by midnight that night. 

then when THAT goal was surpassed still another goal was issued: $1,000,000.00 by midnight monday 14 january 2008.  as of 21:32, today, donations stood at $910,584.00.  that cool million doesn't look so out of reach as did the $539,492 just a week ago...

we gave when he was in iowa, and we gave again this week. who among you will join us?

keeping the faith

after nearly two days in iowa and hundreds of phone calls, i am truly hopeful for fred's chances to finish third or above.  i have been looking for news on his engagement this morning at the west des moines marriott, but i've been so busy on the phone, i haven't had a lot of time...

at today's gig in des moines, 300+ people, not including the volunteers, turned out during working hours to hear what fred had to say.  everyone was super up for the gig and positive to boot.  it was standing room only!  many people who came were undecided when they arrived and committed to fred when they left.  it was all very exciting - especially when fred denounced the people saying he was pulling out.  btw, according to people in the know, here, that "leak" was traced to another candidate's campaign, but they won't say who - i have my own ideas.

for anyone who missed it, here's his conversation about it from cnn this morning.

any how, the majority of people with whom i have spoken who ARE going to the caucus are saying that either they are FOR fred or still undecided.  i was personally amazed at the number of people i have spoken to in the past two days who told me "i never make up my mind until i get to the caucuses hear what the candidates' reps have to say."

fred with volunteer from illinois, bill burns and bill salier:

i am momentarily heading to precinct 69 and i'll be speaking for fred and i'm a little nervous, but mostly excited.  i'll update tomorrow morning as hubby drives us home - i'm hopeful that the news for fred will be all good out of iowa!

keep the faith and offer prayers as you have them.  i must away or i may be late for my appointed slot.

cheers!

making every state a fred state in 2008!

the only man who remembers the underlying principles this country was founded on...

hat tip to fredstates for putting this video together.

this morning, from david limbaugh's column over at townhall:

It's time to step up, Fred. Conservatives need a leader about whom we have no major reservations. The only one looming out there about you is your failure, so far, to persuade voters you want the job.

...

I must confess that Fred is the only one I don't have major reservations about -- apart from his electability. Yes, I worry that he supported McCain-Feingold and that he might not be a strong supply-sider. But on most issues, he seems reliably conservative and appears to have a solid and strong character. I do believe that with Fred, we know what we are getting.

I find his lack of "fire in the belly" refreshing. He strikes me as one of the few presidential candidates since Ronald Reagan whose primary motivation is not personal aggrandizement but rather serving and leading the nation in very troubled and dangerous times. I see him as almost being drafted into this project, and his refusal to drool publicly over the prospect of becoming the most powerful man in the world is positively delightful.

That said, he needs to make a more convincing case to the voters, which will require a greater display of enthusiasm that he views these as both perilous and promising times and that he is the best man, overall, to navigate the ship of state through these times.

So, Fred, please, as distasteful as it may be to you, it's time to step up and prove you want it. Time is short.

translation = go fred go!

fire in the belly anyone? anyone?

did you see this from fred this morning?  if not, grab your beverage of choice and have a seat and watch

in the video, fred says:

"I believe I am the only candidate in this race who can bring our party to victory in the fall. First, because of the firmness of my principles and the trust that that engenders. Secondly, because of the detailed program I’ve put before the people. Third, because I've been tried and tested — and I’m a known quantity in public life. But, most of all, I think I know how to talk to the American people about the opposition and the danger their victory would pose to the principles we hold dear."

and the rave reviews are pouring in. peter robinson at nro says:

"Whereas Romney is saturating the airwaves with attack ads, Thompson pays the voters the courtesy of speaking calmly, and in detail—the video runs to just over 15 minutes." 

mr. robinson says that the most striking part of the entire address is that fred is attempting to appeal to democrats as well as independents and republicans.  fred said:

"You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.

So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.

So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic party so much as their party's national leadership has left them."

and:

"This is reminiscent of Reagan’s talk to the people of North Carolina in 1976. Simple, straightforward, modest production values—just the candidate in front of an American flag and an Iowa flag—but (to use the word again) compelling. ...But we have here a serious man, making a serious case—and doing so in the context of a campaign that has otherwise descended into mere caterwauling.

Even at this late hour, I wouldn’t count Fred out."

anyone who can say he is lazy, lacks vision or has no fire in the belly after watching this, is just waiting for it to finish and not really watching it.

go fred go!!!

screaming from the rooftops for all to hear!

my good friend, defiant infidel, says he's for fred, but he's afraid that not enough other people are supporting fred - mostly because he's listing to the lame stream media and believing the pollaganda message.  for anyone not wholly familiar, mark alexander and his crew at the patriot post use the federalist dictionary to define it as thus:

Pollaganda -- n. 1. Media polling used to manipulate public opinion and advance a particular bias. This is primarily accomplished by television networks, on which most people rely for daily news. (Those who rely on print media for information are less likely to be subjected to extreme bias, and more inclined to discriminate between balanced and biased reporting.)

Pollagandize -- v. 1. To engage in pollaganda. 2. The systematic propagation of television media polls to manipulate public opinion by: first, saturating viewers with "reporting" which reflects a doctrinal bias; second, designing and conducting public opinion surveys which reflect that bias; and third, further proselytizing viewers by treating media poll results as "news." 3. Using pollaganda to induce "bandwagon psychology" (the human tendency to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus driving public opinion toward the original media bias.

this is exactly what has been happening throughout this campaign and others before it.  remember 2000 when every poll (including the "exit interviews") showed al gore would win the election?  same in 2004 with john kerry.  and some times, as in the case of "news" anchor, dan rather they just flat out lie to put forth their position.

mark goes to further explain in this essay how it's applied in today's political cycle:

Pollaganda -- Outcome-based polling; instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome, which can be used to manipulate public opinion by advancing the perception that a particular issue or candidate has majority support. Pollagandize -- To utilize instruments of pollaganda, or selective poll reporting (reporting mostly favorable polls), to advance a particular bias.

Pollaganda Cycle -- The intentional propagation of a particular bias by Leftmedia mainstream television and print outlets to manipulate public opinion by first saturating viewers with "reporting" that reflects a particular bias; second, conducting public opinion polls in concert with like-minded organizations or campaigns, which will reflect that bias; third, further proselytizing viewers by treating these poll results as "news"; and fourth, using pollaganda to induce "bandwagon psychology" (the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus driving public opinion toward the original media bias.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos, a key strategist in Bill Clinton's campaigns and one of many Leftists who have repeatedly passed through the looking glass between political camps and their news fronts, noted that political scientists "talk about the bandwagon effect, that once a candidate gets in the zone, all of the coverage is good, almost no matter what happens...."

Indeed, Leftmedia pollagandizing of the electorate is an intentional undermining of the democratic process. Pollaganda not only creates a targeted constituency; at the same time it can discourage voter turnout, turning the electoral process into a spectator sport.

sound familiar to anyone out there besides me?

to be fair, now-a-days, this system is used for more than just selecting political candidates.  polls are used to try to effect nearly every part of our political and legislative process.  why, just this year, it's been used to put forth the msm's views on social security, schip, gun control, foreign policy, war strategy and illegal immigration control.

with the mccain/kennedy immigration reform bill the pollaganda actually failed - but that is definitely NOT the norm.  finally, we the people, stood up and said "NO!" and regardless of what the "polls" showed, congress [and president bush] had to back down or risk all out revolt.  personally, i was hoping for a revolution, but apparently we're just not far enough in the trash for enough others to join with me yet...

anyway, whilst di and i were chatting he lamented that he's not seeing from fred what he hoped to be seeing from fred by now.  not getting any airplay, not seeming to have any "fire in his belly", not being aggressive enough.  all perceptions based on what he "doesn't" see in the mainstream media or even on faux news channel.  and that's an especially unfortunate example of how pollaganda and the execution thereof subverts the political process in this country - well probably in other countries as well, but i'm concerned only about here for this post.

i attempted to give di encouragement of what the history of the iowa caucuses is - pertaining to polls and the proper prediction of who will  place in the top three - but he remained saddened.  then i began telling him that so many stories are coming out about people who are switching their support to fred and i began to see a glimmer of hope that this man - the best man for the job in my and di's (and many other's) opinion has a shot.

so then i told him "fred's not being lazy or quite - he's just not playing the sound bite game."  i went on further, saying, think back to 1980 and bush, the elder, was "the man" and no way would reagan get the nomination because heck even hollywood wasn't supporting him.  the press and [supposedly] "everyone" was saying "he's too lazy."  "he's too old."  "he's not being aggressive enough." in short he was too too.

reagan finished second in iowa when every poll showed him to be in fourth or maybe even fifth.  then he went on to take new hampshire.  and the rest is history.

funny thing about those iowa voters - they don't pay much attention to polls - how else do you explain that over and over, at least as long as anyone has been paying attention to iowa, the top three in iowa don't line up with what the polls predicted ahead of time?

di said that the reagan scenario is history that needs to be repeated with fred thompson for 2008 and i replied: "we can and we will if only everyone who 'likes fred but doesn't know if everyone else does' would just start screaming his name from the rooftops."  and i believe it to be true.

in an article for the weekly standard stephen f. hayes tells a story of thompson stopping in waterloo [iowa] and asks if he is napoleon or wellington - it's a great article and there are few personal notes in there - just a start of some stories to warm our hearts:

Brad Gade, an insurance representative from nearby Cedar Falls, asked Thompson to autograph a "Days of Thunder" DVD box, and "Big John" obliges. Gade says he is a conservative Republican who recently decided to caucus for Thompson on January 3. He says Thompson seems "down to earth and easy to relate to." That's something he hasn't found in other candidates. "I looked a lot at Huckabee--but that recent stuff that's come out. . . " What stuff? "He's so heavily into religion," says Gade, wrinkling his nose. "Not my cup of tea."

Later, I spoke to Scott and Chelle Adkins, a young couple from Waterloo. Chelle is the secretary of the Blackhawk County Republican party, and Scott has had a leadership position with the party, too. Like Brad Gade, they have considered other candidates. "Mitt Romney came close for me," says Scott. "But there was just something missing. Huckabee appeals because of social issues, but I'm not so sure about fiscal issues."

Chelle jumps in. "A month ago, Huckabee looked like he might be a great candidate. But the more I research his positions, the less comfortable I become." I asked her for specifics. "Two things--illegal immigration and the taxes. I'd seen lots of advertising on how he raised taxes, how he was for a cigarette tax. I was really turned off on illegal immigration, too."

"You can't trust what you get from the media," Scott said, as I furiously took notes. "So we researched it."

imagine that.  research.  not what the average voter does, i know, but it seems to be what the average  voter in iowa does.  i'm certain this is why no one, from either party, gets the nomination unless they finish in the top three in iowa.

some more stories for you.  jon of we swear tells of this encounter over at say uncle:

"I visited friends & family this weekend.
One man is a very conservative business owner with no time for politics at this point and really doesn’t know who Fred?! is. But he knows this; “My liberal inlaws say the only Republican candidate that scares them is Fred. Therefore, I support Fred.” He then asked; “You know this stuff, is he any good?”

My reply; “Everyone in the traditional media hates him. He will not be manipulated and is not playing by their rules. Yeah, he’s good.”

Something about; ‘The enemy of my enemy….’ "

and still another one.  just yesterday "whiterabbits" posted in response to a thread over at powerline calling people to switch to huckabee:

"Huckabee is a good man, a solid man.  However, I’ve come to realize he is out of his element.  Look at the gaffs his staff makes on a daily basis.  Pick someone else. 

Might I offer Uncle Fred.  Yes, he’s about as exciting as cottage cheese, but his policy positions look good and very conservative and his campaign staff seem to be at the very least, competent.  He’s honest, as far as I can tell from all I’ve read.  That may be a drawback initially, but Uncle Fred will catch on.  It’s OK to spin once in awhile.  Uncle Fred and put it to bed!"

now i don't hold with whiterabbits' characterization of huckabee, but the rest of the sentiment is spot on.

there are so many more stories out there about people who are supporting fred.  i found this link through patrick (born again redneck) and decided to include it here.  fred wrote in to set the story straight about what really happened in burlington iowa.  in his piece he alludes to what i've been discussing here.

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.

over at patrick's site, he lists several comments in response to fred's post over at redstate and you can go there to check out his faves, and i love every single one he did and more - it was a hard choice, but here is my favorite of all:

"The comments I have read above are all true about you. It is so very difficult to add any more without being duplicative. What I do want to say comes straight from my heart. I had given up on politics and politicians for quite some time. The surreal atmosphere of blarney was just too much to consume. I had to spend too much time overcoming health problems like Pancreatic Cancer to think of things around me; my country, my citizenry, our future as a nation. You, dear Senator have opened my eyes and my heart once again. You have made me feel like an American, a proud American who can hold my head high and give NO EXCUSE FOR OUR COUNTRY. Thank you for what you have already given to me. Thank you for what you have done and what you will do for this great Nation."

one final thing - check out this from channel 3000 (wisctv) which finds fred leading in the republican field in wisconsin.  i know, i know - wisconsin's primary isn't until 19 february 2008 - long after more than 30 states will have already voted - including super tuesday on 5 february 2008.  but it could be a portend of things to come...