Big Girl Pants

he doesn't have a clue

listening to rush today i heard mark davis (from dallas, filling in for rush) talking about a video where obama comes right and says he's going to disarm our military.  i had actually seen this video before when a link to it was sent to me at the end of february - i guess i wasn't paying real good attention at that point in time.

watching the video again, and apparently being awake for it this time, really got me thinking about everything obama says in the video.  the video is actually nearly eight months old, but it's still something we shouldn't let slide by.  here is the video i am speaking of:

he starts by promising to "...end misguided defense policies" and "...fight[ing] special interests in washington".  what misguided defense policies? what special interests in washington?  hmm, not really clear on the specifics, but he does give us the list of things he's going to do:

1. stop spending $9b per month in iraq; [as the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning] end the war.
2. cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending
   1. cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems; not weaponize space
   2. slow the development of future combat systems
   3. establish "independent board" to oversee defense spending so unnecessary money isn't spent on defense
3. set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons
   1.  u.s. will develop no new nuclear weapons
   2. seek a global ban on production of fissile material
   3. negotiate with russia to remove icbms from "hair trigger alert" and achieve "deep cuts" in our nuclear arsenals
4. we know where he stands
   1. fought for open, ethical and accountable government his "entire life"
   2. doesn't switch positions
   3. doesn't make promises that cannot be kept
   4. doesn't posture on defense policy
   5. doesn't take money from federal lobbyists for "powerful defense contractors"
5. as president his "sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the american people."

now don't you feel better?

let's examine his statements, shall we?

obama keeps claiming to be the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning, but so what?  unless i'm mistaken, he wasn't a u.s. senator on 22 october 2002 when the vote pertaining to the use of force was rendered in the senate.  you can verify this information here if you doubt me.   additionally, according to sourcewatch, while obama was running for the u.s. senate in 2004 (although he gave a public speech against the war a few days after the vote in 2002) he told the new york times that he "was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the [u.s.] senate."  how convenient that he forgets that waffling now.

obama is going to cut the wasteful spending of defense.  he's going to cut back on unproven missile defense spending, but advocate the spending of tax payers' dollars on unproven embryonic stem cell research.  apparently he hasn't considered that if we abandon our defense systems - whether yet proven or not - we are not going to be able to defend ourselves.  this includes obama's naivety (stupidness?) in deciding to slow our development of future combat systems and ties right into his goals about nuclear weapons.

has anyone pointed out to this chuckle head that just because we abandon defense mechanisms or slow our defense developments that the rest of the world is NOT going to follow suit?  despots and dictators are not going to say "hey, the new guy at the u.s. is stepping back from being able to defend his country, so we probably ought to abandon our pursuit of weapons advanced enough to attack them."

can't you just picture ahmadinajad and kim jung il and others saying "oh, obama is reducing his nuclear arsenal and doesn't want us to have fissile materials, so we'll stop now."  and can you picture putin from saying "yeah sure, barry, we'll dump some (most?) of our weapons and get rid of our hair trigger - we trust you to do the same, thanks for trusting us!"?

and his "independent" review board to ensure there is no unnecessary defense spending?  just how the heck is he going to pull that one off?  the only way to make it truly independent is to make certain that there are equal numbers of conservatives (not rinos) and liberals on it and to put it purely in an advisory position.  but you and i both know that if the recommendation doesn't match his beliefs he won't act on it.  and if his support of welfare, global health care and other items (including stem cell and abortion funding) he simply cannot be trusted with my tax dollars.

btw, i recall the common defense of the country being a constitutional item, but not medical research.

as for his final grouping, first and foremost, he has taken money from defense contractors in campaign donations - sure it's about 40% of the amount that mccain received, but nearly equal to what hillary received from the same group.  big whoop.  how about all the money he takes in pork for his constituents versus what mccain has taken?

in the 2008 FY obama grabbed $97.4m in pork spending for 53 projects.  projects like $1.6m for the shedd aquarium in chicago.  of course clinton was ranked much higher than obama's number 70 ranking, but mccain has zero projects and zero dollars in pork allocations for his constituents.

i'm also trying to figure out when, prior to running for the state senate in illinois, did obama have anything whatsoever to do with government.  let alone the continuous fighting for open, ethical and accountable government he speaks of in his advertisement.  we all know his infractions in judgment as to who are appropriate "friends" or "mentors".  given the duplicitnous of the individuals he has surrounded himself with his entire life is there anyone out there who believes he's for open, ethical or accountable ANYTHING??

long story short, i don't want his promises - we can't afford them from a financial standpoint.  from a defensive standpoint or from a moral standpoint.  we can't afford anything about obama.

observations from africa on the agent of change...

yesterday, while playing blog golf i came across this post from patrick.  patrick posted a few sections of the letter from africa and it got me thinking.  and searching.

for those of you who are frequent visitors you know that i have pretty much sworn off the politics of this year's presidential elections.  however, i have been watching, with no small degree of amazement, the circus going on between obama and clinton.

prior to this excercise in research that i have been engaged in since patrick's post got stuck in my craw, i was decidedly AGAINST voting for john mccain as potus.  however, based on the information i have unearthed, i have decided that i absolutely must change my position if it is barack hussein muhammed obama who is handed the nomination by the dnc.

i apologize, in advance, for the length of this post; but not the content.  quite simply this is information that we must get out there and we need to make this post go viral.  the letter mentioned above, in its entirety, is here:

Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama.

We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.

Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don’t know the last count of the dead.

Obama under “friends of Obama” gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country!

December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America.

What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.

Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!

God Bless you.

Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets.

Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.

Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won’t be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I’ve tried to say in a few paragraphs.

Celeste and Loren Davis

celeste and loren davis are, indeed, missionaries serving in the kenya area. you can  read about their missions here. in an email, mr. loren indicated to me that this was a personal email sent to a friend of theirs in response to some information sent to them on obama; they had no idea the information had begun to be disseminated to the world wide web.

yesterday i sent the following email to celeste and loren in attempting to verify the accuracy of the information in the posts.

recently there is a letter circulating the internet titled “a letter from africa” that is pertaining to barrack Obama and it is attributed to the two of you.  is this a legitimate letter?

please advise, as if it is, I will be blogging on it in the near future…

thanks so much!  and god bless you both in your endeavors.

heidianne jackson
blogging at http://biggirlpants.typepad.com

the response from mr. and mrs. davis was swift and informative:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
To: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: see attachments and Washington Post/Obama
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:22:36 +0000

This was a personal e-mail sent to a friend . It was in response to an email we had received regarding Obama. We did not know it would hit the worldwide web.  Since it has, here is some more important information on Obama you won't find on the net.

ODM mentioned in the cartoon is the same party as Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga.  Raila had the 100% backing of the Muslims and should he win would make Islam the only recognized religion in Kenya.  This is an extension of the battle that is going on in Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and 9-11. 

It appears Obama is using the same strategy as his cousin Raila used in America.  We see the  same thing happening here.

See google: Raila Odinga Barak Obama cousins, Dick Morris Raila Odinga, Muslims Back Obama   

Loren and Celeste Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the following important ATTACHMENTS:

The MOU, “Memorandum of Understanding” between Raila Odinga and the Muslim leaders to make Kenya an Islamic nation. 

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_1.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_2.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_3.jpg

The cartoon in Kenya’s Nation newspaper regarding Obama being the ODM’s candidate for president in the U.S.

The list of donors to Raila’s campaign.  Note the one underlined “friends of BO”.  This $1 million  gift is from the friends of Barak Obama.

Download obamas_gift_to_raila.jpg

July 3, 2006 Houston Chronicle, an article was published by Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist who writes for the Washington Post.

The article is headlined:  “THIS WORLD CAN’T TOLERATE MORE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE”

Hoagland quotes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into UNIVERSAL, rather than RELIGIOUS-SPECIFIC VALUES.  “NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME WHO BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.  But in a PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY, we have NO CHOICE.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade ea. Other of common aims based on a common reality…AT SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, RELIGION. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMPROMISE.  It’s the art of the impossible.  To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a DANGEROUS THING.”

Hoagland says, “Obama’s words could easily be adopted as well as guidelines for all gov’s in the Middle East and elsewhere”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the information provided gave me the places to look to find even more pertinent information.  the article has a great deal of other "interesting" ideas but it seems it is no longer available at the houston chronicle unless i have an online subscription (i don't).  a link to it in its entirety is here.  the attachments referenced by mr. and mrs. davis are linked if you click on the title of each one above.

on 11 january 2008, this story ran in the u.k. telegraph.  some pertinent information from the article by mr. mike pflanz:

Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country's post-election violence.

• Kibaki offers talks with Kenyan rival Odinga
• Obama senses victory as voting begins

Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator's father, from western Kenya's Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle.

"He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary," Mr Odinga said yesterday.

Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to  the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.

and then:

Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader's claim to be a relative.

and finally:

Mr Obama's uncle, Said Obama, said that his village, Kogela, in western Kenya, had been spared the violence and expressed his excitement as his US relative led polls in New Hampshire's Democrat primaries.

"Ah, that's wonderful, but I don't want to jump just yet," Said Obama told AP.

listen to odinga making the claims with his own mouth.  too bad he didn't decide to follow in the footsteps of another of his relations - check it out here - it seems that the esteemed dick cheney and obama are distant relatives.

from another story in the u.k. telegraph is this tidbit:

It is said there is a bitter joke among Kenya's Luo community that the United States of America will elect a member of their tribe as president before the East African country does.

not very funny to me.  how about you?

writing for the conservative voice, michael gaynor had just a slew of interesting tidbits, a few of which are below:

• "--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [gaynor's note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
• "--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
• "--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American political strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama?

• "--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/

there's so much more there and i encourage all of y'all to go read the whole thing.  but how about odinga and obama both being "agents of change?"  stop the aclu has a great post on this very thing, too.

a quick google search on 'muslims back obama' 827,000 items were returned in less than .19 seconds.  hmmm, looks like there is some readily available information out there. 

items like this article from the council on american-islamic relationship's (cair) website.  in highlighting a convert to islam's (julia shearson) thoughts, the article says:

CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.

i also liked this article and all its links.  this article from the canada free press also got my attention and is well worth the read; one of the most salient nuggets is:

As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn't join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ.

The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago.

further

Is the "New Face" theory espoused in USA Today, New Face as in the "Portrait of Dorian Grey"?

What if Obama's into Pious Fraud Islam–Hudaibiyah treaty "kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off"?.  Not Obama? Remember the pictures of the little kids bobbing their heads up and down at the madrassas? They are all of the age Obama would have been in back in Indonesia.

judi mcleod finishes her article with:

Meanwhile hype notwithstanding, "the new face of change and reform for the democratic party" is no Abe Lincoln, but could be the most upwardly mobile Muslim of the millennium.

debbie schlussel certainly furthers the argument that obama is a muslim or at the very least is viewed as a muslim by the muslims.  the good people over at frontpagemag.com agree with her.  here.  here.  and here.  but i think this is my favorite evidence that the muslims are supporting obama's run for potus.  this picture really does say it all.

folks, the evidence is overwhelming.  this is NOT a smear campaign.  this is fact.  and if you're not motivated to vote against obama by voting for mccain, then you are being just plain stubborn.  please do not take this as an all out endorsement for john mccain; in fact if obama doesn't get the democrat nomination i still probably won't vote for mccain.  but if he does, i'm voting for mccain.  i hope all of you will join me.

in the course of my research i have been introduced to whole new gang of bloggers and i am infinitely better for the finds.  i encourage all of you to check out the following links: the baltimore reporter, conservative thoughts, death by 1000 papercuts, and jaspar jottings.

i have diligently researched every statement and link within this post.  it is my intention to not only inform, but also to inflame and motivate others out there who may be where i was.

btw, angel is blogging on how the fight to stop islam invading our country is racist.  check out her post and let her know you were there.

our brave new party?

my good friend, defiant infidel, pointed out that some may have missed the chart  i so painstakingly put together.  so i have posted each of the three pages in image form or you may download the actual pdf to make for easier reading.  Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf. 

   

don't get me wrong, i realize that it's not the most exhaustive of comparisons, but it does show those things that should be of most concern to we conservatives.  please note that i did not say "neo-conservatives" as in my opinion that term is oxymoronic at best.

as g-man noted as his place, there are several of us blogging to stop this runaway train that mccain is riding - notice i said riding - he is NOT the one who's driving this train it's the msm!  rush is speaking the loudest and, per usual, making a great amount of sense - and besides, he's finally joined up with what i've been saying for months and months - glad he's finally seen the light :)

anyway, it's important to understand that republican party unity is NOT the most important thing at this time.  adhering to the conservative principles of our founders is the most important thing - and mcvain just is NOT the guy that can do it.

did you catch the segment with david frum on tucker carlson last friday?  click here to watch the whole video from newsbusters.  the pertinent part of the exchange (imho) is this:

TUCKER CARLSON: ...John McCain is way more liberal than I am on a lot of things, and very annoying about it, often, from my point of view. But as a man, name another candidate who you'd like your son to grow up to be. Name one -- ever.

FRUM: You're right, he's an impressive guy; he's an impressive guy.

CARLSON: So what is this about? Other conservatives do not seem to feel the way I feel.

FRUM: People tend not to love those who don't love them back.

CARLSON: That's very . . . deep and true.

FRUM: John McCain has made it very clear over the last half-dozen years: he does not love the Republican party. He'll put up with it. He'll tolerate it. If they will follow him he will consent to lead them. But he does not love this party, and the party knows it. Plus there are the substantive issues, of which immigration is far and away the most important; it is a hugely important issue.

And a bit later . . .

FRUM: McCain doesn't just try to explain to the party why he disagrees. His method is to explain to the party why not only does he disagree, but they are racist and wrong and stupid for thinking the way they do, and people never like that.

And yet a bit later . . .

FRUM: He's not interested in the project of saving conservatism in the Republican party. He is really trying to build a personal movement with the Republican party as its vehicle.

mark finkelstein is dead-on in identifying how arrogant and nasty mccain behaves towards the conservative base.  then i received my "rush in a hurry" email and read this (well i heard it too, but easier to cut & paste and i'm basically pretty lazy) from rush:

"When a "maverick" is on our side denouncing our side, running against Republicans, the Drive-By Media loves him. Do we let the NY Times and Washington Post pick our candidate? The maverick is not a maverick. The maverick is with the majority, and he's swimming very easily with the tide. "

i also heard a soundbite from some woman on rush's show (can't remember who it was and i can't find it on his site yet) who said something to the effect that she was amazed that mccain thought he could win this thing.  that he had so far captured some moderate dems and independents, but unless he captured the conservative base he didn't stand a chance.  she's absolutely correct - and he's not really trying to capture we conservatives - he just seems to think we're going to line up behind him because of party unity.  fat chance.

look, i'm not denigrating john mccain.  i just don't understand all the people jumping on the mccain bandwagon.  he's not a conservative, folks - not by any stretch of the imagination.

the good (and i use that in the least unflattering manner) senator lied about mitt romney having a timetable for withdrawal.  it was proven to be a lie and even acknowledged to be inaccurate by most of the msm and yet STILL mccain persists in saying it.  he has also been lying about why he opposed the bush tax cuts.  he clearly thinks we are stupid and that we should just shut up and kiss him.

romney won the caucuses in maine due to a huge turn out of conservatives that no one predicted.  he garnered 53% of the vote there while mcvain got only 21%.  and while i realize that this straw poll will not have any real bearing until the spring, it does show that people are not simply willing to accept mccain as the inevitable nominee.  we're not going to take this one lying down.

so if you're in a super tuesday state, get out there and vote against mccain.  make certain to make your voice heard.  me, i'll be wearing my favorite shirt and talking to everyone i see and reminding them that a vote for mccain is just a vote against the constitution; same as voting for a democrat would be - no difference.

did you catch this ad on fox news channel last thursday?  neither did i - mainly because i'm not watching any news outlets because they all sicken me - but this is a great, accurate ad.  of course, mccain - in the best clinton mode he can muster - will cry foul because [apparently] even if it's the truth it's bashing if you're talking about john mccain.

one last thing - also in my "rush in a hurry" email was a couple of great quotes.  this one from ronald reagan from 1975 seems especially apropos:

"I'm impatient with those Republicans who -- after the last election -- rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."

hey, i'm still hoping for a brokered convention, but for now, i'm with mitt!

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?

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...

going all out for fred!

it's official.  hubby and i will be heading north on the 2nd to work the final hours for fred's campaign.  we believe strongly that of the cast of options out there, fred is the ONLY one fit to be potus.

fred is a consistent conservative - the only one in the field for the 2008 election and the only one any of us should be talking about.  unfortunately the msm know it.

the msm has been working diligently to give a pass on fred since he entered the race - actually even before that.  ever since gary hart was running mcgovern's campaign back in 1972, iowa is sort of the bellwether for who goes the distance in the presidential race.  and despite the best efforts of some other states, this year is no different.

in an effort to lessen the impact of the iowa caucuses on the presidential race some states have moved their primaries closer to what used to be iowa's caucus day - only it's backfired.  all that has happened is that iowa moved its caucus day to 3 january 2007 making it nearly impossible for a candidate who does poorly there to recover before the next primary/caucus.

as you may, or may not, know no candidate who has finished worse than third in the iowa caucuses has gone on to garner the party's nomination.  that is a true statement regardless of the affiliation of the candidate - republican or democrat.  and that makes it all the more important that we give fred the extra push that he so desperately needs RIGHT NOW!

some have said that fred is already an also ran, but with an estimated 40% of iowa voters not making their decision for whom they would vote until the last week before the caucus in 1996, i say GAME ON.  today a new strategic vision poll gives fuel to that sentiment:

Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican caucus goers and 600 likely Democratic caucus goers, aged 18+, and conducted December 26-27, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4.5 percentage points for each party.

1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated)
Mike Huckabee 29%
Mitt Romney 27%
Fred Thompson 15%
John McCain 14%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Ron Paul 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 6%

2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 7%
No 72%
Undecided 21%

3. How important is it for the Republican presidential candidate to be a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan, very important, somewhat important, not very important, not important, or undecided? (Republicans Only)
Very Important 56%
Somewhat Important 12%
Not Very Important 7%
Not Important 10%
Undecided 15%

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 48%
No 40%
Undecided 12%

so far the lame stream media (to borrow a phrase from courtney) has done a pretty thorough job of ignoring and/or dissing mr. thompson and his campaign.  and in some cases, where they've lacked in that effort, they've made up for it in flat-out denigrating him. 

some are even saying that fox news, that fair and balanced bastion of the news, is blackballing fred because of his announcement being on jay leno rather than at the new hampshire "debate".  smoothstone indicates that it may be bigger than that - he reminds us that a little more than two years ago prince alwaleed of saudi arabia purchased a 5.46% share of fox news.

right now the media is going all out to promote huckabee because - in my opinion - they want him to win in iowa and win the nomination.  they KNOW that he will not win the election no matter who they put up and so he is the safest bet. 

regardless, once fred finishes in the top three in iowa, the media will have to stop panning and poo-pooing him and give him his due.  but don't look to them to be truthful or forthcoming until they are forced to.

getting back to our caucus trip north, i'm not sure what we'll be doing for the cause, but what ever we can do we will.  i know the campaign still needs more bodies - heck, maybe even people to work the phones from wherever to call into iowa to spread the word.

i realize that my little blog doesn't reach very many people, but i believe that every person reached is a person who can cast a vote for fred.  this is why we are doing what we are.

if any out there can help, please contact kristen fuzer (kfuzer@fred08.com) or chris burger (cburger@fred08.com) and see what they have for you to do.  if you can't give any money for his campaign can you spare an hour or two to help out?

UPDATE 12/28/2007:  final fred thompson blogburst and video from john hawkins here - well worth the looksee.

sending back love to my favorite angel at her friday article here.

blogbursting for fred thompson

tuesday, fred at right wing nut house proposed that those of us who support fred make a concerted effort to help raise funds for fred's campaign in iowa.  you can read the whole post, above, but in part he said: