Why I Am Still Voting for Fred Thompson on Super Duper Califragilistic Tuesday

I know he dropped out, but his ideas remain the ones I feel most connected to, so I'm going to vote Fred on Tuesday. In the general election, I'll vote for either Romney or McCain (assuming they don't say or do something really crazy and awful between now and November).

But why vote for a drop-out and not the person he recommended?

If enough folks do it on Tuesday across the country (and admittedly, they probably won't) it would send a signal to whoever becomes the eventual GOP candidate, that the ideas Thompson represented are ideas that they should think about following as well, his positions were strong, but his candidacy a little weak.

I'm voting for the ideas he represented, small government, strong defense, common sense, free trade, and most importantly a return to federalism.

It'd be great if he got even 5% of the vote, 10% would be even better, not likely, but one can dream.

If he gets a significant number of votes despite dropping out, it will make the other candidates take notice.

UPDATE:

Just checked one of my email accounts and noticed a message from the Governator urging me to vote for McCain. While I often agree with our Governor, I'm still not going to vote for McCain. Thought I'd post a portion of an image of the email below, just you can see what Arnold is saying about McCain. If you click on it, should be large enough to read the text.

I Am Not X (I Am XWL)

From the most recent Kausfiles blurb (can't direct link, so I'll copy/paste instead):

Emailer X (or is it Y?)--who seems to know his GOPs--sends this usefully pithy analysis:

I don't think the importance of SC can be over-stated now. If Huckabee wins, there will be panic in GOP circles. If Romney wins, the base will be very uneasy. If Thompson wins, everyone will be completely confused. If McCain wins, the base will be very unhappy. And Giuliani won't win.

4:12 P.M.

My preference is for confusion. Not because I want the GOP to be confused, but because Pres. Thompson would be the best possible President of those left running.

Though, I still hold out hope that a good back up plan would be Pres. Giuliani/VP Thompson, or I could even stomach a Pres. McCain if he had VP Thompson lording over the Senate (and holding McCain's feet to the fire of conservatism, he'd act as a conscious preventing McCain from getting too 'bipartisan')

There's a New Force to Be Reckoned With in Election 2008 . . .

A new name has emerged in Election 2008, but I still prefer Fred.

Should Fred drop out, who knows?

Lazy Like a Fox . . .

That's ol' Fred Thompson, he's a sly ol' dog who the media seems determined to downplay at every opportunity. Will GOP voters do the same? I think not, for one, GOP voters aren't particularly interested in what most of the media has to say, so their ability to influence us into picking a moralizing, prissy, big government Southern Governor who is very reminiscent of a certain peanut lovin' Governor who shall remain nameless as per the policy of this blog, is far less than they might think.

The love being shown towards Gov. Huckabee by the media is a transparent attempt to try and manipulate the GOP into nominating the one candidate who would lose to any of the potential Democratic candidates, and even if by some gawdawful circumstance he became President, would work with the Dems in Congress to pass every bit of nanny-state legislation that their fevered dreams can come up with.

Nope, a real Federalist, a real Republican, and a real Southerner like Sen. Fred Thompson scares the bejeebus out of media types, so best to do everything in their power now to prop up a joke of a candidate like Gov. Huckabee.

Likewise, the threat posed by a GOP willing to nominate a Northern socially liberal yet financially conservative and hawkish on defense candidate like Mayor Giuliani is equally anathema to the folks in the news business. Rudy would eat Hillary for lunch, and ask for more. Likewise, if Obama ends up being the Democratic standard bearer, Rudy would kill him in direct debates, and would force the Dems to spend money in states they would normally take for granted.

The Dems best bet for the White House is a GOP that nominates a moralizing, preaching, big government nanny stater like Gov. Huckabee. We can't let that happen, even Sen. McCain would make a better candidate than Huckabee.

I'd be thrilled if Sen. Thompson continues to build towards the nomination (despite what the press says, he still has a strong chance of winning), I'd be happy if Giuliani manages to maintain his front-runner status all the way to the convention (he'd be an excellent candidate, and great President), and even Romney has his charms and would no doubt run an able campaign and handle the office well. The GOP has three strong candidates who would give either Hillary or Obama fits in the general election, which is why the media seems intent on pushing the "Huckaboom" so intently.

Huckabee is a joke, a bad one, and if he gets the nomination, say hello to Pres. Clinton or Pres. Obama. We need another "Man from Hope" like we need a return to the glory days of the late 70s. Pres. Huckabee is something that should never happen, he'd be the wrong man at any time in our history, but the next 4-8 years are critical, and he'd be wrong on every level to overcome the challenges we face.

Election 2008, Fred is IN! (I'm feigning surprise, can you tell?)

A campaign in 2007-8 based on a strong belief in Federalism?

I want to believe.

He's not running for President, he's running for James Madison.

I'm cool with that.

Specific proposals I'd like to see in support of stronger federalism, dismantle more than half the cabinet level positions.

A cabinet of six is plenty, State, Defense, AG, combine Interior/Agriculture/Energy into the Department of Gaia, combine Treasury/Commerce/Labor into the Department of Prosperity, Combine Homeland Security/Transportation and call it Transportation, and eliminate HUD, HHS, Education and Veteran Affairs, not because those things are unimportant, but because all those things would be better served as primarily (if not purely) state and local concerns, and the massive reduction of the cabinet is fully justifiable on 10th amendment grounds.

That's what I'd like to see as a first step towards believing Sen. Thompson's federalism. Promise to slash the size of the Executive branch, and I'll be very impressed.

Another proposal I'd like to see would be a reining in of the creeping (and creepy) influence of the Vice President. It wasn't just VP Cheney who did this, VP Gore did some pretty shady things, too. The VP should just be an understudy, and senatorial tie-breaker, nothing more. I'd love to see a Presidential candidate promise to gimp the newly muscular Vice Presidency before he goes through the selection process.

Do those two things, and I'm liable to turn this into an all Fred08.com all the time website.

Scwhing!!!

As Wayne and Garth might say.

Sen. Thompson knew my man crush had flagged some, so he unleashes this video response to Michael Moore's silly challenge, and I'm again ready for him to jump into the fray.

(warning, according to proposed new MPAA guidelines, the above video should probably be rated "R")

Bob Krumm says it all in his take on it (via Instapundit).

Someone should work on the aspect ratio, though, given his features, elongating the image isn't a good idea.

Clearly, Sen. Thompson is an "it getter" with regards to how to communicate today. Despite his lackluster performance in Orange County a few weeks ago, there's a lot of time, and a lot of money available, for him to put together a serious challenge for the primaries.

After that, who knows?

The Democratic Party seems determined to push defeat, decline, and surrender as their watchwords and mantras for what they see going on in the United States today. American voters in the aggregate have never rewarded that kind of pessimism. Pessimistic messages have failed whether from the left or the right, so if the Democratic primary voters force their candidate to be the candidate of doom and gloom, woe be to them in November 2008.

My Man Crush Flags (Just a Touch)

Sen. Fred Thompson (via Instapundit) opines in the WSJ about taxes. I agree with everything he says, but (and this is a minor 'but' not a damning 'but') he doesn't go quite far enough.

Saying that supply-side economics works is well and good, it's been empirically evident that this is the case for over 40 years (at least since Kennedy's success with tax cuts).

What he didn't say is what slightly deflated my man crush. He didn't say that he'd greatly simplify the tax code. The tax code needs blowing up. It's a bloated contradictory and impenetrable mess. It's full of awful unintended consequences and pet deductions that have myriad deleterious effects on the nation as a whole.

Advocating for lower rates is good, but advocating for a simplified to the point of flat (or super simple 2 or 3 tiered, no deductions) tax would be far better and would turn my slightly flagging crush back in to the rock solid throbbing man crush that it once was.

(should this post be flagged as porn?)

For more on the flat tax, this bit from the Heritage Foundation is an oldie but a goodie.

Also, it's getting more and more obvious that he's going to run, so welcome to Election '08 Sen. Fred Thompson.

April 1st Guest Post Number 11, Fred Thompson

XWL's NOTE: This just in from Sen. Fred Thompson, he just fired off a quick, short email, here's the body of the text.

From the "Absolutely Awesome" mind of Fred Thompson



I do kick-ass, don't I?

.

.

.

.

.

(and John McCain should fear me)


PS: After a quick IM chat with XWL, he assured me that his mancrush on me is purely platonic. I'm glad to have him on board the Thompson for President Express (unofficially, of course, afterall I may not be running *wink, wink*)

My Man Crush Deepens

Sen. Fred Thompson . . .

XOXOXO

However, I think Neal Stephenson's Op-Ed in the NYT regarding 300 was better (unsurprisingly), as are James Lileks' ruminations mixing in his thoughts on 300 and participating in counter protests against anti-war protesters.

From the Thompson piece

I must say that I’m impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.

When President Thompson opens up his Office of Propaganda, I'll be first in line to sign up. Teach me Farsi and let me at 'em, the Mullahs won't know what hit 'em.

Also, from MEMRI, here's the video of the (hilarious) "news" clip from Iranians television regarding the film 300.

I'm In Lurrrrrvvvvvvv

So how would a possible Thompson campaign be distinctive? "Politics is now one big 24-hour news cycle, but we seem to spend less time than ever on real substance," he muses. "What if someone harnessed the Internet and other technologies and insisted in talking about real issues in more depth than consultants would advise? What if they took risks with their race in hopes that the risks to our children could be reduced through building a mandate for good policy?"

* * *

"Audits have shown we've lost control of the waste and mismanagement in our most important agencies. It's getting so bad it's affecting our national security."

* * *

Mr. Thompson says that while a senator he was long concerned with U.S. intelligence failures. "The CIA has better politicians than it has spies," he says, referring to the internecine turf wars that have been a feature of the Bush administration.
A key problem, Mr. Thompson notes, is a general lack of accountability in government, where no one pays any price for failure. When asked about President Bush's awarding the Medal of Freedom to outgoing CIA Director George Tenet after U.S. intelligence failures in Iraq became apparent, he shakes his head: "I just didn't understand that."

* * *

The challenges, he says, are numerous. On Iraq, he admits "we are left with nothing but bad choices." However, he says the "worst choice" would be to have Osama bin Laden proven right when he predicted America wouldn't have the stomach for a tough fight. The costs of Iraq have been high, but they could be even higher "if we have another stain on America like that infamous scene from Saigon 1975 in which our helicopters took off leaving those who supported us grabbing at the landing skids."


RUN FRED RUN!!!

(hat tip Instapundit, all this pulled from this WSJ article)