Redstate

Rudy tells too many jokes and laughs at everything. I can't remember a single policy position that he put forward during the debate. With him you only hear about New York and Hillary.

Lighten up. He was kidding around.

the problem is that Rudy, like most politicians, will laugh when presented with a question that he is not comfortable anwering. Hillary does it all the time whenever asked any tough question.

Her laugh is far more sinister and smug it seems. Much like the tone of an aristocrat awaiting coronation.

Sen. Thompson did have a great day in SC. He came to Sun City Hilton head and drew a crowd of about 450. I was one the Republican Club members who facilitated this event. He spent a lot of time talking about immigration. His talk had lots of humor but more importantly, lots of substance. He was pretty quick on responding during the Q&A.

Prior to that, he was at an eatery in Bluffton, SC where he drew about 150 more folks.

His first appearance near Charleston also drew big crowds.

But I do think he is improving on the stump, and he is great when shooting from the hip. Give him time, I believe in him fully... and I think those who are "thinking" about him, can be sold with a small (small!!) bit of patience.

McCain is still in favor of essentially open borders. He might change his vote, but I don't think he's changed his mind. That's why principles matter more than policy statements.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Wrong tree. Immigration is not one of my button issues. Even so, he's not open borders. Saying he is is what is silly.

absentee

I feel confident that of all the serious candidates, he is the most "open borders" of any of them. He supported the shamnesty bill to the bitter end. It took its defeat for him to realize that he was on the wrong side of the issue.

I don't know what his public statements on the issue have been lately, but I'm confident that he still doesn't get it; he knows he was on the losing side, but not why.

He believed in that bill. He believed in McCain-Feingold. He still does, even though both can be shown to be seriously flawed.

He may now say that he's for controlling the borders (and he may have said that before, as well), but his idea of "control" is far different from the idea about 70% of us have. He thought the shamnesty bill would control the border.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

you'd clearly understand why illegal immigration will be the defining issue for the country very soon (it should be now, but the Drive-By Media doesn't think it's important). Elect someone who doesn't understand that, and you'll get four more years of Bushy mistakes on the matter.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

If anything Carter seemed worn out.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

That explains why you should vote for 'generic sane Republican'. It doesn't at all explain why Rudy should get the nod over, well, basically everyone but He Who Must Not Be Named.

The war should not even be a central issue in the debate. By the time the next President takes office, the war in Iraq will have reached one conclusion or another. If the surge succeeds the people will support the war and we will be "victorious". If the surge has not brought us to a new level of success by the time the next President takes office, the people will simply not tolerate it any longer. Most polls currently put US opposition to a continued war effort at 70%. If this quagmire continues for another 12 months, there is no way the public will stand for a continued occupation of Iraq. No matter who takes office in 2009, our war efforts leading up to that point will determine the future state of Iraq, not the next President.

The focus of the debate for us conservatives needs to be on balancing our budget, protecting our civil liberties, protecting the 2nd amendment, disolving unwarranted federal programs, empowering people to take control of there own lives, privatizing more functions of government, and living up to our true conservative principles. With GOP leaders like Rudy as prospects for our next President, we might as well turn over the country to the Dems. I truly cannot distinguish any difference between Rudy and most Dems. I think Ms. Kankles Clinton is even as much of a hawk as Rudy-remember, she is only pandering to the left wing base for the primaries.

We have a contributor here at Red State that the terrorists tried to kill.

Yeah, for some people I can see the war being everything.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

When all rational arguments fail, you trot out a "personal story" that negates all discussion, i.e. Cindy Sheehan. Of course we all hate terrorists and would all like to see them destroyed. However, putting some specific individual involved at the forefront of the discussion to avoid the real issue is a trick the pinkies use time and time again and I would like to think that we would not succumb to the same tactics. This is like putting some dirt poor 4 year old girl in front of congress and say that if they don't want to expand welfare, they want this 4 year old girl to die. It is a completely ridiculous approach to what should be a REAL discussion for our party.

Nobody's saying YOU should vote for Giuliani because of the terorrists trying to kill people who worked in the WTC. But people who worked in the WTC might feel differently.

You asked why Giuliani was getting support. I'm telling you. So just accept it and move on. Sheesh. How thick headed are you?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

If people are true Republicans and support a continued occupation of Iraq, I still don't understand why they support Rudy. All of the GOP candidates (except the one that can't be named) support contined occupation in Iraq, but every candidate other than Rudy has a more traditional/conservative platform than Rudy, so why is Rudy the GOP front runner??? It makes no sense and I fear for the future of our party if he is the one we prop up in this election. I see no difference in Rudy and Hillary...

In case you haven't notice Theres a Mad Mullah going Nuke

Gee we won the first two battles in this conflict. I am more concerned about winning the last one.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

[Left up, with malice aforethought. Because this guy ain't voting for any of the first-tier GOP candidates, you know. - Moe Lane]

You complain about Iran's nuclear program. As with Iraq (if it actually had WMD's) who was it a threat to? Certainly not the USA. If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, ooohh. Who is that a threat to. Again, not the USA. Again, maybe the State of Israel (whom we send $5 billion in direct general aid to every year, plus the money laundered through Germany, plus free weapons, plus whatever else). Basically, if you haven't figured it out, what's going on in the Middle East (one short way of putting it anyway) is that the State of Israel is akin to the Mob and the US government via it's military is it's muscle. Of course it's really much more complex and complicated than that. If Iran (which is a signatory to the IAEA) has a nuke, whoopee! So what. The Israelis have at least 400 (and like India-presently and Pakistan) are not signatory to the IAEA, hide their nukes and scoff at any openness. But, you don't care, the IDF just kill Christian and Muslim Palestinians on a daily basis and is looking to create Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates (that's what the blue stripes on their flag represent). Truth to you is relative to your policy.

"Fear no one but God!" Gen. Stonewall Jackson

...and the first two don't count.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Iraq's WMD would not have been a threat to the US.

A simply stunning statement. If spread widely enough it might qualify as wmd (Weapon of Massive Dumbness) on its own.

lets take it though.

They wouldn't be a threat because

1. Iraq and the US had never and would never be in conflict.

2. Iraq would not and could not sponsor third parties to use them.

3. Iraq had such tight internal controls that there was no way they could fall into third party hands.

4. There was no way Iraq could fall into civil war and wind up using the weapons.

5. The US has no presence or interest in any part of the globe overlapping what Saddam considered to be Iraq's.

Thank you. That helped me re-establish in my own mind the war was the right thing to do.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

you raise interesting points. IMHO, you left off the most significant one of all. The question of Border Security is the most important long-range cataclysmic issue, and we're presently ignoring it, again.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

The war cannot be the only reason because the other candidates (except you know who) take the same positions on that. They just do not have the name recognition or popularity, particularly regarding their direct association with Islamic terrorism.

nt

I still don't fully understand why Rudy is getting such a push. My only guess is the MSM believe he will give the wink and nod to them during the general election, while he gives the wink and nod to social cons. during the primary. I'm just baffled that repubs still don't want to embrace small government conservatism. Is there an element of the GOP that wants to lose? What's so complicated about fiscal restrait, federalism/traditional social views, and strong national defense?

It's really kind of a cycle. Rudy is pushed because he leads most of the polls and is the most well-known. And the cycle continues as people get information from the media. Are you not aware that the vast majority of likely Republican primary voters know nothing about Rudy or his positions on issues except for his 9/11 speech? That alone is why most of his supporters will choose him. And that is often the case in primary elections. A lot of voters assume Republicans will generally hold the same positions on most issues, so they go with the most popular.

As depressing as it is, that is probably a pretty accurate assesment of the situation...

...but it would be a mistake to do so. I won't describe what W was doing on that day, because I don't want to distract from the question at hand, but Rudy was a calm, reassuring voice at a time of national catastrophe that many of us had never lived through before.

That was a presidential moment. Rudy showed real leadership during a real crisis. No other guy on that stage, other than McCain, can say that.

You're not talking to people who found 9/11 "traumatic." We found it infuriating; and until you figure out the difference, you're going to get precisely nowhere here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

A "presidential moment" should never be the sole basis for choosing a President. The President can and will be involved in doing a lot of other unrelated things and making other decisions that could impact people's lives, possibly as much as or more than 9/11 for some.

as nearly as they can be pinned down are most similar to mine, but I have a real big problem trusting him. and (really seriously) I question his sanity sometimes.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

He will do well in proportion to the importance placed by the voters on electability. McCain is a national figure with a history of being able to appeal to independents that are the key to a general election. If it holds that significant amounts of the base are looking for someone other than Rudy that they are confident can win a general election then McCain has the best chance of securing the nomination as Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee drop like flies as we proceed through the process.

I think voters will look at McCain's positions and see his record for better and worse and conclude that he is a much better President than Hillary.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

absentee

and it gets national media scrutiny, that is what I am afraid of.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

It is definitely one of his soft spots. His age, temper, and Immigration stance are all worries, but relative to the field as it stands today I don't know of anyone in a stronger position to claim he can win the general election.

Now that changes if Rudy can provide evidence of holding his right SoCon flank or if Thompson can prove to be a adept at campaigning. I worry that Rudy will keep just enough Republicans at home to lose and Thompson will be a Bob Dole.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

McCain has gotten this far in public life without blowing up onstage, although the "agents of intolerance" speech I guess counts...of course, Rudy, Hillary and apparently Huckabee are all known for their tempers as well, though in Rudy's case that's generally regarded as a feature, not a bug, given his reputation as a take-no-guff-from-nobody pugilist.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

does this mean you're OK with 'maybe' insane? On a 'probablesanity' scale from Mitt Romney (10) to Ron Paul (1), where would you put McCain?

I take it you're OK with open borders, at least to the extent the unwelcome visitors are willing to work cheap?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

You keep saying that about McCain, flagstaff. On what grounds?

"As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry."

McCain. He oted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.

That's not open borders.

He's weak on immigration. He's an amnesty guy. He's a guest worker guy. He's weak. We get it.

But your statements are fiction. Hyperbole. Why you are running from one blog entry to another berating people over McCain I can't guess, but I don't think you are selling anyone on your guy.

Relax.

absentee

The one you linked to up above. Well done. Also the one about homophones (I think we used to call them "homonyms," which is of course a synonym, but I digress).

But I didn't realize I'd responded to you on this topic twice. Oh, I guess I didn't, but never mind. I only get to read the site occasionally, so when I do I tend to bounce around to topics of interest and comment on them. OK with you? I try to keep my comments conversational, and sometimes that doesn't translate well onto the printed screen. I might sound smartass without intending to. Or, sometimes it is intentional and it doesn't work. But I'm rarely malicious.

Part of my answer is to be found in my response to you farther up the thread. But your own quotes show the problem with McCain's idea of "tight security."

"As president, I will secure the border." Bush says the same thing. Guess what? He means something different from what you and I mean, otherwise it would have been done by now.

"A secure border is an essential element of our national security." Lip service. Does anybody else say the opposite?

"Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry." True enough, but in McCainSpeak, that means, "I don't really intend to do anything meaningful about the one to two million people who stream across our border illegally every year. And I don't really have anything different in mind for cargo ships and containers than do any of my opponents, because we don't have a clue as to how to solve THAT logistical nightmare. But if I talk about the cargo, I don't have to explain why I've done nothing meaningful about the people." It's telling in that it indicates where his priorities on the matter AREN'T.

Maybe you haven't noticed that it is the humans crossing the border, not the cargo of ships, that is causing the problem in schools, hospitals, traffic accidents, crime....

He voted for a fence. Good for him. He still doesn't understand that it's the essential first step. He's a "comprehensive solution" guy, all the way.

"He's weak on immigration. He's an amnesty guy. He's a guest worker guy. He's weak. We get it."

Then why are you questioning my choice of words? Put him in office and nothing will change from today's inertia.

I do prefer Thompson (which you seem to have reversed yourself on), but I could enthusiastically support any of the top three. McCain's not one of them. If we nominate McCain I'll vote for him, but IMHO it would be a mistake to take him that far. And I'm not trying to sell Thompson.

Hyperbple? Maybe. Faint heart ne'er won fair lady. If I'd been less direct, perhaps you wouldn't have responded. But my comments here are strictly related to my dislike for John McCain's politics. He's a Senator partly because of his former POW status. That doesn't make him right about anything.

Sorry, but saying my statements are "fiction" ignores the reality behind them. Consider this: McCain is the Senator of a state that is being overrun with illegal aliens. Yet he was perfectly comfortable with supporting the shamnesty bill (see, more hyperbole on my part) that would only have made matters worse. In fact, our DEMOCRAT Governor has done more to address the problem than he has.

But I'm curious abut your opinion. You say illegal immigration isn't one of your buttons. What is/are? Why would you be within ten seconds of deciding to support a candidate and then get turned off by what some supporter has said?

" I'm put off by the take me as I am or not at all bit. Strategy should be debatable.

I'm looking at McCain, now."

I guess it wasn't nice of me to say that was silly, but what is it then? You have a right to be put off by what ever sinks your boat, but who said you couldn't debate or comment on that strategy? Fred?

It may make sense to dismiss Hillary because Jane Fonda is supporting her, but to dismiss a Republican because somebody not speaking for him says "you have to take him as he is or leave him"? (That's standard British punctuation, BTW. I like it better than our standard, in this case.) Even if he said it himself, I don't understand that. Do you think a candidate can/should really change just because he's in a campaign? Would you support someone who could?

Maybe I don't understand because I couldn't find the original quote. If that's the case, beg pardon.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Don't you mean if? No Thompson didn't meet all of the hype, but he is still running a high second in the polls, and if anything, he's getting better.

Or did you simply mean "as Thompson brings in the tanks". That I'll buy. :P
_______________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan

But it is difficult to overcome first impressions and Thompson's is overall been negative. I can't completely feel sorry for him either since he allowed the hype to build as he continually held off announcing for longer than he needed to (IMO).

At this point I think the CW is that there is a considerable amount of the base looking for someone electable in the general who can beat Rudy in the primaries. Thompson was the great hope and he failed to secure the brass ring. I'm not saying he can't turn it around, but it is now up for grabs and McCain does have a strong case and Romney has a terrific ground game in Iowa and New Hampshire. I just don't see Romney ultimately selling in either unless the other candidates cede it to him.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

to come to mind, because he immediately came out against the shamnesty bill, and for the right reasons, even before he officially entered the race. Mitt Romney has also been a secure-borders advocate from the beginning.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

I wouldn't say that that comment worried me in the slightest...

*looks over his shoulder*
Oh no! a Ronulan! I'm sorry, I didn't mean to support Fred! Yes I do love the constitution...well of course I...oh NOOOO! *bam*

Look, I'll buy your argument, there probably are people out there who want Ron Paul to "save the constitution"(tm) or something, it's just this whole matter of...shooting people...I don't know about that. :|

I guess it's like they (read "no one") say(s), "'I can spam a poll to shoot my candidate to the top' is just a short mental breakdown away from 'I can shoot people...YAY!'"
_______________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ~Ronald Reagan

RoPaul could be getting most of his money from George Soros--and maybe he is.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Brownback saw that Huckabee had taken his spot as the SoCon candidate and withdrew. Thompson is taking up Tancredo's slack on immigration to the satisfaction of most AFAICT. Hunter is a guy in the ether. Someone who is a strong party guy, but was never going to stand out on any issue and is at best probably a guy that is a little more solid than a McCain or Thompson.

As for Paul I think it is at least clear by fundraising that a market still exists for him in the debate. Mostly because there is no top-tier guy making a move for his voting base of extreme voters of varying issues. So he has no one dipping into his market.

Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback, and Gilmore are like the small town stores getting put out by Wal-Mart. It is inevitable. Paul survives just like Adult stores by selling what Wal-Mart can't or won't sell.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

"Paul survives just like Adult stores by selling what Wal-Mart can't or won't sell. "

Fantastic analogy, love it.

absentee

From what I gather from everything I see and read on her I do. She is still for the occupation despite needing to pander to her base. I have always been a firm believer in "Follow the money". She derives a significant amount of campaign financing from those that benefit from the growth of the US military complexes and there is no doubt in my mind that she will return the favor if elected.

Please provide 5 examples, in your next comment, of who you consider to be a "NeoCon." Thanks in advance.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

1. Kristol
2. Podhoretz
3. Cheney
4. Rove
5. McCain

the nomenclature

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I was just asked to provide 5 examples, would have to put some more thought into a true "top 5" list, although Podhoretz and Kristol would obviously have to make that list. Would be glad to include you in future listings!

back to the liberation war list, order of countries to be taken chronologically -

1- california
2 - massachusetts
3 - Tibet

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Don't worry GC, You're a Neo-con in my book any day!

Or better still>

YOU'RE NO NEO-CON! I KNEW NEO-CON AND YOU'RE NOT HIm!

Nope, the first one works best!

after 20 years as a lib dem, ALL cons are beautiful!

except those that follow THE ONE WHOSE NAME SHALL...

AW, NEVER MIND

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

In those states where they are allowed to vote at all!
Go figure!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Listen, I've banned enough people today that I'm feeling gracious enough to give you a second chance. I'm more or less the anti-war mod around here, so be glad I ran across you first.

We have a policy here against using the word "NeoCon" to complain about people who have been involved in Republican politics for several decades (like most of your list up there). Not your fault, you may not have known. So tell me what you'd like your new username to be, and we'll be happy to oblige.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

to be a neo-con, in the line of Jefferson, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Reagan and GWB. See also my neo-con guru, Bill Kristol.

The only people I complain about are ALL democrats, and spineless repubs.

and vandy

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Would those be the one's that desire a smaller federal government and wish to have more local control of how we live our lives? Would those be the GOP members that are strict constitutionalists? Seeing as how our party's tent is shrinking every day, you should not try to isolate people from the party that have foundations built in it's roots. This party needs to be broad to succeed and your type of approach with personal attacks is what is leading to the demise of that party and the overall dumbing down of American politics. We need to be stronger than that and base our dialogue in rational thought, not useless name calling.

How many RonPaul™ TalkingPoints™ did you guys count?

Haven't all of us true conservatives been discussing these talking points for years? My philosophy about the role of government is not tied to a particular candidate, but rahter to my ideology and what I think is the best way to promote freedom and liberty-the notion our country was founded on.

akin to taking ecstacy while in Europe.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"worlds within worlds" discussion in Animal House?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

to be republicans so they can raise money on false pretenses to get elected to congress and to fund vacations they call "running for president"

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I didn't realize so many rules existing in such an open debate forum. The term was coined by Kristol so I don't really understand how it can be a complaint...this is your site however and I am more than happy to oblige. Thanks.

The short version is, it's used as a bad word by the naughty posters, and is red flag for identifying same.

absentee

or did I?

"The only two who have a chance of beating Hillary are Rudy and Fred.(other than McCain) And while I believe that Fred is capable, he hasn't shown that he has the energy to do so."

Do you make that comment from your own observation, or because somebody told you to believe it's true?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

If electability continues to plague Thompson and Romney then you will see McCain dust off his old resume. He definitely will appeal to more independents and moderates in the general than Romney and Thompson and arguably has more credentials than anyone in the race on either side.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken

You might as well dismiss one because his name is too close to "Hickabee."

Can't discuss a significant issue? Makes more sense to say I disagree with a position.

Vote for McCain? Vote for continued illegal immigration while you're at it. Don't you recognize pandering and payback when you see it?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Two of the major jobs of a president are (1) running the Executive Branch and (2) getting up every morning ready to do battle with the forces arrayed against him - Congress, foreign propagandists, the MSM, hostile holdovers within the agencies. How a candidate campaigns tells you a lot about how they will run the government and the PR battle.

You can also look at their record, of course, but Fred doesn't have a record as an executive, so that's of limited help.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Which day last week did Fred not get out of bed?

As for handling the "PR battle," Fred has done right well with a lot less money than his opponents. That ability is EXACTLY what I want in a President; and I don't just mean on PR. And maybe, just MAYBE, Fred could have a friendly Congress before you know it, rather than a hostile one.

I think it's real important to be right on the issues, which Fred is.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."