This is a Blog done by a good friend of mine whom I have learned quite a bit from since I started paying attention to politics just a few short years ago. I thought it was well-worth the read.

by Sturm Ruger
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Frederalist
Posted in it's entirety with permission

Used to be, you didn't need a scorecard to read a column written by a conservative pundit. But then along came Election 2008 two years early, and now you have to read 'em with a grain of salt. No, better make that a pound of salt.

Take Jennifer Rubin (please). She's regularly thrashed Fred Thompson for months in the American Spectator's AmSpec blog. And in a recent post on Race 4 2008, she explains that it's not just the NY Times that is bashing Thompson, but points to pundits David Frum, Robert Novak and George Will as conservatives who have been critical of the former Senator. What she fails to mention is that all three of those writers, plus Rubin herself, have their own horses in the race. More on that just a few paragraphs down.

Although Rubin is a regular at the conservative Spectator and is also published at Human Events, she wrote a piece for the liberal New York Observer titled Five Easy Arguments Against Fred Thompson.

That was not the first time Rubin has been helpful to the Democats in trying to take down Thompson. She has, in fact, been showing her anti-Frederalist bias since long before the big guy officially entered the presidential race. In an analysis for ABC News written last summer about Fred Thompson's testing-the-waters-campaign, she opined, "Thompson appears to have gone well beyond the limits imposed by federal law." Just a month later, former Democrat Party staff member Lane Hudson filed his FEC Complaint against Fred. Hudson, you may remember, is the liberal blogger who exposed the Mark Foley scandal. Never mind that Fred's testing-the-waters campaign had hired a former FEC chairman to advise them on precisely what it could and could not do under the law, quarterback Rubin felt the need to get something started, and the Democrats took the handoff and ran with it.

In another ABC article on Thompson from last spring, she harped on the "lazy" meme, saying that the charge translates into "speculation that maybe he will be a less committed and focused candidate, unwilling or unaware of the demands of the campaign." Gotta spread those DNC talking points, doncha know.

Indeed, one is led to ask, "Who's side is she on?" Rudy Giuliani's, actually. Rubin never has a harsh word for Hizzoner, and she sings his praises in forte voice. How about the trio she mentioned in the Race 4 2008 post? Novak has recently let it be known that he thinks Ron Paul would make a fine president; George Will is for any subcomponent of Rudy McRomney; and John Fund is backing Rudy. As a matter of fact, Fund has gone one step further and hired on with the Giulini campaign.

These four are not the only pundits who have jumped on various candidates' bandwagons early. Rich Lowry and Deroy Murdock at NRO are very Rudy-friendly. Townhall.com's Hugh Hewitt is shamelessly pro-Romney, and Michael Medved, also from Townhall, often expresses his great admiration for John McCain.

The problem is, not a one of these pundits will include a disclaimer in their columns informing the reader of which dog they have in the hunt, although Hewitt will at least tell you that he has written Romney's biography. You have to read a number of their columns before you realize that they have few unkind words to say about Candidate A and are almost always critical of Candidate B.

They should all take a lesson from John Hawkins, blogmeister of Right Wing News. Hawkins worked as a consultant to the Duncan Hunter campaign for a few months, and he took great pains to point out that fact with every post he made in which he expressed his opinion of a competing candidate. Hawkins even posted disclaimers about his former relationship with the Hunter campaign long after his relationship with Hunter's campaign was severed. Bloggers, in general, have been much more up front than their counterparts in the old media about which candidates they support in the presidential sweepstakes.

So the next time you read a piece in the conservative media telling you that Fred Thompson has surely blown it this time and that his campaign may not be long for this world, consider the source and consider which candidate that source would like to see as the GOP nominee at the next Republican presidential convention. Also consider that most voters, unlike us political junkies, never read a word of what the pundits write, and these are the people who have placed Fred Thompson solidly in second place in all the polls.

The Frederalist

The great white hope, their Savior, the next Reagan, the actor, no fire in the belly, the staff turnovers, the uhs, the Guccis, the lobbying, more uhs, the too-late entrance, the ups and downs of his campaign, the constant predictions of this is it, the make it or break it debate, and yet he's still here. He's still at least second in most polls and even first in some. He has always been a top-tier candidate even prior to his official entrance into the race.

But why? Why is Fred still doing so well if he hasn't started a firestorm? He's old. He get's tired. He's lazy. He's no Reagan. So why is he the brunt of so many attacks? Why do they keep writing about him if they all think he doesn't have a chance? Why did the other top-tier candidates pretend he wasn't in the room until Romney threw his obviously pre-written line about "Law and Order" into the debate?

Have you been listening? Have you been paying attention?

Speech after speech, paper after paper, interview after interview, they all include the same common theme but hardly anyone talks about it.

He said it in his speech to the VFW National Convention when talking about our national security.

We must have a frank and continuous conversation about this with the American people because, above all, we must have the support and unity of the American people if we are to succeed.

To reverse this situation we must reassess our national priorities and face the truth about what it will take to defend this country.

While this quote is from his prepared remarks, I noticed a little blurb that re-enforces what I've noticed.

Note: Senator Thompson departs frequently from prepared texts

Did you hear what Fred said at the Americans for Prosperity Summit? While I couldn't find a transcript of his speech, I do have a link to a YouTube video of it and did my best to transcribe some of what he said.

We have to make our case to the American people.

We sensed there was something going on . . . we took our case to them. We talked about first principals. Strong federalism, based on the proposition that not all solutions are found in Washington, DC.

In this second You-tube link Fred talked about speaking what he really believed?

I think the American people are waiting on us. I think they are waiting for us to take that case to them, as to what is responsible, what is the responsible thing to do for our generation?.

I don't think people are as selfish and self-centered as they think they are.

I think if politicians would be willing to take a risk a little bit every once and awhile you'd be amazed at how well that turns out for you even politically

I carried . . . TN twice by 20 points each and I think the thing that was most valuable to me is always I knew I had term limits I had put on myself and I knew I was going back home one of these days soon anyway regardless of how my thoughts were received. Not out of a sense of brashness but a sense of freedom to speak what you believe to be the truth.

Talk about refreshing! No wonder so many are confused by his speeches. People aren't use to a politician giving a speech anymore that is what they really believe. The American people are going to be able to tell the difference. That's the one thing I keep hearing people say about him, that they believe him.

This is what I believe to be the secret to Fred Thompson's success. He is speaking what he really believes and not worrying about how his words are going to be received or misinterpreted.

Start listening to him when he speaks and see if you don't notice it. He nearly always says something about needing to have an honest and open discussion with the American people. He keeps saying what he thinks, what he believes.I noticed in that last video that I posted, he said "I think" in nearly every sentence in the closing portion of his speech.

Fred Thompson may not be your cup of tea and he definitely is not perfect but he does say what he believes and I pray he never stops.

Elusively yours,
ilja

Edited for typos

 Someone asked recently what is it about Fred Thompson that has so many Conservatives excited? What has he got that the top three don't? Are you sure it's not just a case of the grass is greener on the other side?

There was even an article about his speech in Orange County not wowing the attendees. At least he didn't according to Bob Novack.

I've heard the stories about his disappointing role in the investigations of the Clinton fund-raising kurfluffle. And thanks to Ace of Spades HQ, I've discovered that Thompson earned a grade of "C" from the group "Americans for Better Immigration" for his Senate voting record in regards to illegal immigration. Mind you his negatives come from internal enforcements, while he has always been strong when it comes to our borders.

The biggest complaint seems to be that he lacks that 'fire in the belly' that most who run for the most powerful position in the world have, seeing as you have to really want it in order to put up with all the bull that goes along with it.

Yet I seem to recall that one of the things we most admired about George W. when he was running was that he was not like Gore as far as wanting to be President was concerned. Don't you remember how sickening Gore was in his obviousness of always wanting to be President? Is our most current candidate who has always wanted to be President any more attractive as a Presidential hopeful? Surely you don't believe that the fact that she has always wanted to be President that she would do anything, including staying with a philanderer, to do so is what Fred needs?

What is it about Fred then that has so many Conservatives chomping at the bit for him to run? Why are we so enthused about Fred?

First and foremost, with all due respect to the top tier (according to the polls & MSM), a far-left liberal who was a good mayor for one of the 'bluest of the blue' blue states with one bright shining moment, a media darling who'd stab his mother in the back for camera time who was once a prisoner of war and a former Governor of the first State in the Union to legalize Gay Marriage but has since turned into a Social Conservative, we think, are not exactly the things that dreams are made of.

Next you have to consider what we have all been through as Conservatives the last few years. We won the Presidency with what we were told was a Conservative. Since supposedly the reason Conservative issues were not being addressed was because the Republicans needed a majority to accomplish their goals, we followed that up with delivering the majority in both Houses of Congress to the GOP. Unfortunately, they failed to warn us that even with a majority of Republicans, that does not equate to having a majority of Conservatives.

Plus the leadership was so busy either amassing power or kowtowing to the left in order to be bipartisan (yes I know it's redundant), that they did not even seriously try to pass much substantial Conservative legislation. Give me a break. All that time in the majority and the only legislation they passed dealing with illegal immigration was an unfunded border fence at the last minute. Just how stupid did they think we were?

And now they are falling for the media's lies that the reason they lost the majority was because they were too Conservative? Sometimes I can't help but think that the real reason they were so ineffective in passing a Conservative agenda was because they did not want to. I think they rather enjoy playing the role of the victim in the minority so that they can use that as an excuse for doing nothing.

Why did I even mention all of this when I am suppose to be explaining why we are so desirous of a Fred Thompson run for the Gold?

Because I needed to lay down the foundation of where we are coming from in order to explain why settling for Rudy McRomney is so repugnant to most Conservatives.

Prior to the whole overblown Macaca incident, many of us on the right had our hopes on George Allen. I could beat myself up now taking so long to decide that he was the 'real thing'. Oh how I wish he had won his Senate seat.

Then the whole pushing of Rudy and McCain down our throats by the media and the beltway boys was enough to make me consider investing in a pharmaceutical company that specialized in nausea medicine. So when Duncan Hunter came along who was nearly perfect on the issues, I jumped on that bandwagon quicker than you can say Shazam!

Unfortunately, he didn't even make a dent in the polls, that is if they are correct? Who knows at this point? I wish I knew. I wish I could communicate with more Americans about what is really going on in the world that is not being reported by the not-even-trying-to-hide-it-anymore, leftist-extremists, biased media.

So by the time that someone mentioned the name of Fred, were were not only ripe for the pickin', we were hungrier than the last survivors on Fiji Island.

But why Fred, you still ask? Well it's like this. Fred has a record that we are able to peruse so that at least he isn't a 'stealth' candidate. While he is not the most Conservative of candidates, he is probably the closest we can get to the real thing at this point in time.

Sure he is no Ronald Reagan . . . but who is? Yet he is Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, major player in the investigation and downfall of a corrupt Governor, strong believer in State's rights as shown by his dissenting vote against the Good Samaritan Law because he thought it was the responsibility of the State instead of the Federal Government.

Yes we know that he once filled out a questionnaire that he was pro-choice. But his voting record on abortion is perfect.

While yes we believe he is Conservative enough to earn our votes without us having to hold our noses while voting, that is not the only reason we want and need Fred Thompson as our next President. The reason that we need and are so excited about Fred Thompson running for President is because we have learned the hard way that in order to do what needs to be done during this most dangerous of times, we need a 'true' leader.

We need a leader that can motivate and inspire our fellow citizens to not give up in this war on Islamic Terrorism. We need a leader that is not afraid to speak to the media or the world and explain where they can understand why we are doing what we are doing. We need a leader that can speak in such a way that the media is going to have a hard time twisting his words to say what he did not say. We need a leader that will come back after the media has done their best to slander him and us with fighting words that will put them in their place.

We need someone who has gained the kind of wisdom that only comes with age and life experience. We need someone who we can trust. We need someone who is even attractive on the boob tube since that is where most of his communication will be seen.

So while yes Fred is an actor, he has done and is doing so much more. If you don't believe me, check this out.

Fred is exactly what we need at this time in our history. Fred is the man for the times. Of all the candidates that are running or are even talking about running for President of the United States, it is only Fred that has the 'it' factor that will attract enough voters to get 'er done. It is only Fred who even after winning, can lead this crazy world of ours into a more perfect union. Heck, even my democrat-voting sister who doesn't keep up with politics said that she liked Fred.

So Fred Thompson if you are reading this, we are calling your name. The time has come and we are a knocking on your door. Run Fred Run and be the leader that we know you can be.

Elusively yours,
ilja

 I have decided after much consternation that both major Political Parties in the U.S. need to change their symbols. Forget the Donkey and the Elephant. They have long outlived their usefulness. While the donkey's other well-known nomenclature still fits and the GOP is still trying to get votes via the elephant's ideal of voters too afraid to vote for democrats, I think it's time for some truth in politics and have concluded that the Ostrich and the Teenager would be much more fitting.

I'll start with the Ostrich. The first and most obvious reason that the Democrats should adopt the Ostrich as their symbol is because their idea of defending our nation can be described in the same way that the Ostrich is most well-known for when it comes to facing danger. They both like to hide their heads in the sand and believe that if they ignore the enemy, they will go away. Mind you, the idea that an Ostrich sticks his head in the sand when scared is merely a myth but since when did the truth ever really matter to Democrats?

Additionally, though the head hiding in the sand may be a myth, when threatened Ostriches do run away. Sound familiar?

Those aren't the only traits the Democrats have in common with the Ostrich. Just like the Ostrich, Democrats eyes are larger than their brains which might explain why they think entitlement programs help those most in need. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense, if it causes people to not be self-sufficient or if it is even Constitutional. If they see something they want to heck with what's best, they are going after it.

Another little known fact about Ostriches is that they reach sexual maturity between two to four years old. When was the last time you heard a Democrat talk about sex in a mature fashion? Why do you think the worship at the altar of abortion? They still think like a toddler who doesn't care about the consequences or even considers responsibility. They want what they want when they want it.

And do you know what the Bible says about the Ostrich?

"The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. Job 39:13-17 (New International Version)

Hmmmm, no wonder the Democrats want the Government to raise their children. They are too busy warming themselves in the sun.

Now on to the Teenager. For those of you who have had teenagers, I imagine you are fully aware of what I am about to mention. For those of you who do not, perhaps you can recall when you were a teenager and did this. Teenagers are well known for being ashamed of being seen with their parents.

I remember when my own son first became a teenager and he suddenly didn't want to spend time with me. Though he didn't mind at all taking my money and my being his taxi. However he did want me to drop him off where his friends couldn't see that he had gotten a ride with his mom.

That is the number one reason why Republicans should change their symbol to a Teenager. Republicans love taking money and votes from their base. They also love us volunteering our time without compensation unlike the Democrats. Yet once they are elected to office, they can hardly wait to separate themselves as far from us as possible. Shoot, if David Kuo's book "Tempting Faith" has any truth in it, some in the White House even make fun of us.