Ron Paul withdrawal story FAQ

By Rick Morris

Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.

Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.

Without any further ado, the questions and answers:

Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...

A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...

Q: Did not!

A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.

Q: Did not!!!!!

A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.

Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!

A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.

Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?

A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.

Q: Still convinced?

A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.

Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?

A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!

Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.

A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.

Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.

A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.

Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.

A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.

Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!

A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.

Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!

A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).

Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?

A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."

Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.

A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.

Redemption for right wing leaders

By Rick Morris

The fawning embrace given to Mitt Romney by so-called conservative leaders (bloggers, talk radio hosts, activists/lobbyists) was deeply damaging to their own credibility – but it was also unfortunately hurtful to the interests of the larger movement they claim to represent. While I’m not losing sleep about the harm done to the reputations of those like Hugh Hewitt who so consistently demeaned and undermined legitimate candidates in the race, I do recognize their power to diminish the future of this country since so many give them credit for speaking for the conservative movement. I do think the revolt against these people was a positive development, as the arrogance we’ve seen on display indicates that they’ve lost touch with those they purport to lead. Every intellectual revolution, such as this one that started with Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan back in the early ‘60s, eventually ossifies and becomes exactly that which it was supposed to oppose. For right-wingers, the Romney bandwagon of 2007-08 was the Animal Farm moment.

Herewith, my free advice for how these luminaries can get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves and American conservatism:

^ Have the humility to read this column all the way through. Already, there are signs that the grand poobahs still don’t get it and want to foist the Mittster on us again four years hence. In this article, it is revealed that, in an insanely presumptuous and egomaniacal move, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene took it upon himself to personally welcome Romney into the conservative movement at C-PAC. [Side note to Davey: You did nothing but induct him as a member of your little Beltway boys club. It’s very interesting that you have such contempt for the fact that a majority of conservatives in this country rejected your pet and would never call him one of their own. Who died and left you as The Sultan of American Conservatism? I’m just wondering if you put him through some rituals as part of a ceremony, such as “pinky swears” or a quiz on Bill Buckley’s five favorite Latin phrases.]. The continued arrogance of those who refuse to “get it” about Romney is unbelievable, inasmuch as they should be able to read the cold hard facts; if Mitt were the “great right hope,” then McCain and Huck put together wouldn’t have been able to stop him and he would have been more than a doormat in the bastion-of-conservatism Southern states. Leveling spurious charges of religious bigotry against the folks you clearly perceive to be nothing more than Flyover Country peasants won’t get you anywhere either. You need to accept the fact that the work many of you did for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1976 could very well be invalidated by the destructive moves you’ve pulled lately and in some cases persist in doing.

^ Crawl out of your echo chamber and be willing to defend your opinions. This piece of advice applies mostly to the talk radio potentates, most of whom hide behind the skirts of their call-screeners. Take a lesson from Michael Medved, who not only accepts calls from those unfriendly to his point of view but specifically seeks them. You have to get in fighting trim and go beyond accepting arse-kissing missives from vapid folks like “Dittoheads” and be willing to mix it up and articulate your principles in a consistent manner or learn to deal with irrelevance in a world fast leaving you behind.

^ Take an honest look at where you went wrong. Most of you were silent when you had a chance to boost Fred Thompson. Some of you, like Hewitt, actively slimed him. Regardless of how far off the reservation you went, you damaged the advancement of vital American causes. You did so in the false belief that you were embracing a candidate as sleek and supercharged as the American Motors company his father once ran. Instead, you ended up climbing aboard an Edsel that could not meet any necessary performance standards (justifying the megabucks investment in the early state contests, connecting with voters on any level, finding explanations for a myriad of conveniently-timed policy changes, creating an even moderately-successful campaign message). At long last, you need to admit that you picked the wrong “vehicle” and stop blaming others for the inevitable crash into the ditch.

^ Stop bashing populism. This edict applies specifically to good old El Rushbo, who denounced populism as part of his intellectually dishonest critique of Huck. One wonders exactly what he considers his denunciation of entities such as Nancy Pelosi and the “intellectual elites!” I realize that I speak as a member of the paleoconservative wing of the movement, which unfortunately accounts for a small minority, but let it be said once and for all that populism is a good thing! Certainly, Rush doesn’t like the concept when it’s turned on him, but that should have been an early sign that he was in the wrong. Some types of populism, such as the economic form of it that panders to folks of an illiterate mentality, are idiotic. But always, in making a choice between the people and their leaders who are pushing them down the primrose path, I side with the people and anyone aspiring to lead the conservative movement must also do no less.

^ Speak truth to power. The conservative intelligentsia has spent the last seven years toadying up to the Bush crew at all costs – Limbaugh and Hannity in particular come to mind. They’ve overlooked a host of offenses against sound policy but now ask us to get outraged about ones made by John McCain! [Another aside: how the heck does George W. Bush get a hero’s welcome at C-PAC from the same audience of “purists” who had to be begged not to chuck tomatoes at McCain? Again, not that McCain’s Mr. Right himself, but he’s made no more transgressions than Dubya and arguably has had less. But Bush pretends harder to be a consistent conservative than McCain does and appeases the sheep that way. Quite a shame the way the psychology works]. A little less worry about access to the Bushies and a little more pressure to do the right thing would have been better for the country, even if the individuals involved wouldn’t get invited to as many ice cream socials. The idea isn’t to be loved by the political elite, it’s to keep them honest. You people don’t need my admonition to hold McCain’s feet to the fire; it’s a tragic shame for our country that you chose not to apply the same standard to “The Decider.”

Mittens, don't go away mad, just go away

By Rick Morris

Today former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney suspended his campaign for the presidency, bowing out in deference to presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Although I have been very tough on Mr. Romney throughout his run for the Oval Office, today is a day for positive reflection on what he brought to this country during his efforts.

Well, maybe it's a day for some people to speak positively of Mittens. But, if I may quote the great Jim Halpert, "I'm not a perfect person."

Objectively Unfit Mitt defecated on every American principle you can find during a campaign waged with all the heart and positivity of C. Montgomery Burns. Were it not for the fact that I have an obligation to deliver some FDH programming tonight to our listeners and viewers, I'd be "Slurpin' a Fody" in rapturous celebration at the burst of horror so narrowly averted by our great republic.

To see this pathetic Stepford tool take the podium at CPAC today to deliver a whimpering, Uriah Heep performance babbling about how he loves his country and his party more than himself -- well, that was truly a scene that could bring a tear to a glass eye, couldn't it?

Let nobody be fooled; today marked the first chapter in his efforts to contest the 2012 Republican nomination, which he'll be officially targeting the day after he passive-aggressively finishes off his new "friend" John McCain in November. I fear it's working -- all of the gullible fools taken in by the Flip-Flopping Fraud are shedding their own tears today about what a shame it is that this would-be titan of American history was deprived of his chance to lead this land of ungrateful peons.

Well, let those of us who stood tall at this time of peril warn you jerks one more time: try to foist Wily Willard on us again, and we'll bitch-slap you again. This poser couldn't gain any votes down South once he was exposed as "Mr. $50 Abortion Co-Pay" and if you think the pushback on his attempted coup against the right wing was vicious this time? Ya ain't seen nothin' yet, because you alienated too many decent people to ever get a pass on anything ever again. Whether it be spreading malicious and untrue rumors about Fred Thompson planning to drop out of the race right after Iowa, or cancer-mongering Fred when he got into the race, or posturing like Mike Huckabee was a religious bigot, no low was too low for this crowd. It was really funny to watch the Shameless-As-A-Clinton hypocrisy, though -- whenever they'd do anything particularly vile, they'd smirk and trot out the "politics ain't beanbag" attitude -- but they'd squeal like stuck pigs whenever anyone fought back or used clever tactics, like McCain's abdication to the Huck in West Virginia on Tuesday.

Whether John McCain wins or loses in November, there is no room for the Mitt-Bot groupies to foist their Plastic Phony on us again like they came so close to doing this time. Whether it be Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford or some other bright principled leader, somebody will emerge and marginalize Romnoid because they will legitimately be the great conservative leader he has tried so hard to fool us into thinking he is. The real deal always beats a false replica, so if he couldn't beat a John McCain despised by many elements of the Republican Party? Say goodnight, Irene.

And now The Trust Fund Baby will finally stop spending his kids' inheritance, so they can do something with the gazillions of dollars that keep getting passed down in that creepy little clan. Here's hoping that whatever they do with it, that it doesn't end up as injurious to the U.S. of A. as what their old man had planned.

James Dobson sells out

By Rick Morris

I am very disappointed by the recent decision of James Dobson to throw his support behind Objectively Unfit Mitt in the Republican presidential race, although I am not surprised. I criticized him previously for his ivory-tower babbling about wanting a real conservative choice in the race while he was choosing to publicly stab in the back the only viable candidate who fit that bill, Fred Thompson. His refusal to support the best man for the job because of what amounted to personal egotistical pique about Big Fred not puckering up and kissing Old Rosey exposes his decision as the complete and utter hypocrisy that it is.

For the millionth time, I get the fact that a lot of conservatives don’t like John McCain. I was strongly for Fred before and I’m only for McCain now in the sense that the other members of the “Final Four” of major presidential contenders on both sides are completely unacceptable to me. But haven’t these right-wing leaders, most of whom are moderately-to-significantly older than me, been around long enough to know that Option B isn’t always preferable just because Option A sucks? The world isn’t this simple. It is possible to acknowledge that John McCain leaves much to be desired as a candidate and still admit that Trust Fund Willard is the absolute pits. As I’ve said previously, you pretty much know what you’re getting with McCain and I’d rather be stabbed in the front than the back. Given some of the conservatives who have endorsed him and are rumored to be the leading contenders in terms of shaping policy in a McCain Administration, I’m also not in complete despair about what might come out of it, either.

As asinine as Ann Coulter’s diatribe about how she’d prefer President Hillary to President McCain was (and that pains me to say as I have several of Ann’s books and I respect the fact that she’s got more guts than almost any other commentator on the scene), at least it’s intellectually coherent. She feels that the country would be better off suffering the pain of a third Clinton Administration before taking a figurative laxative in 2012. At least that decision of hers makes more sense than her ill-considered endorsement of Romney just because he’s McCain’s only remaining major opponent on the GOP side. If anyone feels that the country would be better off with Hillary winning the White House or that there would be no difference whatsoever between her and McCain as president – well, I can disagree strongly with that and point to any number of facts to back up my view, but I wouldn’t disrespect it like I do the Know-Nothingism of the childish “We’re For Romney Just Because He’s Not McCain Brigade.”

James Dobson, like National Review, has a strong legacy of working to improve public policy in this country. Like National Review and so many other “conservative leaders,” he’s betraying that legacy with his hypocrisy and he should be ashamed of himself.

Romney hypocrites: sit down and shut up!

By Rick Morris

With the whiff of desperation in the air, the followers of Objectively Unfit Mitt (click here for 50 great reasons to vote against Romney) are insulting the intelligence of every voter on the right by proclaiming the superior purity of their hearts and they are also quite busy demeaning everyone opposed to their hollow hero as a squish or tool of the media or worse.

Well, I've had about all I can take from these posers and it's time to hang them with their own words.

Let's be quite unambiguous about this: the betrayers on the right who have thrown in with Mitt Romney's attempt to dupe the American people and are now daring to present themselves as "more conservative than thou" have transgressed against conservative policy way more than I ever have in my voting record or support of candidates -- and that's true of countless other citizens as well.

Because of space consideration, I'm going to limit this to one apiece, but here are several reasons that the leading opinion-shapers on the right who are trying to shove Mittens down our throats have PREVIOUSLY proven that they are not to be trusted.

^ Rick Santorum, who courts an image of the purest of the pure right-wingers, is a complete phony who colluded with Dubya and the D.C. power brokers to save Arlen Spector's worthless RINO hyde in the '04 primary.

^ Rush Limbaugh bashed Pat Buchanan and other challengers to Bob Dole in '96 and H.W.'s boy in '00 in faithful, unquestioning service to the Washington Republican Establishment he now amusingly claims to have always opposed.

^ Hugh Hewitt -- ah, how do you limit yourself to just one of his intellectually dishonest bon mots -- OK, here we go -- he, the self-professed arch-nemesis of all things "MSM," took to the New York Times editorial page to whimper about how the conservative movement had lost its moorings by depriving America of That Future Hall of Fame Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers.

^ I lied, here's another one about "El Rushbo": he took an elitist stand disregarding the wishes of the American people regarding the Dubai ports fiasco.

^ Michelle Malkin played the fool during Hurricane Katrina by assuming that just because state and local authorities, under the control of Democrats were incompetent (they were) that the Feds, controlled by Dubya Who Can Do No Wrong were competent (they were not): "Contrary to the usual Bush-deranged kvetching, the president is on the job."

^ Sean Hannity, whose Bush-era sniveling sycophancy is second to none, praised the PRE-SURGE state of affairs in the Middle East in his customary slavish terms in 2004.

^ Mark Levin, maybe the most holier-than-thou basher of anti-Romney Republicans, was so big a pro-Bush sellout that he tried to drag down the Gipper by using him as cover for George W's misadventures.

As has been documented previously on this esteemed blog, Fred Thompson was The One True Hope of The Right in this election cycle and the above members of Mendacious Mitt's Choir failed to "mount up and ride to the sound of the guns" when they legitimately had a chance to stand up for the future of this country. To them, and the other nauseating "opinion leaders" on the right who want to lead us down the primrose path as they demonstrably have before:

Sit down and shut up.

Tears of the Mitt-Bots are sweet nectar

By Rick Morris

Schadenfreude. It's the German word for deriving pleasure from the misfortune of others.

I get accused of partaking of it fairly frequently, and I have to plead guilty to that. It's pretty fun to bask in people getting the figurative fecal matter that they deserve thrown at them -- don't knock it until you've tried it.

My latest opportunity in life to point and say, "what goes around, comes around" regards the useful idiots in Mittens' Hollow Army who are crying their pathetic eyes out about the prospect of the Republican presidential nomination being delivered to John McCain. Now, I should preface the following commentary by noting that I supported Fred Thompson previously (quite ardently, I might add -- and repeatedly -- and repeatedly again!), but I now support McCain in the sense that he is the only major candidate for president against whom I am not irretrievably opposed (how's that for a hearty endorsement?).

So, not to make the Mitt-Idiots feel worse -- ah, who am I kidding? -- OK, I revel in making them feel worse -- but it's their fault.

That's right, those who are the most ardent proponents of Trust Fund Willard at the moment -- like this shameless spinner who cancer-mongered Fred when he got into the race, in one of the scummiest displays in recent political history -- they are weeping, sniveling, crying and otherwise conducting themselves in the same fashion as their hero. How about the sight of Rich Boy Romney going into the fetal position last night about McCain's characterization of his Iraq position, as though Romney didn't spend a ton of his inherited wealth to dump slime via TV ads on everyone in the race thus far.

Mark Levin has recently taken to insulting Republicans opposing Romney as RINOs. But since the real fault for this state of affairs lies with all of the weasels who could have backed the only real conservative Fred Thompson but chose to back a fraudulent loser, the RINO Levin is in closest contact with these days is the man in the mirror.

It's America's loss, not Fred's

By Rick Morris

Fair warning: Bitterness Alert!

Every four years, you always hear people whining about the choice for president. "I can't believe it's Bush and Kerry. Can't we do better than that?" Four years before that, people were appalled by the choice between Bush and Gore. And on and on it goes.

Almost invariably, though, this country generally has at least a decent chance to do better, but rejects it in favor of a flashier or better-funded empty suit. The USA blew it again today when Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. Hence, history will repeat itself later this year when people are crying about the pathetic choice foisted upon this nation by the Democrats and Republicans.

Fred had it all: he possessed common-sense ideas that have been validated over the decades, he took on volatile issues like entitlement reform, he was a solid communicator and he treated the American public with decency and respect and had the courage to ask the same in return. This country, and in particular the Republican Party and the conservative movement, chose instead to their everlasting shame to continue their pattern (broken only by Reagan) of foisting crappy mediocrities on this land of ours.

Some of my friends who are Republican insiders, including some members of The FDH Lounge family, believe in the "Jim Rome Scoreboard Theory of Politics." That is, if you're the last man standing, that you're the best man because you proved your worth by going through the gauntlet. Scoreboard!

I couldn't disagree more.

Fred Thompson was the best man and it is only a broken system that kept him from being able to break through the glass ceiling put on him by the jerks in the media and the political class. His failure is an INDICTMENT of our political system. This is one reason that, although I don't like it, I'm not as consumed with hatred for McCain-Feingold as my aforementioned friends. Granted, the law is unconstitutional and was a bad idea. But unlike my friends, I refuse to glorify the present system and pretend there's nothing wrong with it. Winning a nomination by being the best at conspiring in smoke-filled rooms with party puppet-masters is the proven way to get ahead -- as the nominations of both political parties have shown over the past few decades. But it is nothing for our country to be proud of, as it is evidence that our democracy is broken. Now before any of my friends get the urge to go more-conservative-than-thou on me for appropriating the language of The Nation magazine for my critique, let me remind them that our Founding Fathers, whom we on the right respect greatly, did not intend for the pursuit of our nation's highest office to be just another game of casino capitalism.

Political pundits are now wondering where the Thompson support will end up now. As for me, I am disregarding early indications that Thompson will not make an endorsement and I anticipate that he will endorse John McCain -- and, given the prominent right-wingers (i.e. Gramm/Kemp/Coburn) who have recently surrounded McCain and figure to serve as his braintrust if elected president, I will probably give McCain my reluctant support as well.

I do want to beg any of my fellow Fred supporters, who have by definition been smart enough not to get hoodwinked by Say-Anything Mittens (rumor has it he's going around saying he's the only person who can get Axl Rose to release the Chinese Democracy album!) not to give into this vile fraud of a campaign at this late hour. Not only are Romney's convictions demonstrably only an inch deep, the rotten Romney campaign should pay a price for the whisper campaign waged about Fred's viability from Day One -- with the low point being the cancer-mongering put forth by one of their chief mouthpieces. This nation today suffered the loss of its best candidate for president -- let's not compound the error by awarding the GOP nomination to a denizen of the political gutter.

South Carolina/Nevada results preview

By Rick Morris

In a result that barely merits mention, the Romney campaign will rack up a sizable win by default in Nevada because the attention of all other campaigns will be diverted elsewhere – shades of Wyoming. Look for a Mittens victory dance anyway. McCain, Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani will follow in that order.

Over in South Carolina, where everyone’s focus has been for most of the week, McCain will avenge his devastating loss to Dubya in 2000 by besting Huckabee by about four percentage points. Thompson will be a distant third, followed narrowly by Romney. The toughest dynamic for me to compute in either Nevada or South Carolina was the battle for third place in the Palmetto State. Romney is basically conceding that he will finish fourth, which, given the massive intellectual dishonesty of his campaign, naturally makes me wonder if he secretly has sound reason to believe he will finish ahead of Thompson and is anticipating another of his patented cheesy “I beat the expectations” moments. But the fact that he is tanking in the latest major poll released makes me believe that his fade is for real. Unfortunately for America, this finish could still be quite damaging if not a mortal blow to the best candidate in the race, Fred Dalton Thompson.

The Nevada Democrats appear poised to throw another curveball into what has already been a chaotic election process this year. Hillary is leading Obama in most of the major polls, and appears able to survive the endorsement momentum the Illinois senator received from major Nevada unions. Look for Clinton to win by about four points, with Edwards a noisy irrelevancy back in the high teens.

Human Events: keeping integrity with Fred

By Rick Morris

Previously in this space, we've bemoaned the Who's Who of Republican politics and the right-wing intelligentsia who have either overtly or covertly gone in the tank for Willard Mitt Romney, the say-anything slick CEO running for president. The mad stampede to sell out to the deep-pockets trust fund tool has been infuriating and demoralizing, as these influential instruments of opinion have cited the need to back Romney to preserve the Reagan coalition all while marginalizing the true Reaganite candidate in the race in Fred Thompson.

Well, one publication has bucked the trend and I am not surprised that their integrity was not for sale.

Human Events, an important right-wing news and opinion outlet that has served this country well for decades, came to the only conclusion that any fair-minded and intellectually honest conservative could: Fred Thompson should be the next president of These United States.

I am prouder than ever that I have subscribed to this fine magazine and that I interviewed for it once when I was briefly considering relocating to Washington, D.C. Their endorsement article is outstanding and I urge everyone reading these words to click on it and review their many persuasive points.

If you still need to be convinced, please review Fred's comprehensive final address to the voters of Iowa just prior to the caucuses. While the references to the Hawkeye State are somewhat dated, they are few and far between and do not overshadow the many components of the plan he communicates to the American people.

Voters from across the political spectrum are united this year in the belief that these are urgent times for our country calling for steadfast leadership anchored to priceless principles. Only one man can provide that to us and lead us back towards greatness and his name is Fred Dalton Thompson.

I Really Hope These Focus Groups Are Not Representative of the Rest of Us

By Jason Jones

Shortly after wrapping up the Fantasy Draft Help Insider show, I decided to jump over to Fox News and see what the reactions to tonight’s debate were. It is not my place to tell you or anyone else what’s going to happen or what should happen, however I had to chime in on the responses and point out how stupid America is being. The following is a word for word account of Questions and Answers from a focus group care of Fox News/Hannity and Colmes. My comments in red.

Q: A word or phrase that stood out to you regarding Fred Thompson’s performance?

A1: Nice awakening, but too little too late.

I don’t want to hear “too late.”

A2: The “Big Bear” in Fred Thompson awoke.

He was always here, you just weren’t listening.

A3: Entertaining but not convincing (that woman is really STUPID).

Again, not listening…you’ve already decided and are a drain on the process.

A4: Very prepared and it showed.

He’s been very prepared since the day he got in.

A5: His charisma finally surfaced.

Again, since Day One. Where have you been?

A6: Showed his intelligence, he was organized and prepared.

…Day one…

A7: Sarcastic and curt with no substance.

You are probably one of the Jackasses who has been waiting for a sound bite.

A8: Surprising, a little too late.

You’re an idiot, there’s not one thing surprising about anything he said.

A9: Began to contrast himself.

The answers are the same, he just had to turn up the volume for those of you that ride the short bus.

A10: Believed he was very strong and passionate, he was ready to go.

Since when does “sounds passionate” mean squat? Is he the right man for the job?

A11: Very dynamic and great, but late.

What’s with this late crap? We haven’t even gotten to the S.Carolina primary yet?

A12: Very strong on conservative issues, very strong on immigration.

Again, no change. He’s been here since the beginning.

A13: Presidential and very convincing.

Now there’s one I cannot disagree with.

Don’t tell me he’s too late. That is complete bull@#$%. Sure every candidate and the voters who vote for him/her would love to start fast and end fast. In politics, it's rare like in NFL football that one is the ’72 Dolphins. Remember when McCain was getting his ass kicked routinely in the fall? How about when Mitt Romney was afraid to really mix it up, then he began the attack on Hillary? Where was Huckabee 2 months ago? I also think I remember everyone thinking for a large chunk of time leading up to now that this was a 2-pony race between Romney and Guiliani. Where’s Guiliani now? Holding every one else’s jock strap. And Ron Paul. For about 3 and a half weeks, people believed that Ron Paul was for real. No one is now where they started at the beginning. No one. That is clearly a cop-out for those who have put up a mental block on Fred Thompson. Those people who said, shades of Doc Brown in Back to the Future, …The actor!?!?! Get over yourselves. If you just open your minds to what’s really going on, you’ll see that tonight proves that Fred Thompson deserves to be in this race just as much as anyone else. Seriously, if you quit waiting for soundbites and personal attacks you’d see that Thompson should have South Carolina and Iowa (but people got caught up in the flavor of the week with Huckabee). Don’t believe me, ask George Foreman if Muhammed Ali got serious and passionate too late in the Rumble in the Jungle.

Q: How many of you switched your vote to Fred Thompson (show of hands-less than ½)?

Q: I want to know specifically, why?

A1: He’s shown us a turnaround. He has shown us his voice. He has shown us a seriousness on a lot of the issues that were wavering.

First off, I don’t want to scare anyone who’s now jumping on the bandwagon. He’s always been here. His voice hasn’t changed. He is the Tom Landry of this race. He should not be discredited because he is stoic and steadfast on everything, he should be rewarded for it. Since when has he wavered on anything? He just had to speak loud enough so that the Springer-Minded People could hear what he was saying. I really don’t think a man should have to call out another and get personal before you start listening.

A2: I believe he was sincere and showed real wisdom and candor.

That’s what he is. Sincere, no nonsense, stoic, educated, and everything we should be looking for in a candidate.

A3: I finally found out where he really stands.

THAT’S BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T LISTENING BEFORE, YOU IDIOT!!!

Q: So what was it? Why do you think he waited this long? You complained he was too late, what was going on?

A1: He chose the perfect state to do this in, South Carolina is very conservative and they are looking for a very conservative candidate; I think he played to it.

Need I say “Rope-A-Dope?”

A2: South Carolina is the Dickville Notch of the country. (apparently I haven’t followed enough politics to get that inside joke).

…Yeah, I got nothing.

A3: (the stupid woman) I simply think he had a good day, and it actually concerns me that he has not been this consistent throughout the campaign. (You know what concerns me? Why you deliver your stupid comments with that lame-ass Jodie Foster “I need to spit it out” manner of speaking).

The only thing he has not been consistent on is the stuff that doesn’t matter. Since you’re not listening, you don’t see that. The only thing that has changed is the volume and inflection of his voice, him singling out particular candidates to tear apart, and providing some soundbites so that you could remember tomorrow what happened tonight. This is why people should have to pass an aptitude and political current events test in order to vote. (that’s a little harsh, but am I the only one listening to the answers?). Short of saying, I don’t care if the candidate looks like a he’s high on Quaaludes, if he has the right answers, Volume and Passion should have no relevance. Some of these people are acting like, Fred thought he’d take up a hobby for a couple of months. Like some colorblind kid trying his hand a putting together a puzzle. C’mon America, you can’t be this ignorant.

A4: I mean, he made it clear when he brought everyone from his campaign down here to South Carolina, this was his last stand. He’s got to make it or break it.

A5: He came to South Carolina. It’s a strong state for him, he was confident, it showed, he looked presidential. I think he’s a tough opponent.

A6: Nice candor and wit but I don’t think he has the dynamism to be the long-term leader of this country. (you’re ignorant and clearly haven’t been paying attention).

DYNAMISM????? Wow, you shouldn’t talk…As is in having a dynamic characteristic, within the context of this race…He has exactly the DYNAMISM that we are all looking for.

A7: Fred Thompson is smarter than anyone thinks, earlier in the beginning of this whole talk said, “no one who’s ever become president has lost South Carolina." He came to South Carolina, because that’s where the winner’s gonna be found.

Even the stoner in the back gets it. How come the woman and the uninformed men in this focus group cannot see their head for their ass. I’m not generalized with gender, it's just an observation from this particular focus group.

A8: (some elderly woman making some comment on sacrificing his Hollywood career to become president. Blah blah blah)

Anyone who brings up the “sacrifice Hollywood for the Oval Office” angle clearly just showed up for the free coffee and donuts.

A9: That’s funny, I never thought he was passionate at all. It seems to me, that up until tonight, when he was forceful, he was only in it because other people forced him in to it.

WHAT THE F@#% DOES PASSION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?My chiropractor is not passionate about his job, but I know there is no one else I'd rather have doing the job. And forced him into it? You couldn’t force me to spend $1 on anything if I didn’t want to do it. You really think Fred Thompson is going to waste time and money on this because someone else told him to do it, while he opposed running? You, ma’am, are dumb as paint.

A10: I agree, I don’t think he had enough passion, he came off tonight wonderfully, I think he was very aggressive, but he is just too little too late. We also have to think of who’s electable. Who is going to put up a fight against the Democrats?

Listen stupid, as unbiased as I can be, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani are all electable. The only one who isn’t is Ron Paul. On top of that, I think that Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee could defeat Hillary without over extending themselves too much. Same could be said for Obama, unless minorities and the youth vote come out in ridiculous numbers.

Q: Does electability matter?

A: (in unison) YES!

Q: More of you think the Democratic candidate will be Barack Obama, so should be the republican candidate?

A: (jumbled mess of all the candidates)

Q: (Colmes) I am fascinated by what is going on there, specifically with Fred Thompson, and his showing here, but for those that thought he won the debate, but then would be reluctant to vote for him. Why if you thought he was so strong would you be reluctant to vote for him?

A1: Let’s start here in South Carolina.

Q: (interjected followup) Why?

A1: Let’s show the rest of the country that we are not afraid to elect the best candidate.

This may be the best sentence uttered all night. Forget the frills. Forget the sound bites and the inflection in each candidate’s voice. Can we just listen to the questions, then listen to the answers and formulate a solid opinion on what was said and not how it was said. I could say, “the chicken ate poopie-cahcah for brunch with the Anderson’s” and if I said with a passionate inflection and directed it at someone, America would think I really had something to say. The point would remain, IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW ITS SAID, ONLY WHAT IS SAID.

A2: I don’t think that any of the previous campaign’s (primaries/caucuses) matter. We are an independent state and we’ve shown that before.

Then secede from the nation, hillbilly boy.

Q: You said too little too late, I want to know why?

A1: Too little experience, he’s just been in the government in the legislature.

Go off yourself. Or at least Google him. Lack of experience my tookus. Lack of experience, we have a governor and a mayor running. A first lady who’s only been a senator for a short while, and what seems to be a freshman who’s only held his office for 2 years. I should slap you in the face with your own experience comment.

A2: (stupid Jodie Foster woman again) He’s an entertaining man, by all means. The consistency has not been there and that makes me nervous. I don’t know that he will handle things consistently in a forthright manner.

The consistency has been there, you are too naïve and dumb to see. Its like people have a Jerry Springer filter on. If it isn’t loud, personal, or abusive, then it's not worth listening to.

A3: I want the candidate to start strong and end strong, and he hasn’t had a strong start.

When was the last time the person who was elected President held the pole position throughout the duration of the entire process, beginning to end? It’s a lot like a basketball game. One team can win convincingly or even dominate, but it is foolish to think the other team didn’t at least go on a run from time to time. Look, I hope Fred Thompson is the San Antonio Spurs of this process. No flash, no glamour, but when the dust clears, whether you like him or not, you will recognize that he is the most complete well-rounded candidate from top to bottom and in 360 degrees. Even if his performance doesn’t come with the high-flying sparkle you’d wished it had.

A4: And I also think that with all of these situations around the world we need someone who is used to thinking about it before just jumping in and reacting to it. (you should not procreate, it might bring down the national average).

Q5: (by a show of hands) Was it right to include Ron Paul in this debate?

A: (5 to 1 in unison) YES

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul should go away. At least go as a tertiary party member. Ron Paul is not a Republican. It may be too harsh to call him a Democrat. When your answer to Iran is to not do anything for fear of starting World War III over a miscommunication, then I’m done. I have written you off. That’s exactly what Bob Dole would have said when the planes crashed into the trade center buildings. Let’s not get too hasty, it could have been a misunderstanding. The leader of the free world should not be the guy at standing in the corner quivering out of fear.

SOUNDBITES:

Fred Thompson-Mike Huckabee would be a Christian leader. But he would also bring about liberal economic policies, liberal foreign policies. He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy, and in the tradition of “Blame America First." He believes that Guantanamo should be shut down and those enemy combatants should be brought here.

Mike Huckabee-The Air Force has a saying, “If you’re not catching flack, then your not over the target," well I’m catching the flack so I must be over the target. Fred, I appreciate the analysis of my record.

Mike Huckabee-If you think you are going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle, be prepared first to put your sites on the American vessel…and then be prepared for the next thing you see will be the gates of HELL, for that is exactly what you will see.

Fred Thompson-You know how you can tell the news is good coming out of Iraq? Because you read so little of it in the New York Times.

Fred Thompson-You cannot take the judgment out of the hands of the forces on the ground, I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins they are looking forward to seeing…Iran was clearly testing us, they took British hostages under similar circumstances. They are testing our resolve, they know they are dealing with a nation that will not put up with that sort of thing.

Let’s talk about the word change. Change to me is just a buzz word. Change is the transitional word that becomes a catalyst for a candidate to say “hey, look at me over here, if you don’t like the current situation, vote for me because I will change things." Change is just a word. This is an election process. Despite popular, and yet naïve, belief, you will never see change. You won’t see it because this is AN ELECTION PROCESS. All we have to go on is words. If you are a more stringent follower of political news and events maybe you can rely on voting record. It's an election, you will not see change, see change proven, feel change, visualize change. And the reason is, words are pretty much all we have to go on. Once we’ve listened to all of the words and we as a nation have made our decision, then maybe you will see some change. That’s how our political system works. Obama or McCain, Clinton or Huckabee cannot SHOW us change, and here’s the kicker, so pay attention.

THEY ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT YET!!!STUPID.

Here is another comment from the dumb Jodie Foster woman:

“I don’t even pay attention to the word change. Because I can sit here all the live long day, guess what? If you elect me I am going to change Global Warming. It won’t happen anymore. PROVE IT. No one does”.

I wish I could have 2 minutes with this woman. Have her feeling like an infant who just slammed its head into the corner of a coffee table…Lost and confused in a pool of her own disillusioned tears. I wonder if she would feel better if the candidates would close their responses with “Q.E.D.” This is not a mathematical equation or the proof of a scientific theory. These are candidates trying to say what they need to within there own belief structure (unless we’re talking about Mittens, he says whatever he has to regardless of the integrity of his true beliefs. No one should take anything he says seriously.) to convince you WITH THEIR WORDS that they are the right candidate for the job.

Some other major thoughts on tonight’s debate.

-Fred Thompson finally showed up.

-Mitt Romney was somewhere between unimpressive and detrimental to himself.

-McCain, Huckabee did not hurt themselves and held their own.

-Ron Paul officially has no shot to win.

-If these results translate to S. Carolina primary, we could be at square 1.

Keep in mind, Ron Paul not only looked like a senile old fish out of water, but also registered the worst singular response to a question since the campaigns began for 2008. Ron Paul is as I said he was, he is a Democrat in Republican clothing trying to hide his true tendencies. In a time when Republican voters want their candidate to stop apologizing for being conservative and take back the party to the ideals that drew each individual to that side, you have Ron Paul. Party affiliation aside, issues aside, personality and appearance aside, Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of this election process except Ron Paul doesn’t have the money to buy his way into the nomination of this party just so he can stick his head into the camera and say, “Look I matter," because Ron, you don’t.

With all that was said about the debate. All of the opinions uttered both by experts and random voters, here are the results of the Hannity and Colmes Text Message Poll…

Tonight Winner? (of the debate)

1 Ron Paul 32%

2 Fred Thompson 22%

3 Mike Huckabee 18%

4 Mitt Romney 13%

5 John McCain 6%

6 Rudy Guiliani 5%

This proves either, Ron Paul supporters are hackers and rigged the poll or America really doesn’t know what a win looks like. I’ll give you a hint, in football when a group of teammates dump the Gatorade on the coach, that’s not a consolation prize for the loser.

Don't weep for Hillary

By Rick Morris

Less than a week after Barack Obama stunned the world by drilling Hillary Clinton in Iowa and seizing the mantle of front-runner, the Clintons shockingly exceeded their 1992 moment of triumph in New Hampshire (keep in mind Bubba didn't actually win the state that year). Her late surge, forecast by none of the polls (and not by me as I picked her to lose by double digits) was truly amazing, and indicates that these two titans of the Democratic Party should be dueling later than any of us would have thought possible. Forty years after the legendary 1968 political season, we may yet be moving into a year with just as many earthquakes and shocks to the system.

And this isn't even taking into account the action on the Republican side. John McCain bested the expectations of many observers, including myself, by "beating the spread" against Mitt Romney. The expected late surge for Romney did not materialize. Never fear, however, as Romney Minister of Propaganda Hugh Hewitt attempts to enlighten all of us dummies who think that a winner has to actually win a contested election at some point. The message? Mittens will keep trying to purchase the nomination with his huge inheritance and the aid and comfort of the GOP and "Conservative Movement" elites. On to Michigan, where McCain and Huck can hopefully bury the Plastic Panderer for good.

As for my boy Fred Thompson, it's getting late pretty early, as Yogi Berra might say. Here's hoping he can edge ahead of Huck for a needed win in South Carolina so that the media can get off his back.

New Hampshire primary predictions

By Rick Morris

On the Democratic side, Hillary's Monday tearfest is going to add to the snowball effect against her. Obama wins by about 12 points, with Edwards back of her by a decent margin.

For the Republicans, McCain will hold on, but has been hurt by Romney's momentum in recent days. Notwithstanding a mediocre debate performance on Sunday night, Mittens has received credit for appearing brilliant for some unknown reason. He'll close to within 2 points or so of McCain. Huck will be a distant third, with Rudy, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson trailing him in that order.

If these results come in as I anticipate, Edwards will be finished and Hillary gravely, although certainly not mortally, wounded. Romney will hang on in hopes of a win in Michigan as the GOP race becomes a full-fledged free-for-all. That should give an opportunity for my man Fred Thompson, but he'd need to win or finish at least a close second in South Carolina.

Romney loses, so America wins!

By Rick Morris

It's a sad night for Mittens and his spinmeister-in-chief Hugh Hewitt, but their Establishment Hollow Man bit the dust in overwhelming fashion. Mike Huckabee beat the spread in terms of expectations by a wide, wide margin and notwithstanding Hewitt's hilarious rationalizing, the nomenklatura of the Republican Party and the hierarchy of the right-wing blogosphere had their attempts at mind control shoved right back into their bloated, plutocratic faces tonight in the Hawkeye State.

Again, Huck is not my first choice and maybe not even my second, but Romney cannot be allowed to steal this nomination in the smoke-filled back rooms of the GOP fixers and tonight's outcome makes his campaign's attempts to do so more unlikely. The "Al Davis Republicans" that Hewitt speaks of, those who want somebody who can "Just win, baby!" -- they've got to be
wondering about their boy the Plastic Panderer when he gets smoked by a country preacher from Arkansas with no money who made a ton of rookie mistakes down the stretch. The Android is not dead, however, and it will be up to John McCain to finish the job in New Hampshire by putting a wooden stake through his heart and sending him back to his gay-marriage haven in a pine box (figuratively -- I don't need a visit from the Secret Service!).

As for my candidate, Fred Thompson, at this writing it looks as though he has managed the third-place finish he needed. In a diffuse race that looks like it could be dominated at different points by different candidates, he can stay viable if he can replenish his coffers. In the event that Romney goes down for good, maybe enough influential sellout conservatives will take the chance to redeem themselves by getting behind the only Republican in this race worth any excitement.

Congratulations to Huck for proving me wrong and winning this race tonight. His ability to reach out to average working people is rare for a Republican, especially for one who is not liberal (and he is not). Other Republicans can learn from him.

On the Democratic side, congratulations to Barack Obama. I don't agree with him politically on almost any issue, but I appreciate the hope and optimism he portrays and the fact that he does not run as a racially divisive candidate as Jesse/Sharpton did. I do think he's a good guy, which I would rarely say about a national Democratic figure, and I would not vote for him, but his approach to politics is good for the country. I thought Hillary would finish just ahead of Edwards, and apparently I was wrong, so she's in big trouble. She needs to win New Hampshire to keep the snowball from running further downhill, although she will stay in this race very late regardless.

Iowa caucus predictions

By Rick Morris

Proving that any bitter, impassioned rants that I may make have no bearing on my capacity for rational judgment, I am agreeing with Bob Novak's assessment that Mitt Romney will pander his way to first place in the Iowa caucuses. I am predicting a narrow win based on the fact that he has built a conventional machine there (perfectly appropriate, given his politics-as-usual theme for the campaign) as opposed to Huck's strategy of assembling many evangelicals who are not political regulars. Huck should finish about 2% back of Romney, with the battle for third place as a virtual dead heat. Months of battering from Hugh Hewitt and his fellow-traveling sellouts in the Conservative Establishment will also end up mattering, as will Rush Limbaugh's last-minute kidney punch for good measure. Who saw El Rushbo's cheap pile-on coming a mile away? Oh, that's right, it was me!

Ultimately, I believe that my candidate Fred Thompson does have enough support from influential conservatives on the ground to eke out a narrow third-place finish. I had thought that Ron Paul would be in the top three or four, but with John McCain supposedly surging, I think he'll nip out Paul just barely for fourth. With all three of these candidates likely to finish in the low teens, however, there won't be much room for any of them to brag.

On the Democratic side, I agree again with Novak, albeit to a limited extent. I think Barack Hussein Obama will complete a victory that the polls are suggesting right now, but will nonetheless shock the world. I do think Hillary Clinton will finish a close second, and that's where I disagree with Novak. I understand his rationale that John Edwards will benefit from being the second pick of far more people whose candidates don't make the 15% cutoff to proceed, but I think the Clinton machine will carry her just a hair past Edwards for second.

My early guess for New Hampshire is that if these results come in as predicted, Mittens is in very good shape. Independents who might have crossed over to vote for McCain if Obama were severely damaged in Iowa might not do so under these circumstances. If this occurs, the stampede towards the nomination that Hewitt and his cohorts have long been trying to engineer under the guise of "sober analysis" could be well underway.

A New Year’s Plea: Fred!

By Rick Morris

As managing partner of the FDH family, I want to wish all of the readers, viewers and listeners of our content a very Happy New Year.

Now, speaking only for myself …

Our 22^nd edition of The FDH Lounge program this past Sunday night featured our first fantasy presidential election draft and a tremendous political roundtable afterwards. During the course of that discussion, I ended up butting heads with my fellow Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway. Burrell is explicitly for Mitt Romney on the Republican side in the upcoming presidential race and Chris, while agreeing with me that Fred Thompson is the best candidate, does not oppose Mittens with nearly the same intensity I do (to put it mildly!). The segment was a truly outstanding piece of broadcast entertainment, as three passionate followers of the political game let loose as only we can. As Burrell and Chris correctly noted, my usual insane level of intensity was even more pronounced than usual as I begged and pleaded for what seems like the inevitable to be stopped – the Republican nomination of Mitt Romney.

Chris did not agree with my use of the word “conspiracy” to describe what is happening right now, and we could perhaps quibble on the exact application of the word vis-à-vis this process, but it is indisputable that the Grand Poobahs of the Republican party and the conservative movement are closing ranks behind Romney at light speed. I have already written here on how these self-appointed arbiters of what’s best for America, including a who’s who of the right-wing blogsphere, are having it both ways by ignoring Romney’s past aversion to conservatism while trying to read Mike Huckabee and John McCain out of the conservative movement. Huck and McCain have their share of deviations, to be sure, but it’s the height of hypocrisy to denounce them while praising Romney as a “full-spectrum conservative.”

I believe strongly that Romney cannot be trusted given the fact that he ran on one set of beliefs to get elected governor of a radical left state and a contrary set of ideas when trying to get elected nationally. I believe strongly that Romney, given his plastic, calculated, say-anything, politics-as-usual persona, will have absolutely no appeal to independent and Democratic voters in the fall – and that his cold corporate persona reinforces every preconceived notion about the Republican party not caring about the little guy and is particularly unsuited to draw votes in these uncertain economic times. I believe strongly that Romney is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition that has governed our country since its inception (and I urge those who disagree with me about this to at least research Romney’s religion first rather than spitting out tired clichés about religious bigotry). And I believe strongly that Romney has served as a magnet for every phony conservative leader who can’t sell out his or her beliefs fast enough.

It didn’t have to be this way. Earlier this year, Fred Thompson served as a beacon of hope for not only Republican voters, but also open-minded independents and Democrats who related to his plain-spoken common-sense approach. He chose the unconventional approach of trying to enter the race as an official candidate in the autumn months while serving as an unofficial “non-candidate” earlier. We can perhaps quibble on whether he should have thrown his hat in earlier or put in more appearances in the early states or any other “inside baseball” notion that wouldn’t have any resonance at all with the American people if the professional pundit class wouldn’t beat it into the ground. But what is clear as day is the notion that I angrily spit out to Chris Sunday night when he alluded to some of these notions working against Fred: if he loses this race, in large part it won’t be because of the self-inflicted wounds everyone speaks of incessantly. No, if he loses, it won’t be suicide on the part of his campaign. It will be premeditated murder on the part of the self-serving parasites in the Republican party and conservative movement who could have heeded his call to join a purifying movement to save our country but chose instead to sell their souls to Romney’s well-heeled greasy machine.

So yes, I agree that I was coming across with scary intensity Sunday night. Guilty as charged, because I’ve seen this routine before. The Republican party as a rule casts aside its best and most qualified candidate in favor of the person they cynically perceive as a winner for whatever reason. The insiders gathered in the smoke-filled rooms of D.C. in a panic in ’96 when their pet Bob Dole got smoked by the people’s populist Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire. Every piece of filthy politics imaginable got thrown Pat’s way over the next few weeks as the party succeeded in its foul desire to foist Bob Dole’s wrinkled bones on the American people in November. How’d that work out? In 2000, the process repeated itself as the GOP string-pullers decided early on that George W. Bush should be anointed as the prince. Pliable puppets like Rush Limbaugh slimed Buchanan on a daily basis and kidney-punched John McCain relentlessly when he emerged as Bush’s main competition. Is there any sane observer of the political process who is still willing to say that George W. Bush was the best possible candidate for president on the Republican side in 2000? Leaving aside Ronald Reagan, who I believe to be the best president of my lifetime (faint praise when you examine the weasels he’s measured against) and also the best since Lincoln, when has the GOP actually rallied behind a strong and attractive-on-policy candidate?

Again, I am not for McCain or Huckabee, I am strongly for Fred Thompson. But I do not brush off lightly the one-sided treatment these candidates have received from the GOP and right-wing nomenklatura. In this zero-sum game that we find ourselves in just prior to the Iowa caucuses, an attack on McCain or Huck for being unauthentic while ignoring every objectionable aspect of the Romney campaign is a blatant in-kind contribution to Team Mittens. Likewise, the simple-minded dismissals of Fred as a non-starter are dishonest because they serve the exclusive purpose of pushing Romney towards ultimate inevitability.

Burrell warned me that if enough people agree with me that Hillary Clinton will end up getting elected president. I repeat here what I said to him: it won’t be on our heads, it will be on the heads of those who crammed Romney down the throats of the American people as one of two nominees for president. The notion that absolutely any squalid excuse for a candidacy can be foisted on us with the bogeyman of Hillary Clinton being utilized to expect us to behave as robots will apparently have to be squashed the hard way when the Mittbots end up ensuring the third Clinton term.

Despite my pessimistic tone above, I must mention and reiterate that it is not too late for this country to come to its senses. Fred posted an unbelievable video summation of the rationale for his candidacy and for what he will do for this country if elected. Chris and I joked about how I as a paleocon see the glass half empty. But I do believe these are dire and urgent times for our country. The Republican party, for all of my many and profound differences with it, remains the institution closer to my belief set by far, and it needs redemption after the many problems with adherence to conservative principles and competent execution of policies these past seven years. As was the case in 2006, the political winds are blowing strongly to the Democrats and we face the very real possibility in 2009 of a President Hillary Clinton working with an enlarged Democratic majority in the House under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid having a filibuster-proof 60 votes in his back pocket on any issue. Our country cannot be saved by cynical attempts to rally around a politician perceived to be slick enough to be a winner. We can only salvage our future by getting behind an honest man who doesn’t pander and tell us what we want to hear – a man with experience who commands confidence by communicating strongly to us a principled vision for the future. That man is Fred Thompson, and in lieu of a general wish of Happy New Year for this country, on this day I wish for our country to prove itself worthy of many happy years to come by getting behind Fred while we still can.

Huckabee, McCain and GOP double standards

By Rick Morris

The continuing assaults on Mike Huckabee and John McCain as less-than-authentic conservatives in the Republican race for president are indicative of a general stupidity that has long affected the right side of the political spectrum when it comes to selecting this nation's chief executive.

As listeners to The FDH Lounge program are aware, I am not endorsing either candidate, instead preferring Senator Fred Thompson. But the hypocritical piling-on that so-called conservative entities such as the Club For Growth are engaging in at the expense of Huck and McCain illuminates a much, much bigger problem for Republicans. The clear and simple truth is that either man would easily make a better president than the two empty suits that the party establishment seems determined to cram down everyone's throats, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

True, Huckabee supported tax hikes as governor of Arkansas and has an economic record that would not work well if he attempted to replicate it on the national stage. He has, however, supported a flat tax plan that would mandate a fiscally conservative path as president. Fears that he would bring the "Razorback Style" to D.C. are completely unfounded and disingenuous, since Republicans of all stripes learned the lesson of the first President Bush that tax hikes are a one-way route to defeat for re-election. Even the second President Bush, with his countless deviations from conservative governance, wasn't dumb enough to chase a tax hike and neither would Huckabee.

And McCain does have a boatload of annoyances to his dubious credit as well, from the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold monstrosity to the "Gang of 14" judicial deal of 2005, but he's also the biggest foe of pork-barrel politics ever to run for president. While he opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, his overall economic record has been exceptionally conservative.

Both Huckabee and McCain have been unwavering in their support of the unborn and both have supported marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Frankly, however, we have seen just how little social conservatism matters to the insiders and vile interests who control the Republican party.

On social issues, Rudy Giuliani is the most liberal major candidate for president in the Republican party since Nelson Rockefeller. Mitt Romney now claims to be conservative on each of these issues, but was a proud and unapologetic liberal on all of them when he was governor of Massachusetts. As I have noted with my FDH partner Jason Jones, he is fairly libertarian on social issues and I am not -- but neither one of us trusts Romney because he sounded like Jason when it was convenient in the Bay State and now he sounds like me when it is convenient on the national scene. Additionally, while this is an unpopular point to make in this sensitive day and age, Romney represents what would be the largest break ever with our nation's rule by individuals under the traditional Judeo-Christian banner.

And yet, sellout "conservative leaders" are trampling each other for the disgraceful opportunities to climb aboard the Giuliani and Romney bandwagons and lyingly bash Huckabee and McCain as less conservative. In many cases, this can be tied back to the old adage that no matter how pure at heart these pretenders claim to be, all they ever really want is the glory and influence of being associated with a winner. Witness Rush Limbaugh's hit jobs on Pat Buchanan and John McCain in 2000 to clear the way for Junior because El Rushbo thought he smelled a winner -- all the while hypocritically denying that he was making a specific endorsement for president -- and the move of influential "conservative leader" Ralph Reed to endorse Bob Dole in 1996 when he was pretty much the most liberal candidate in the field. In this election cycle, Hugh Hewitt has insulted everyone's intelligence at every turn, professing neutrality while breaking out the kneepads for Master Mitt at every turn. Examples of this sad phenomenon, the tendency of sellout conservatives to kneecap the greater good of the movement for their own selfish reasons, are unfortunately endless.

The picture gets worse, however, when you factor in petty personal issues and other inexplicable matters. Dr. James Dobson, allegedly the purest of the pure in terms of conservative leadership in this country, took cheap shots at Fred Thompson apparently for the "sin" of puckering up insufficiently to kiss his tuckess. This occurrence was even more sickening given the fact that Thompson was considered at the time a highly viable alternative to Giuliani and Romney and this did not impede Dobson's selfish grudge one iota.

The inescapable truth is that most conservative leaders are being unveiled as complete phonies in this election cycle. They are willing to foist Giuliani or Romney on the public notwithstanding the fact that both would be completely unreliable as president and neither is electable in the first place (neither can turn out the party base in the South, Giuliani because of his social positions and Romney because he represents the aforementioned deviation from the American Judeo-Christian tradition). They bury Huckabee and McCain at every turn for their supposed heresies while turning a willful blind eye to the far worse actions of their liberal Northeast pets. They brand Thompson as unelectable because of some supposed foibles with his campaign and his campaign style, all the while pretending to be ignorant to the fact that their attacks will in large part be responsible in the unfortunate event he is unable to secure the nomination.

The double standard applied is nothing short of sickening. Apparently in the Republican party, the only allowable policy crimes are against the social conservatives, not the economic ones. The party is never going to shake its image of putting Wall Street above Main Street if it keeps urinating on social conservatives and only wailing about policy failings involving monetary interests.

A great many conservative voters, myself definitely included, long ago accepted the notion that the vast majority of Republican politicians are worthless frauds who talk a good game but sell us out at the first opportunity. The wonderful conservative pundit M. Stanton Evans long ago coined "Evans' law," which states that "Whenever one of 'our people' reaches a position of power where he can do us some good, he ceases to be one of 'our people.'" However, we don't apply the same standard of suspicion to those advocates in right-wing interest groups claiming to speak for us. It's time we started, because most of them are proving to be every bit as harmful as the charlatans they have put in office.