“Fred is the real deal. He’s the only conservative with a chance in 2008 and he’s gonna win Texas,” Patterson said.

Patterson points to Thompson’s established record as an advocate for individual rights, smaller government and the Second Amendment as qualities that will endear him to Texas voters.

“Like fellow Tennessean Davy Crockett, Fred Thompson will ‘be sure he’s right – then go ahead’,” said Patterson. “Fred Thompson is right for Texas and right for America.”

Patterson also said Thompson is reminiscent of another actor that ran for President and won Texas.

“Fred is the New Gipper,” said Patterson. “The quiet coalition of conservative, blue-collar democrats and middle-america voters who supported Ronald Reagan are waiting for the chance to return to the ‘days of yesteryear’. Fred will win this coalition and he will win Texas, with or without the support of an unpopular governor.”

“With all due respect, Governor Perry’s endorsement is all hat and no cattle,” said Patterson. “He has no base to offer a national campaign. He only got 39% in his last election.”

“Heck, even I got 600,000 more votes than he did in 2006,” Patterson added.

“I’m confused,” said Patterson. “Why would the most conservative governor in Texas history endorse a pro choice, rabidly anti Second Amendment, former New York City mayor who supported Democrat Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki for governor of New York?”

“Perry is the same governor who upstaged Arnold in California with a message that Republicans need to return to their conservative roots if they expect to win elections.” Patterson said, “I guess the red meat he was serving in California was “rare” as opposed to “well done”.

“What happened to Republicans using conservative principles as the first measure of who to support for elected office?” Patterson asked.

Hollowpoint, I couldn’t a said it better myself! Well said.

Would any serious or sane person want to sabotage Rudy’s campaign and elect Hillary Clinton and the Wellsley Class of 1968 merely because Rudy does not favor allowing purchases of assault weapons through the mail?

Larraby on October 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM

First of all, one (aside from dealers) hasn’t been able to buy “assault weapons” or any other type of firearm through the mail for several decades.

Second, there’s plenty of reasons to dislike and distrust his conservative credentials besides his gun-grabbing past.

Third, this notion that ONLY Rudy can beat Hillary is Grade A pure B.S.- especially given the skeletons in his closet and the threat of a 3rd party pro-life candidate showing up should he be nominated.

Abortion is rather low on my list of priorities, but I have no intention of voting for another RINO in the general election after watching Bush and Congressional Republicans screw up so consistantly, and Rudy clearly is a RINO.

Jones said while he’s completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism, he’s not voting for a preacher but for a president.

Who does this hurt?

Larraby on October 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Additionally look at how Bill dealt with the Somalia issue. He turned tail and ran and this was the behavior that Bin Laden used to rally his fellow terrorists into attacking the paper tiger.

Hillary will do the same thing and thereby fostering an atmosphere conducive to the insurgency of unopposed terrorism.

Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Most conservatives are not out of touch, but you are in regards to the consequences of ignoring the political reality we are living in.

We will nominate a candidate. Unfortunately we do not have a consistent conservative candidate that is electable. THAT IS A FACT. And all your consternation about it doesn’t, and never will, change that fact. We are left with is the process of winnowing down the field into the guy that has the best chance to win. THAT is the priority because of the supreme court issue. We KNOW for a fact what Hillary will do. We have every reason to trust that Rudy and Mitt will nominate strict constructionist’s justices because they have records of keeping their campaign promises, both conservative and liberal promises.

An endorsement from Rick Perry is not a Conservative endorsement. He may have an “R” behind his name but he is a Democrat who changed parties for political reasons when Texas went Republican.

He learned his immigration/NAFTA/Trans Texas Corridor(TTC) politics directly from George Bush. Rudy Guiliani is part of this cabal.

The Dallas law firm of Bracewell-Guiliani are the ones who represent the Spanish company, Cintra, who managed to get the “bid” for the TTC through TxDot.

All of this was done pretty much behind closed doors with almost no public input. Half of the Legislature didn’t even know what was going on until too late.

To this day TxDOT has not released all the information on this deal. It should all be public information but isn’t. We do know that TxDOT came out with $1.3 billion dollars to spend “as they wish”. It doesn’t smell good in Texas right now—especially in Austin!

Perry is a PRIME player and Guiliani is in it up to his neck. So unless you want someone who is as pro-illegal alien/open borders as Bush, you better think twice before you vote for Rudy in the primaries.

maxine on October 16, 2007 at 11:07 PM

This is a very hot subject here in Texas, and as such Perry’s endorsement is a net negative for Rudy. Perry could not get re-elected Governor here in Texas, because of his RINO actions.

The stark choice is that in 2008, if we don’t have Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton will be president. That is a fact of life, like it or not.
Larraby on October 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM

It’s way to early and the election season is way too fluid too be able to say that with such certainty.

csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 9:58 AM

And your “pragmatism” will loose this election by ticking off the base Conservatives.

You really don’t get it. The Republican party has used the “Vote for us cause the other guy is worse” too many times. All we’ve done is gone further down a path we don’t like.

Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is a mess. The government is non functional. Blatant Traitors are using politics to destroy this country… but you won’t call them on it (the Party or those in Congress).

The Republicans were put into power in BOTH Houses and the Presidency by being the small government, moral, party.

Now they have prooven themselves to be neither. They had the chance to fix many problems (Soc Sec, budget, military, border) and even with both houses and the presidency, did nothing.

Now the only thing you tell us Conservatives is that we’re out of touch, and your going to run someone for the highest office who is NOT a Conservative!!! HE EVEN SAID IT HIMSELF!!!!

The Republicans are no longer part of the solution, they are part of the problem… and are not learning from past elections…

The Perot vote was about Fiscal responisbility… and they DID learn that lesson short term… but then forgot it in Washington… 2006 should have been a wake up call… but we see NO change in the Reps… except going MORE liberal.

And if you don’t stand for your principals, then nothing will ever get fixed. You know…. kinda like those founding fathers of ours?

Ex-tex on October 17, 2007 at 10:26 AM

And you are also misguided in your beliefs that standing on your principles, when your values will be relentlessly attacked for at least 4 years, will result in headway towards your ultimate goals. You are advocating taking one step forward and ignoring that you will take 5 backwards.

Zero net gain is not pragmatic. It’s stubborn and foolish. It’s cutting off ones nose to spite his face.

Well gee- I’m a Republican. And a Conservative. And Rudy is neither- just ask him.

Ex-tex on October 17, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Don’t worry, we wont be fooled by a Perot type again. We aren’t gonna let people like you force an unelectable “conservative” candidate on us that Hillary will destroy in the general. We know the damage she will do to this country and Rudy’s down sides are nowhere near what Bill & Hillary’s are.

We are pragmatists.

Well- now the same powers that owned GWB (and the WSJ and FOXnews) and Rick Perry are pushin’ RUDY on us. Why??? It’s the Open-Borders, stupid!

AND IF ALLAH AND MICHELLE DON’T STAND UP NOW and help us elect a REAL Border Fence First Republican- Then they are just as much a part of the RINO culture. NO MORE OF THIS STANDIN’ ON THE SIDELINES FOLKS- THIS IS WAR!

DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

All top 3 GOP candidates are good guys, and would make worthy presidents. But the only thing that matters is: who beats Clinton? Complaining and dissing about imperfections doesn’t answer that question or bring us any closer to the goal.

edgehead on October 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM

Among other activities that are decidely anti-conservative, Fred gave legal advice to TERRORISTS. IF he got the nomination, he’d be dead in the water by August.

Who will win if Fred or Rudy faces off against Hillary or B. Hussein?

highhopes on October 16, 2007 at 10:17 PM

That don’t matter to the groupies. They stick their heads up their a$$es about Fred’s lobbying for scum bags and giving legal advice to terrorists. They think because they want to rationalize it as conservative values that the general public wants to lie to themselves also.

They also refuse to accept the fact that given the choice between a guy who supported abortion and a guy who supported abortions AND gave legal advice to terrorists, the general public will choose the former and shun the latter.

edgehead on October 16, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Reagan certainly did appeal to the center. We aren’t living in 1980 after a nightmare like Carter. If anything, most of the country sees Bush as the nightmare. His approval ratings are in the 30′s. The republican party can state it’s platform all it wants, but if the people who would make up the party stop seeing the platform as representative of their views, then the party must change or die. The simple fact is that the country has moved away from the right because of the way republicans started acting like democrats. Well, they have lost faith in republicans. They trusted them and they betrayed that trust by showing that all they were interested in was lining their own pockets, having sex with pages, and calling people macaca.

If anything it’s hard nose stubborn idealists who create the atmosphere of division in the party. Pragmatism is the key word when your party has lost the trust of everyone except we in the base. The party has to go where the people are.

As old Fred would say: You use the bait that the fish like, not what you like.

Would the anti-Rudy Republicans please tell me how, and by whom, Clinton will possibily be beaten next year?

Calling Rudy a RINO is not a strategy for keeping the Clintons out of power.

Halley on October 17, 2007 at 6:28 AM

Clinton carpetbagged New York, while Guiliani ran and hid.

The question is: Which states will Hillary pick up that Bush didn’t. About the only candidate who won’t keep states in the north (I’m looking at you Ohio) is Fraud! Thompson, and Florida isn’t as dazzled by Southern hicks as the other states.

Essentially we need a candidate that keeps the North in play, and that fits basically everyone except Fraud! Thompson.

The idea Guiliani can woo middle America is laughable. Rudy is counting on Southern hatred of Clinton to force people to the polls instead of staying home. If people stay home instead of voting for the New York liberal over the New York socialist, Guilini loses.

Do also remember that Bubba Clinton is from the south, and you can bet your butt Hillary will be unleashing him to try and pull some of the southern states her way.

Calling Rudy a RINO is not a strategy for keeping the Clintons out of power.

Right of Texas says tomorrow’s “major endorsement” will come from Dubya’s successor, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. That’s nice and it’ll help him in the south.

Not with this Texan.

(would anyone have predicted that Bush would’ve allowed for such dramatic spending increases in Feburary 1999?)

“When a child is hurting somewhere, government must move.” -G.W. Bush, October 2000