Fred Thompson endorsed by…
posted at 8:29 am on January 11, 2008 by Bryan
We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.
In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.
On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life…
Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.
We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.
Read the whole thing.
Update (AP): I swear, I’m not just trying to antagonize the Fredheads when I say, “And?” National Review is a lot better known than Human Events, is it not? How’d their big Romney endorsement work out in Iowa and New Hampshire? It’s nice to see Thompson getting favorable buzz from anyone but who’s going to care about this except for the 100,000 or so readers of the right-wing blogosphere, ~60% of whom already seem to be in Fred’s corner anyway?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
At Fred08.com Fred has gone over his goal – almost $600,000.
stenwin77 on January 11, 2008 at 8:32 AM
There adding up, one by one…and Fred is beginning to take his opponents down, one by one.
He may be the only conservative…now do we want a conservative?
right2bright on January 11, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Speaking for me, and most of my family, definitely.
Texas Nick 77 on January 11, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Things are looking up but, is it a mountain or a small hill?
boomer on January 11, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Absolutely, we want a conservative… well, at least I do.
Nineball on January 11, 2008 at 8:37 AM
What’s Human Events? Is that kindof like National Review?
BJ* on January 11, 2008 at 8:37 AM
FDT the next POTUS!
Yeah baby.
Ex-tex on January 11, 2008 at 8:38 AM
VOLCANO
TexasDan on January 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM
It’s a conservative magazine, so yeah.
amerpundit on January 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Yeah, a conservative would be nice for a change.
ZK on January 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Yup.
Ex-tex on January 11, 2008 at 8:40 AM
aaaaaaaaand 2 Ron Paul comments to 1 Fred! comment on the site itself
Those Paulistinians sure move fast
Now if they’re going to endorse someone.. how’s about putting an ad somewhere on the page for him? I’ll look again just in case I missed it..
Nope!
Got one for Ann though.
*shakes head..*
Reaps on January 11, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Is this the major endorsement his campaign was touting?
amerpundit on January 11, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Nevermind. I just checked my email, it is.
amerpundit on January 11, 2008 at 8:41 AM
That’s just it…as I stated earlier in the week, has the GOP base really moved to a more moderate position? Perhaps…and that would explain why Fred hasn’t topped the charts from the get-go. And why Huck and McCain seem to be doing well.
JetBoy on January 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM
It a perspective thing, it all depends on where you are. Really big mountains dont look all that big from a distance. Fred is the Mount Everest of conservative candidates. Huck learned that last night when Fred came down on him like God’s fist.
doriangrey on January 11, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Wow! Good for Fred! Nice feather to add to his silly cap.
aero on January 11, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Last week Human Events made Rush their 2007 Man of the Year.
ChartreuseDragon on January 11, 2008 at 8:47 AM
They were good enough for Reagan.
stenwin77 on January 11, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Was this the big endorsement they were talking about yesterday?
stenwin77 on January 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Bryan, AllahP and Michelle,
Are ya’ll going to endorse anyone?
Fredalanche!© ◄ Donate!
TheSitRep on January 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM
OH YEAH BABY!
Ex-tex on January 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM
According to John Henke, yes.
amerpundit on January 11, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Well, I hope it is a volcano and I hope folks get closer to those mountains to see what Fred is and that he is the best choice.
boomer on January 11, 2008 at 8:51 AM
I’m glad Fred got an endorsement, but I personally don’t know who Human Events is. That causes me to wonder how much this will resonate with the base in SC. I’m optimistic that it will help, especially if the media covers it as a big deal, and perhaps give some other local SC politicians encouragement to endorse Fred as well.
TexasDan on January 11, 2008 at 8:52 AM
..Is that really such a good analogy?
Reaps on January 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Well, I pictured them dragging Huckabee along and tossing him in.
TexasDan on January 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Human Events is a nice endorsement. But I’ll be honest, after his refusal to go after McCain on immigration last night with any remotely close to the vigor with which he went after Fred, I’m concerned that he might not be thinking exclusively with his own candidacy in mind. I guess we’ll see in the next few days what comes out of the groundwork in SC.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 8:57 AM
As long as it helps send Huckabee back to the rock he climbed out from under, I don’t care who it is.
I didn’t think it would be Rush, the NRA, or any other high end endorsement. Fred hasn’t proven anything except that he can stomp a mud hole in someones a$$ when he’s motivated.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM
That’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said about Fred.
Has there been a thaw?
TexasDan on January 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Hey CS, I left you a note in the other thread, but one H&C post debate last night, Romney said (essentially) that he was grown to better appreciate Reagan and really answered that nicely I thought.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM
It’s early on Friday, sorry.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 9:02 AM
McCain/Thompson? That would sure make pulling the lever for McCain more tolerable.
MT on January 11, 2008 at 9:02 AM
His strategy might work to a good extent. Obliterate the Huckster and get him out of the way. Then, show SC’ers (who are more conservative than NH’ers) that there IS a conservative alternative to McShamnesty.
Though, it is somewhat disconcerting he didn’t go after McCain more.
Darksean on January 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM
McCain/something. If I were a betting man, unless Mitt wins Iowa, I bet McCain wins the nomination. The only person that can stop him is Fred, because the only issue that McCain can be stopped with is immigration and only Mitt (endorsed by Tancredo) and Fred (with a strong strong plan) have the credibility to criticize him on the issue. Rudy can’t, Huck can’t. If Fred doesn’t break him on immigration, and there is no sign that indicates he will, then McCain is the nominee. Will he put Fred on the ticket? Two old men? I don’t know. Maybe.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 9:07 AM
I really don’t get how folks find the VP meaningful at all, in terms of influence. I want a VP who would competently run the nation if need be, but in practice I find their influence on the POTUS to be negligible. Cheney was seemingly an aberration in this regard, in that Bush appears to rely on him and value his opinion. McCain has slammed our fingers in the door too many times to be trusted again, and no choice of VP candidate will change that.
TexasDan on January 11, 2008 at 9:08 AM
I’m still holding out to see who Reader’s Digest endorses.
Sugar Land on January 11, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Two mistakes already this morning! Excuse me while I get some coffee. I guess I need it.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Exactly, why tout this like he did yesterday? The debate was huge and if this just “happened” to come out then too. Everyone would say, “Wow, that’s good.” But after he built it up yesterday and you had people dropping down big time names, it just seems to fit with the rest of his campaign (with the exception of last night) – disappointing. Not his policies mind you, but the campaign.
wardrobedoor on January 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Where have all these people and publications been ?
They are telling us – the so-called FredHeads – what we have known all along. Fred is the ONLY true conservative in the race. True he is not perfect but he is closer than any of the other clowns. Anyone who believes in the Republican Party and conservatism had better wake up to this fact or the party and the movement may be dead forever.
Also – I lke his Southern accent !!!!
OBX Pete on January 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
In defense of those who said it, yes.
boomer on January 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
If you want to vote f a liberal, vote McCain, Romney or Huckabee. if you want to vote for a socialist wannabe Stalinist, vote for Hillary, Obama or Edwards. If you want to vote for a conservative, vote Thompson or Hunter. If you want to vote for Space Cadets, vote Kucinich or Paul.
Snooper on January 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
I agree. I think Fred’s job is to expose the Jesus candidate for the Elmer that he is. Huck is his big obstacle and the other candidates will help him. I think Mitt was less aggressive toward Huck because as a Mormon, he isn’t allowed to return the religious attacks at Huck (How dare a devil worshiping Mormon attack a “True Christian Leader”). The “Huck is a True Christian Leader” Christians will let a “True Christian” attack another “True Christian”, AND will accept the truth from Fred about Huck. So, it is in Mitt’s best interest to let Fred push Huck out of the picture. Beyond that help, Fred’s on his own and Mitt will take his chances with Fred, who has no executive experience, is a poor debater (unless he is snarking), and a very weak record.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Well, if you put the other comments that go with it together, that’s not what I meant. It works though. :)
boomer on January 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Im a fan, but for me this is no big flippin deal. I was thinking the Pres of the Southern Baptists, since there is a split among them regarding Hucks.
That being said, hopefully something good will come out of this
JVelez on January 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Yeah right, Allah. You’re always crapping on Fred!… except for when you’re totally in the tank for him and crapping on (insert favorite candidate here)!
Pablo on January 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM
No it wouldn’t.
McCain/Feingold. McCain/Kennedy. Gang of Fourteen. Closing Gitmo. No Waterboarding.
I can’t get over that. Sorry.
But on a lighter note, I really enjoyed it when Fred had that ragdoll, Huckabooboo, in his mouth and was shaking his head furiously back and forth. Very alpha dog, dude.
pistolero on January 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Yes, but HE has much more clout among conservatives. For example, they endorse the most conservative candidate- not the establishment candidate who is moderate enough to win in the general.
Valiant on January 11, 2008 at 9:16 AM
That poor debater beat Mitt last night, by all accounts.
TexasDan on January 11, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I’m liking Fred more every day, but that face can be scary at times.
NeoconNews.com on January 11, 2008 at 9:18 AM
You can only accomplish so much in one debate with limited air time. I thought Fred did extremely well and should start picking up support.
duff65 on January 11, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Yep. That about sums it up.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Done!
Don’t forget the Blog-Burst!
Ex-tex on January 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM
The Fred is strong with this one.
The Fred strikes back.
RobertInAustin on January 11, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Watch, as the tank is about to go over $600K!!!
Darksean on January 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Precisely. I really like Fred (he’s my 2nd choice after Hunter(…I know, I know…), but although this is good street cred among conservatives, it’s miniscule in the big picture of things. To be honest, Fred’s best publicity is probably coming from Rush – but Rush obviously doesn’t want to pull a trigger during the primaries.
If ANYONE connected with Fred’s campaign is reading this: Get your boy off his rump & get him to be the guy last night in the debates & do it EVERY DAY.
Tim on January 11, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Sorry, but this is no big whoop to me.
The rumors about the NRA would have been a much bigger deal for Fred.
It almost creates a sense of: they build up expectations for this??
Always Right on January 11, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Always Right on January 11, 2008 at 9:41 AM
It was speculation on our parts that it would be the NRA. The reason was a caller on the Hannity show yesterday. His campaign never said anything about it, we all did.
LickyLicky on January 11, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I guess most of the people here are Reagan or post-Reagan conservatives. At least those who say ‘so?’ about the Human Events endorsement. All we Goldwater-era types had WAS Human Events (yes, I was there for the birth of dirt).
The place this figures in is the 50+ crowd; not so much for a lot more votes, but for money and some voter gain in Florida (he can use the help there). Not huge, but certainly helpful.
Sure looked like President Fred having a cabinet meeting last night, with newbie Huckabee being smacked to the kiddie’s table and security about to haul off crazy Uncle Ron to put him to bed.
michaelo on January 11, 2008 at 10:06 AM
All this talk about Thompson not going after McCain last night is lame. If Fred pulled out all guns and shot in every direction, it would have confused the average voter.
This was the correct target at the right time. By contrasting himself against Huck’s gloss, the average voter focuses on FT.
Simple. Efficient.
“One in the hand is worth two in the bush” comes to mind…
Saltysam on January 11, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I was fortunate to see that. I was cringing as he was answering, because I thought he’d try to weasel out of it. But I agree, he answered it pretty good.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 10:07 AM
I always have said I am of the Dennis Miller school of “I want the guy who’s gonna croak the most terrorists” to me that meant Rudy first, if not then St john. I know Maverick has loads of baggage but I love to hear him talk military. But not being a Fred!Head, I could be. He’d love to hammer them. I’d be just fine with Fred!
LtE126 on January 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Yes, the Fredheads went real batty on that yesterday. It is those kinds of over-reactions that have earned them the goofings that AP and many of us here level at them all the time.
I expect them to over-react to this debate last night too. IMO, a little restraint until we see if Fred is going to continue with this new improved Fred v2.0.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Snoozefest
I was ready to link the big endorsement, but instead I just put up another boobie link.
sorry Freddy
Drunk Report on January 11, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Absolutely true. On the other hand, it might cause notables who have a high regard for Human Events to get off the fence.
One can hope someone will next week.
Dusty on January 11, 2008 at 10:25 AM
They speculated this on Good Morning America this morning. Diane Sawyers asked George Stephanopoulos why Fred is suddenly on the attack, and George basically said the Fred is doing the dirty work for McCain by attacking McCain’s closest rivals and not McCain himself. (That must be it! We all know that GMA would never try to mislead their viewers.)
Speaking of McCain, I think he missed a perfect “Benson moment” when Huck used the ol’ “catching flack over the target” line again. As a combat naval aviator himself, he could have used a line like, “With all due respect, I know what catching flack really is, and sir, you don’t know what you are talking about.”
AverageJoe on January 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Can’t wait for the BIG ENDORSEMENT the campaign has promised!
cameron on January 11, 2008 at 10:36 AM
When I am being serious, I have always assessed the candidates as honestly as I can.
The trick is figuring out when I’m just pushing buttons. :-)
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM
IMO, Mitt was purposely leaving the destruction of Huck to Fred (for the reasons I laid out in that comment).
Fred has a tendency to ramble, and I was getting nervous when he was challenged on his record. He started to ramble for 20 seconds or so. But in the end got back on point just as his time ran out.
It that context, Mitt is a much better debater.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Apparently, it wasn’t just us who ‘over-reacted’. The media, people who didn’t like Fred, every blog I’ve seen so far… Restraint? Nah, that’s why his website showed a serious upswing of friends and donations. Why should we show restraint? The people who think we are crazy for supporting him will think that no matter what we do or say, so we may as well make the most of this moment in the sun and run with it. If he steps up, we are vindicated, if not, you’ll only say what you would have said anyway, right?
LickyLicky on January 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I pray Fred pulls #1 in SC.
I refuse to vote for any of the other candidates.
I hope he keeps the fire going. I’m sending more money.
msipes on January 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Because McCain’s staff is so small, they are very accessible. You should call them and make that suggestion to him.
I called them the day John was posing for pics with the troofers. His staffer had no idea about those crackpots and was very thankful for the call.
I’d love to see McCain slam that BS artist with your analogy.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Since you are new here, I have no idea how you have been reacting over this stuff. But many of the Fredheads here go absolutely bat$hit crazy over the silliest things. Stuff they don’t give the other candidates credit for.
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Human Events was Reagan’s “must read.”
Connie on January 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Human Events is good, but i was expecting something like the NRA.
its vintage duh on January 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Be my guest. I’m not much of a political adviser, though I do play one on HA.
AverageJoe on January 11, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Um, I’m often called a Fredhead, but I’m not antagonized. My first response was “who is that again?”; so I can’t exactly claim that you’ve slandered the Fred.
Looking at the site, not a bad pick-up; but not a huge one either. Get Rush to support him, then I think everyone will agree its big news.
gekkobear on January 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
That was it?? What a letdown, man.
joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Hey, that’s how it gets done. You’ll find the McCain people pretty open and will listen. Wouldn’t it be cool to hear McCain blast that evangelical clown with your idea? Heck, you be more popular than I am in the ‘sphere!! ;-)
csdeven on January 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM
How much more conservative is Thompson than McCain?
3.8
Whatever that means.
RightOFLeft on January 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
For that reason alone, I sent the campaign an email.
AverageJoe on January 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM
I think this endorsement will have a ripple effect on other organizations. This group is a real think tank. They tell others how to think.
Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on January 11, 2008 at 7:01 PM
You mean Human Events hadn’t already endorsed Fred? How odd…
Agreed. I was thinking it would someone that non-conservatives, or at least non-political junkies, had actually heard about. I hope this generates some momentum, but I have a hard time taking it seriously. I get farily regular emails from Human Events but, though I don’t have the heart to actually spam-filter them, I usually just delete them unread.
Now you’re talking! NRA has been pretty good to Fred, but I don’t think they’ve endorsed anyone yet. I just tried to look up their recommendations on their members-only web page and they say they don’t have anything for my area. Don’t know what’s up with that but if they are going to do it, it had better be soon. None of the other candidates is nearly as good on 2nd Amendment issues as Thompson.
JackOfClubs on January 11, 2008 at 8:43 PM
If this isn’t an endorsement from Rush then I cannot fathom what would be.
DannoJyd on January 12, 2008 at 12:24 AM