I've heard very little about Fred Thompson. I would love to hear why you like him so much!

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/Pri...iew=Principles

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

I think he recognizes that he has a much better chance of picking up Republican delegates in South Carolina than in Michigan (which I think is sort of seen as a McCain vs. Romney state as far as Rs are concerned), so I don't think he's been campaigning up there at all.

The links above will take you to the issues section of his website if you REALLY want to know what he thinks. They're pretty thorough.

I like him because he seems to recognize that everything we'd like in life is not the responsibility of the Federal government but that there are key issues like immigration* and national defense where we really need to be paying attention.

I don't think that Fred thinks these are the only issues important in our lives, but that reducing the scale and cost of the Federal gov't in other areas will allow state and local governments (and individuals) to retain more power and resources to take care of other needs more effectively. Basically and constitutionally, a lot of other things that might be swell aren't the job of the Federal government.

(I'm not anti-immigrant but concerned about uncontrolled illegal immigration.)

Honestly, AGDee, I think you and I are pretty far apart politically just based on discussions on GC, and I'm not sure much of what Fred is about will appeal to you.

I think you are optimistic about the government being able provide additional services to people who need them, but I'm more cynical about what it can actually accomplish and more concerned about keeping most things as local as we can, so that the Federal government is there to protect our constitutionally granted Civil Rights and provide for a common defense but not much else.

ETA: There are, of course, other areas where I think that we need the federal gov't, but they are far fewer than most Presidential candidates are indicating they are interested in.

Fred hasn't convinced me he's actually running, much like Giuliani he's been kind of coasting along on name recognition.

That's certainly been the media take, but maybe they don't want to own up to not covering him more. He was all over Iowa and is presently all over South Carolina. He finished third in Iowa and second in Wyoming, which means he actually won some delegates, and at this point only has four fewer than McCain, who seems like he's actually in the race to most people. (Fred has six, Paul two, Rudy and Hunter one).

You can go to the section of Fred's website and see his photos of events of where he has been. He's definitely out there meeting, greeting and selling his ideas.

He participates in the debates as much as the moderators let him.

He is really out there campaigning, but he's had to be more conservative about how he spends his money, I think, because he didn't have as much of it.

Now, I know that he is on record talking about not really liking campaigning, but he made clear in the very same answer that distaste for campaigning is not the same as not really wanting to serve in the job.

The way we expect it on the national level, campaigning is superficial, often insincere, and includes somewhat hypocritical platitudes from most of them. I don't blame someone for not being into that.

But I acknowledge that for a long time, I've been automatically skeptical about anyone willing to run, and so Fred's seeming reluctance to fully engage in BS is actually a bonus for me.

What is driving me crazy is the number of people I know who are approaching primary voting like they are betting on a race horse rather than trying to nominate the candidate who really reflects what they want. I hear a lot of, "Oh yeah, I really like what Fred stands for but I think Huckabee is more likely to win." Uh, maybe not if every conservative who actually preferred Fred voted for him but certainly if they don't.

It's like people learned nothing from the Democrats nominating Kerry. If you kind of abandoned some principles to nominate an insubstantial centrist candidate, don't be surprised when you lose votes in the general election to the more appealing candidate from the other party who is selling himself as a centrist.

Thanks UGAalum. We are pretty different on most issues, but I like to hear people discuss their ideas even when they are different than mine, when they can do so in an intelligent way without lambasting, personal attacks, etc. :) I think that you are able to do that. I think it is good to have our belief systems challenged.

My ex-husband and I had this discussion at my daughter's birthday dinner last night. He and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum. He thinks I'm a total bleeding heart but I think I'm more moderate than people give me credit for. I tend to more bleeding heart on social issues but not as much on economic. I also don't believe in just giving handouts to everybody all the time and ascribe to the "teach a man to fish" philosophy, not the "give a man a fish". Conversely, I think health care is a right (which someone on this board argued in the past). My beliefs are kind of all over the map. But, I think that social spending needs to be done efficiently not haphazardly. An example: Providing inexpensive day care for single moms so that they can work at lower income jobs without leaving their kids home alone before they are old enough (yes) vs. Provide single moms with enough money to raise the kids without ever working or learning new skills (no).

Believe it or not, in my very first presidential election, I voted for Reagan. I voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000. I'm not opposed to all Republicans all the time. I also recognize that people have differences in their belief systems because of their personal life experiences. Like, my ex-husband has been an accountant for major corporations and is an extremist Christian whereas I have worked in health care and have a strong faith but not necessarily a firm belief in anyone denomination. These experiences shape our ideas and opinions. The only way to understand why others believe what they do is to listen to them, and I am always open to that.

I think that some level of guaranteed health care, ideally paid for by private charity, is a mark of a good society.

I accept that there perhaps should be government subsidized care for people who are truly unable to pay for it themselves, but that funding and administering this care is least likely to be effective at the federal level and I don't think that I'd describe it as a "right."

The more that the government gets involved with health care, the more I think most of us who have had insurance through our employers can expect the quality of care and the choices available to us to diminish. I think the bureaucracy will increase and that even private employers will do what they can to shift the burden they've been assuming onto the taxpayers.

It's possible that a small segment of the population will benefit and it's likely that services will become more equal, primarily by making it worse for more people. But I think it's really unlikely that we'll experience better or less expensive health care overall.

So, I'm not at all a fan of most versions of government health care initiatives, especially at the federal level.

But, I can respect people who disagree, and I think the weird "the other political party is the enemy" rhetoric and personal attacks that creep into most discussions are really bizarre.

Well, I finally decided, as I walked into the polling place to go with the Uncommitted on the Democrat ballot. It feels like a non-vote, but it does the best job at saying "I am most likely going to vote for a Democrat but Hillary isn't my first choice"

ETA: Romney won in Michigan, along with Clinton .. still waiting to hear the percentage for "Uncommitted"

I wondered what you decided to do. I saw something today, and didn't it shake out that although she was the only name on the ballot, Hillary only got 45% of the vote and Uncommitted got 40%? I think those were the stats I saw. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#MI

Apparently she got 55% (still not really a ringing endorsement).

Well, there was a big grass roots effort to get people to go for "uncommitted" due to the circumstances. I seriously considered not voting at all. But, my family was very into voting... my great-grandmother was a sufragette. I have a great aunt who was the president of the Michigan League of Women Voters, my grandma was once president of the Detroit League and my mom was the president of the Warren (MI) League when I was a kid. When my mom was in the hospital in 2006 and we didn't know whether she would make it, her biggest concern was getting her absentee ballot done and turned in. When I thought about not voting, I thought "My mother would roll over in her grave if I don't vote". Then I realized.. she doesn't have a grave, she was cremated and I still have my portion of her cremains in my house because it's been too cold to spread them where she wants them. So, I didn't think I could NOT vote while she's still in my house.

That's crazy, but it made me vote. It felt kind of Grey's Anatomy.

Bob Johnson apologizes to ObamaPosted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:18 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Tom Lea and Mark Murray
Four days after he made an unmistakable allusion to Obama's teenage drug use and even referred to him as Sidney Poitier, Clinton supporter Bob Johnson apologized to Obama for those remarks.

"I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event," Johnson said in a statement. "In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail."

On Sunday at a campaign event for Clinton in South Carolina


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...gory/1208.aspx

I'm glad. That needed to be done. I don't understand why the people associated with the Clinton campaign keep coming back to Obama's teenage drug use. Is that all they've got on him?

From CNN:

Electoral Seats

For the Reps:

Magic Number 1,191

Romney 42
Huckabee 21
McCain 19
Thompson 6
Paul 2
Giuliani 1
Hunter 1

For the Dems:

Magic Number 2,025

Clinton 190
Obama 103
Edwards 51
Kucinich 1
Biden 0
Dodd 0
Gravel 0
Richardson 0

Apparently yes. Or nor really but they're trying to play "nice." Or something.

Oh and for whoever was asking me about Obama's work with Republicans, there's a lovely article in a recent newsweek that talks about his tenure in Illinois

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755/output/print

a lot of this is the stuff I was thinking of but couldn't put words to at the time. YMM of course V

Thompson quits GOP race
 

Sorry, UGAAlum, your guy's calling it quits... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7203575.stm