A report from MSNBC (yet again, part of the evil liberal media) reveals that Fred Thompson a Republican running for President has not made much of a impact in recent speeches. At least in one case he fizzed, the GOP has been hoping that Thompson would be the next Ronald Regan but comparisons are already being made to George W. Bush ideology wise.

Twenty-four minutes after he began speaking in a small restaurant the other day, Fred D. Thompson brought his remarks to a close with a nod of his head and an expression of thanks to Iowans for allowing him to “give my thoughts about some things.” Then he stood face to face with a silent audience. “Can I have a round of applause?” Mr. Thompson said, drawing a rustle of clapping and some laughter. “Well, I had to drag that out of you,” he said. Mr. Thompson is a former United States senator, television actor and Watergate investigator. His entry into the presidential race was highly anticipated by many Republicans, who saw or hoped to see in him outsized political talent and a commitment to conservatism that would enliven a Republican field that many found lacking. But as Mr. Thompson campaigned in Iowa this week, he was something other than the dynamic presence that some in his party have been yearning for. Iowans saw a subdued, laconic candidate who spoke in a soft monotone, threw few elbows and displayed little drive to distinguish himself from his opponents. Mr. Thompson told few jokes and, while an easygoing presence, did not appear to have much interest in the small talk that is a staple of retail campaigning. As he defined his candidacy, Mr. Thompson spoke in broad generalities about the conservative principles that he said had informed his political views — in particular, federalism and cutting government spending — and led him to run for president.

Technorati Tags: 2008 Elections, Fred Thompson, Presidential Elections, Republican, Conservative

New York Times (part of the evil Liberal media) writer Thomas L. Friedman wrote a thought provoking piece about the Presidential candidates and at least one of them using 9/11 as the backbone to their campaign. You can read the full article here, below is my favourite section.

Since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.
What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.
It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are.Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.

Technorati Tags: 9/11, 2008 Election, Presidential Election, September 11