Fred Dalton Thompson is the clear conservative choice in the 2008 presidential election.

The Club for Growth said that during his time in the Senate, Thompson demonstrated "an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles." Although the Club praised his "excellent" record on entitlement reform and school choice, special recognition was reserved for Social Security reform by stating, "Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics." But this is the highest praise of all:

Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.

The press continues to ignore Thompson as they concentrate on the "big three" of Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. Having made up their minds that Thompson doesn’t work too hard at campaigning, they give valuable print space to other candidates.

The media must not remember Thompson’s 1994 campaign in Tennessee. He was energetic, positive, persuasive and ultimately successful.

And he is doing it again. USA Today said that his "five-stop-a-day schedule answers critics who say he is a lazy campaigner." Today, the Dallas Morning News cautioned, In Iowa, count on this: Don’t count anyone out.

Thompson is pushing to raise funds to put a new commercial on in Iowa before next Tuesday’s caucus. As of this hour, he has raised $140,769 towards his goal of $248,846 by 6 PM Friday.

I am asking that you do three things:

1. Watch Fred’s commercial (if the gadget below doesn’t work you can see it by clicking here).
   
2. Click in the gadget on the right or go here and make a contribution to Fred’s campaign.
3. Email or call five of your friends and urge them to do the same three things.

Just a few of the bloggers that are asking their readers do the same include:

Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Rightwing Nuthouse
Bob Krumm
Stix Blog
Daily Pundit
Stop the ACLU
Sundries Shack
Say Anything
IMAO
Reformed Chicks Blabbing
Faultline USA
Wake Up America
Discerning Texan

Ah hell, just Google "Blogburst for Fred" and take a look for yourself. Wake Up America says that over 300 bloggers have joined in the effort.

Jack Kelly, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, believes that the Huckaboom is going to be a short term event. In which case:

Mr. Thompson’s liability is a lot easier to fix than those of his rivals. Mitt Romney can’t change the fact that he’s a Mormon (which shouldn’t be an issue but it is), or a recent convert to social conservatism. Rudy Giuliani is stuck with his views on abortion, his extramarital affairs and his friendship with disgraced cop Bernard Kerik. Conservatives remember how much Mr. McCain has enjoyed sticking his finger in their eye. But all Mr. Thompson has to do to dispel concerns he’s lazy is to campaign hard, as he did last week in Iowa.

In a campaign marked more by who voters are against than by who they are for, Fred Thompson is a safe choice. His views — which he articulates well — offend none of the core constituencies in the GOP. The more Mitt and Huck fight, the better he looks to Iowa voters.

If Mike Huckabee’s been the hare in this race, Fred Thompson is the tortoise. In Aesop’s fable, it was the tortoise who eventually won.

I disagree with one point: Thompson is not the "safe" choice, he is the conservative choice.

Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes covers Fred Thompson’s campaigning in Iowa. He describes a speech in a small town and continues:

If the Republican nomination were decided only by performances like this, Fred Thompson–whose policy views make him the most mainstream conservative in the race–would be on a glide-path to the Republican nomination.

It’s not. And it is Thompson’s lackluster effort in all of those other areas of a campaign that has him running a distant third in most polls less than two weeks from the Iowa caucuses. But a strange set of circumstances–the two current Iowa frontrunners cutting each other apart and two former national frontrunners essentially skipping the caucuses–means that despite his late start Thompson may still have a chance to emerge from Iowa as one of three or four candidates with a real shot at the nomination.

Thompson is short on cash, but he is making up for it by campaigning the old fashioned way: personal appearances and granting interviews. But can he really make enough speeches with the caucuses less than 2 weeks away?

This is beginning to get interesting.

Update: Jed Babbin writes in Human Events:

A new energy seems to have infused the former Tennessee senator, and his vow to spend every day until January 3 in Iowa campaigning may just translate into a surprisingly strong finish for him in Iowa. . . .

Conservatives have been complaining about Thompson’s lack of progress since September.  The punditry created an expectation that Thompson’s first two weeks would be overwhelmingly brilliant. And they weren’t.  But, now, Thompson is proving it’s way too early to count him out.  

The expectations game always favors the underdog.  Working hard, Thompson could be the big surprise in Iowa.  If he finishes even a strong second, the national polls will take another sharp turn.

I think that even finishing third will change the face of the race. Again, this is beginning to get interesting.

In a thoughtful analysis, the National Ledger asks, Can Fred Thompson Surge?

The article is far too full of good stuff to extract a sound bite. Read it all.

Then click on the gadget in the right-hand column and donate to Fred’s campaign. He needs it for the media blitz currently going on in Iowa.

Looks like IMAO, Right Wing News and Conservative Grapevine teamed up to produce a new commercial for Fred (at least they all appear in what could pass for credits at the end). Great stuff:

Check this list to see if you are a Fred Head. As IMAO says:

Kill the terrorists.
Protect the border.
Punch the hippies.
Vote Fred Thompson.

That makes a kick-ass tee-shirt.

Fred Thompson took time out from his campaigning to say that he is skeptical of the recent US intelligence report that says that Iran stopped its nuclear weaponization program way back in 2003. As I can remember the myriad of conflicting reports in the months leading up to the liberation of Iraq, I am skeptical as well.

Amir Oren, writing for Haaretz, sums it up when he writes:

The document’s eight pages, which include embarrassing instructions on how to differentiate between different yet related terms ("it is possible," "it may be so," "one must not remove from the equation," and "it’s reasonable to assume"), enable the Ayatollas’ nuclear and operations officials and the heads of the Revolutionary Guards to reach this soothing conclusion – from their point of view: The Americans have no understanding of what is really happening in Iran’s nuclear program. They have no solid information, they have no high-level agents and they have nothing more than a mix of guesswork and chatter. The dissemblance and concealment have succeeded, and the real dispute is not between Washington and Tehran, but within the U.S. administration itself.

The CIA was once one of the top three spy agencies in the world (Russia’s KGB and GRU being the other two), but democrats mounted a five-year campaign against our intelligence capabilities and effectively destroyed it in 1978. It was a blow from which it has never recovered.

So color me skeptical. In 2005, the CIA was certain that there was a nuclear program in Iran. In 2007, the CIA thinks there isn’t. In spite of the fact that Iranian terrorist President Ahmadinejad takes every opportunity to tell us that Iran wants one and deserves one.

Bottom line is that we don’t know what the hell is going on in the Middle East any country. The CIA is politicized and handcuffed by regulations and congressional oversight.

So I have no choice but to believe Ahmadinejad. Here’s hoping our next president will too.

According to ABC News and USA Today, Fred Thompson is the best candidate for me to support. At least their Match-o-Matic thinks so after it asked me all of eleven questions.

Of course, as you can see from the checkmarks and x’s we only only agreed on six of eleven issues (55%!). But that’s better than Rudy or Ronnie. But why would ABC/USA Today put Ron Paul as my third choice when I agreed with him exactly the same number of times I agreed with Rudy (45%)? It didn’t ask me to rate the importance of the question, so perhaps a little media bias is at work here?

And where the heck is Duncan Hunter? He strikes me as a Fred Thompson that isn’t famous and that actually has military experience.

Philip Martin is Fred Thompson’s friend and advisor, as well as one of four campaign co-chairman. Moreover, Thompson has been jetting around the country to campaign events on a plane provided by Martin. But Martin, it seems, has a troubled past:

Thompson’s frequent flights aboard Martin’s twin-engine Cessna 560 Citation have saved him more than 100,000 dollars because until the law changed in September campaign-finance rules allowed presidential candidates to reimburse private jet owners for just a fraction of the true cost, the paper said.

In 1979, Martin entered a plea of guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana, according to The Post.

He was charged in 1983 with violating his probation and with multiple counts of felony bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy, the report said.

He pleaded no contest to the cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy charges, which stemmed from a plan to sell 30,000 dollars worth of the drug, and was continued on probation.

You are judged by the company you keep, and rightly so.

Personally, I am a great believer in allowing people the opportunity to reform, and a champion of giving the vote back to reformed felons after a period of time.

But come on, Fred. Things like this can kill a campaign.

A friend was torn between Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. Knowing that I support the latter, she asked for my thoughts on the former. I thought today would be a fine time to share them with you.

Ron Paul Positives:

1. Longtime hero of Libertarians (politically speaking, I am a Neolibertarian.)
2. Hates big government.
3. Has carried a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution ever since joining Congress and consults it when trying to justify voting for a law (such as the obscenity that is the McCain-Feingold act which gutted the First Amendment during elections).
4. Reads the Second Amendment as it was meant to be understood by our founding fathers.
5. Has forced serious debate on a great many issues, and does so without the ridiculous posturing and over-the-top rhetoric that so often dominates political discourse.

Ron Paul Negatives:

1. Has flip-flopped on open borders. Was for them, suddenly he’s against them? While I applaud the fact that he has finally come around, I am forced to ask, “Is this real or just political posturing?”
2. Favors a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

Analysis:

Bush has been a disastrous president domestically. Other than tax cuts and conservatives on the Supreme Court, I don’t see that he has done much of anything. Even discounting the war, government spending has skyrocketed and earmarks for pork projects continue without a murmur of complaint. Medicare entitlements will kill our economy in 20 years if something isn’t done. Our educational system is still a disgrace. He hasn’t been able to deliver on a host of promises, including on of my favorites — reforming Social Security.

Ron Paul would almost be the anti-Bush domestically. While retaining smaller taxes he would fight to kill pork and reduce government. He would even suggest getting rid of certain departments. Ron Paul would be the perfect peace-time president.

However, he would also cut our involvement in foreign affairs. The only reason I voted for Bush the second time around was his determination to stay engaged in the Middle East. If we leave now we are shown to be the paper tiger that invited Bin Hidin’ to attack us in the first place. Plus we will leave Iran in charge of the region. How do you think that will turn out? For better or worse, we are there for a long time.

Bottom Line:

It is a fact that we are waging a war with Islamofascists that wish to establish a global caliphate. Under their leadership gays would be stoned to death, teen girls would be murdered in honor killings for having the misfortune to be raped, women would be reduced to the status of slaves, Christians would be “converted” and civilization would be set back two thousand years.

To those who say otherwise, I would say that they are not paying attention, not reading the documents picked up from mosques and safe-houses in Iraq, not listening to the words of the leaders of Iran, not watching as the entire Arab world attempts to destroy tiny Israel.

I will sacrifice my economy for my freedom, and so I support the one who will fight the enemy without taking away the fundamentals of government. “… our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Our children deserve no less.

Coda:

On this, the anniversary of the day great evil visited our shores, it is time to remember that we are still at war. That our young heroes are fighting for freedom under impossible conditions on foreign soil.

“We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.”

There is only one choice this election cycle who will vigorously prosecute the War on Islamofascism, and who also embraces the same conservative ideals that I hold dear.

Last week, the Club for Growth released an analysis of Fred Thompson’s economic record:

“Fred Thompson’s eight-year record is generally pro-growth with an excellent record on entitlement reform and school choice and a very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “His belief in a limited federal government is demonstrated by his numerous votes against government intrusion in the private sector and increased federal spending. His fondness for Tennessee pork aside, Thompson consistently voted against increased spending and new government projects, at times, one of only a handful of senators to do so.”

Pick up your Fred Thompson 2008 bumper sticker absolutely free in my office. I have five designs, and all are available as stickers or easy-to-remove magnetic version.

But first click on gadget at the top of the right-hand column to donate to Fred’s campaign.

Lefty blogger Lane Hudson has filed a complaint with the FEC against Fred Dalton Thompson, accusing him of violating election laws.

The law allows potential candidates to raise money for “testing the waters” without reporting to the FEC. But they are not allowed to build up a war chest for the campaign. So far, Thompson has raised almost $3.5 million and spent only $625,000.

“We’re following the law,” Thompson spokesman Jim Mills said in response to the complaint.

Under federal guidelines, the FEC will now give Thompson 15 days to respond to the complaint. Following Thompson’s response, election commissioners will decide whether to dismiss the case or investigate further.

The Hill says:

The law is particularly vague in this area as there are no set dollar amounts a would-be candidate is prevented from raising. Thompson’s $3.4 million June haul as outlined in a report to the IRS does not meet or exceed any specific legal guideline.

Calling Hudson a “blogger” is like calling Stephen King a storyteller. According to Time Magazine:

Now 29, Hudson is no political outsider. A lifelong Democrat from Charleston, S.C., he has worked for quite a few politicians, including John Kerry in his 2004 campaign.

Indeed, DNC errand boy Hudson is trying to take Thompson down. Why? Because Thompson’s non-campaign is working (I can’t keep enough bumper stickers on my desk to fill demand) and because the Dem presidential field is so lame that viewers picked Kucinich as winner of the ABC debate.

But this one is a stretch, even for the dirty-tricks boys at DNC headquarters.