Based on this article, it’s apparent that Chelsea Clinton didn’t inherit her dad’s political skills. Here’s the proof:

Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and “kid reporter” for Scholastic News, has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls as they’ve campaigned across Iowa this year. But when she approached the 27-year-old Chelsea after a campaign event Sunday, she got a different response.

“Do you think your dad would be a good ‘first man’ in the White House?” Sydney asked, but Chelsea brushed her question aside.

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute,” Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.

Doesn’t that sound eerily similar to Hillary? That’s cold. It shouldn’t have been difficult for Chelsea to give a cheesy answer to this student. Instead, she turns on her ice lady ‘charm’ and creates a distraction for Hillary.

Here’s what makes this all the more confusing:

Such is the paradox of Chelsea as she campaigns across Iowa in the closing days before the state’s caucuses Jan. 3.

Tall and attractive, Chelsea cuts an impressive figure on the campaign trail; she plunges enthusiastically into the crowd after her mother’s speeches, shaking hands and posing for pictures while asking, “Are you going to caucus for my mom?”

She’ll talk with Hillary’s supporters but she won’t talk with a student? What kind of priorities does she have?

But onstage, Chelsea never speaks; she stands next to her mother and applauds but utters not a single sentence and doesn’t even say hello. And reporters covering the campaign have been put on notice that Chelsea is not available to speak to them. An aide follows the former first daughter as she works the crowd, shushing reporters who approach her and try to ask any questions.

That paragraph reinforces Hillary’s image that she’s afraid of the press. Why else would she plant questions in the audience? Now Hillary’s graduated from planting questions to keeping Chelsea away from middle school student ‘reporters’.

How pathetic is that, especially from the supposed smartest woman on the planet?

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Chelsea, Media, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

One of the most basic lessons taught in journalism school is proper identification of the newsmaker. This usually means, name (including middle name or initial), age and place of residence.

It does not matter if the story is on the society page, an obituary or crime blotter — proper identification is an essential part of news reporting.

This well serves everyone involved. It protects both the newsmaker and others with similar names, gives proper information to the public and protects the reporter from libel actions.

All this is just good, common sense.

Today’s media falls down on the job. Newsmakers are not properly identified. What is missing from most news stories today? Residency status.

One of the most hotly debated issues in American society today is immigration. There are those who claim that open immigration benefits society; there are those who claim society is harmed by unrestricted immigration.

But both sides agree that the impact of immigration is felt by society every day ballyhoo studies supporting their conflicting claims.

Yet, residency status is nearly always omitted from news stories. (continue reading post »)

Part of Fred Thompson’s appeal is his not mincing words. That’s the focus of this article. Notice what they’ve spotlighted as their main caption:

“They’re all NEA, MoveOn.org, ACLU, Michael Moore Democrats,” Thompson said in the video posted on his campaign Web site. “They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of the party and dictate their course.”

He added, “I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them.”

Picture how that’d sell with the disenchanted conservatives that sat the midterms out. Think how that’d sell with what I call Lieberman Democrats. Think how the Nutroots would react to that and the positive impact that’d have on the election for Republicans.

Here’s what I mean with that last sentence. We want the Nutroots to be shooting their mouth off because we win anytime our base is fired up and the Nutroots are the face of the Democratic Party.

As I’ve said here, here, here and here, it isn’t 2006 anymore. Unlike 2006, I believe that the GOP base will be energized this year, especially if Fred’s the nominee. In fact, I think that Fred’s the only candidate that can get the GOP base fired up. (continue reading post »)

It’s a crisp appeal. For those who aren’t totally sold on their guy, I strongly suggest you take a long, hard look at this YouTube video. It talks about Fred’s underlying principles to governance, his national security qualifications, his stance on the judiciary’s construct, taxes and fiscal responsibility. In short, it’s a comprehensive case for who he’d be if he wins next November.

In the end, isn’t it more important to get the right guy with the right policies than it is to pick a guy with a big bankroll and little credibility?

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Tax Cuts, Judiciary, Immigration, Constitution, National Security, John Roberts, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s the title of this CNN Political Ticker article. Suffice it to say that it’s devastating in terms of undercutting Romney’s credibility. Here’s the biggest example of Romney’s credibility gap:

Romney started the year with a similar example of candor deficiency.

On Jan. 8, when he staged a “National Call Day” to kickoff his campaign, he called a news conference to herald his unprecedented one-day take of $6.5 million. When the multimillionaire was asked whether he might spend his own money on his campaign, Romney said that scenario “would be akin to a nightmare,” since he was relying on popular support for his campaign. He added that he reserved the right to donate, though.

In reality, Romney had already donated to his political committee at the time of the question. A campaign finance report he released in mid-April revealed he contributed a $2.35 million check by the time of his “nightmare” comment, starting the prior October.

He has gone on to loan a total of $17.35 million to his committee, although the total could be more. His next report won’t be made public until mid-January.

To have him say that donating to his campaign was a nightmare scenario after he’d written a $2.35 million check to his campaign is the type of thing that Team Clinton would pound him with. In the heat of a general election, the agenda media would join in in asking for a clarification.

That’s only one example of what CNN and MSNBC surely have waiting for him. Here’s another troubling quote that’s sure to make him look like a phony: (continue reading post »)

One of the really delightful things about watching Fred Thompson’s campaign is seeing his candid opinions. They aren’t at all what you’d expect in the heat of a presidential campaign. Here’s the perfect example of Fred’s honesty from his appearance on FNS:

WALLACE: But, Senator, and you do point out that you have a considerable edge in foreign policy experience over Romney and Huckabee and Giuliani, but if voters are really looking at that, doesn’t John McCain have an edge over you?

He’s been at the center of every national security debate in this country for more than a decade.

THOMPSON: I can’t argue with that. John has vast experience. He served on the Armed Services Committee for longer than I served in the Senate, no question about that. I was able to serve in some areas that John did not serve in, but his overall service has been longer and he’s been involved for a long time.

I think that we have to have someone of experience in that area, and someone with sound conservative principles, and someone who has been there consistently for a long period of time.

John and I have some honest disagreements with regard to some domestic issues. We’ve looked at things a little differently over the years on some important things, so that has to be figured into the mix also. But if you’re strictly talking about national security, you certainly cannot avoid the fact that John McCain has vast experience.

When’s the last time you saw competitors for a presidential nomination talk in such respectful tones? I don’t remember the last time. If there’s anything that’s an automatic disqualifier for me, it’s a candidate’s lack of candor. If they aren’t consistent, if they’re evasive, then I won’t give them a second look.

You can’t argue that McCain or Thompson haven’t been candid. The only thing you can do is say that you disagree with McCain on the issues.

Another thing that’s clear from this interview is Fred’s respect for Mitt Romney isn’t the same as Fred’s respect for McCain: (continue reading post »)

People have seen this Fred quote all day. Unfortunately, it’s taken badly out of context. Fred posted a clarification on his FredFile blog. First, here’s the out-of-context quote:

Fred Thompson said Saturday he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he “will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win the election.

“I’m not particularly interested in running for president,” Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country.

Here’s Fred’s answer in context:

Q: My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?

…In the first place I got in the race about the time people normally get into it historically. The fact of the matter is that others started the process a lot earlier this time than they normally do. I think it was for some of them when they were juniors in high school.

APPLAUSE

That is a very good question, not because it’s difficult to answer, because, but I’m gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.

In the first place, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t be doing this if i didn’t. I grew up very modest circumstances. I left government, I and my family have made sacrifices for me to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I’m doing this. I figure that to be clean you’ve got to cut everything off. And I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show, I had a contract with abc radio like I was talking about earlier and so forth. I guess a man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing at all if he didn’t want to do it.

But I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it. I want the people to have the best president that they can have. (continue reading post »)

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy inexperience got exposed during his latest appearance on Hannity & Colmes. Here’s what he said that conservatives will find alarming:

LOWRY: Governor, how important is foreign policy experience? Because that was an issue out on the trail today, John McCain talking about how much experience he has working with these…these issues. Why shouldn’t voters turn to a candidate who’s been marinating in these kind of issues over the last few decades?

ROMNEY: Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there. They, of course, have been doing foreign policy all their careers.

But that’s not how we choose a president. A president is not a foreign policy expert. A president is a leader who understands how to make difficult decisions and does so in a way that brings together the best voices, that considers the upsides and downsides and predicts the credibility and the strength that America has always projected in circumstances like this.

First, a wartime president’s first instinct in facing a crisis like Pakistan’s shouldn’t be to “go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there.” That’s a horrible idea. The smarter idea would be to convene a meeting with your national security team, especially including the director of the NSA, the DCI, the DNI, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the vice president. (continue reading post »)

Here’s Hillary’s statement on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:

“The world is once again reminded of the dangers facing those who pursue democracy and free elections in Pakistan and elsewhere, in areas that are rife with conflict and violence and extremeism and anti-democratic forces at work.”

“I have known Benazir Bhutto for a dozen years and I knew her as a leader. I knew her as someone was willing to take a risks to persue democracy on behalf of the people of Pakistan. She wrote a very moving autobiography which begins with the assassination of her father who was had been the leader of Pakistan and was killed as well.”

“I grieve for her family, particularly her two children. And I grieve for the people of Pakistan who deserve to have an opportunity to vote for leaders of their choosing, who deserve to have democracy take root in a country that has tremendous potential that is not being realized because their system of government has oppressed or undermined the abilities and talents of millions of Pakistanis.” (continue reading post »)

According to this article, Fred Thompson will be Chris Wallace’s guest this Sunday. This type of exposure that close to the Iowa Caucuses has to give the Thompson campaign a boost in making its closing push.

One of the things I’ll be watching for is to see what type of rating the show gets. If it gets a high rating, then that’ll be an indicator that people are still open to picking Fred when Iowans caucus next Thursday.

Contrary to what the pundits are saying, I think there’s alot still up in the air. This CBS article indicates something alarming for the so-called consensus front-runners:

At the very least, voters are having commitment issues. A recent CBS News poll says over three-quarters of Republican primary voters haven’t made up their minds yet.

I don’t know how accurate that poll is. Even if half that many people are still open to change, that’s nearly 40 percent of voters that still haven’t made up their minds. That’s an indicator that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee haven’t closed the sale with Iowa voters.

That’s gotta be especially disturbing for Mitt Romney, considering how much time and money he’s spent in Iowa. This is why I never bought into Hugh Hewitt’s thinking that Mitt had the money. Money doesn’t matter if your credibility is questionable.

The reverse is true of Fred. He’s short on money, though I just noticed that they’d met their fundraising goal to run their ad statewide. He’s short on money but long on credibility and gravitas. This Sunday’s appearance on FNS is a great opportunity for him to appeal to Iowa voters. If Sen. Thompson hits it out of the park like he’s capable, that appearance could make a significant impact on Thursday night’s caucuses.

UPDATE: Fred Thompson picked up another endorsement today. Here’s what their official statement said:

Today Iowa State Representative Gary Worthan announced his support of Fred Thompson for President of the United States. Representative Worthan joins a strong Thompson organization in Iowa already in place and headed by Iowa State Chair Congressman Steve King and Co-Chairs Representative Kraig Paulsen and Representative Sandy Greiner.

“I’ve been impressed with Fred’s ability to boil the issues down to the essential items, without a lot of hyperbole,” stated Representative Worthan. “He just plain tells the truth. We’re in a long hard struggle and there are no easy answers like some of the other candidates are coming with.”

Gary Worthan represents the conservative 52nd District, serving Buena Vista and Sac Counties. He has served in the Iowa House of Representatives since 2007, when he won a special election to replace the deceased Mary Lou Freeman. Worthan currently serves on several committees in the Iowa House, Agriculture, Public Safety, Transportation and Veterans Affairs. He also serves on the Administration and Regulation Appropriations Subcommittee.

Representative Worthan has three sons. His oldest son Ryan is a Major in the Army and earned a Silver Star for serving in Afghanistan and two Bronze Stars for serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shannon is a Captain in the Army and earned a Bronze Star in Iraq.

“I am pleased to have the support of Representative Gary Worthan,” said Senator Thompson. “I admire his leadership in the Iowa General Assembly and his commitment to conservative principles. Representative Worthan understands the increasing challenges we are facing as a nation both domestically and internationally and the need for strong consistent conservative leadership.”

Fred Thompson’s Iowa Statewide Legislative Leadership team includes:

U.S. Congressman Steve King, State Chair
State Representative Kraig Paulsen, Co-Chair
State Representative Sandy Greiner, Co-Chair
State Representative Clel Baudler
Former State Senator Bob Brunkhorst
State Representative Royd Chambers
State Representative Jeff Kaufmann
State Representative Jamie Van Fossen
State Representative Gary Worthan

I don’t know that much about Mr. Worthan but it sounds like he’s a salt of the earth type of guy whose family is committed to serving their country. I suspect that his endorsement includes the help of his organization, which shouldn’t be underestimated.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, FNC, Iowa Caucuses, Undecided Voters, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog