Gay Patriot Header Image

Fred Thompson to announce on July 4th?

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 12:52 pm - May 30, 2007.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics

According to Politico.com, “unnamed advisors” say the former Senator will jump into the presidential race on Independence Day. If true, he seems to present an interesting candidacy that I will be watching closely as it develops. Thompson has a good deal of that tough persona which the presidency is in need of during a time of war but seems to be more level-headed than Bush is. Do I think he will make a good president? Will I vote for him in 2008? At this point I do not know the answer to either of those questions. The man has a Reaganesque charisma to him, which is good since Reagan was the last president I felt the most comfortable with even when I disagreed with him. Yet this could be nothing more than fluff from his own political spin-machine, and a facade of the characters he has played on TV and in the movies (which I really enjoyed btw). Time will tell. Thompson will unfortunately have to pander somewhat to the extreme Right in order to win the nomination which I hate to see. Since the GWOT remains my #1 issue above any other, in order for him to get my vote he will need to convince me that he is far more capable than any other candidate of successfully prosecuting the war while not going overboard like Bush on other issues I care about. My loved ones and this country mean far more to me than anything else, including gay rights. If it comes down to it, I can grudgingly accept a status quo during a possible Thompson Administration with the chance of achieving change through Congress. That will be very difficult for me to do though since I dearly want to see the Religious Right get its comeuppance. It is too soon to say for certain until I hear more from the man and see how his campaign progresses. It could be that he will take positions or use rhetoric that I find completely unacceptable. I dunno right now. For the moment, Rudy is still my favorite on the GOP side and Richardson is on the Democrat side.

– John (AverageGayJoe)

Share

87 Comments

  1. Wow. You can say “balls” and not get trapped in the moderation filter. Good to know.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - May 31, 2007

  2. Rereading ILC’s #23 *Post-election polls showed that in 2006, being the party of (1) corruption nearly as big as the Democrats, and (2) government nearly as big as the Democrats …*

    And MM’s #42: *The Party will still be conservative compared to the Democrats*

    I put these two together and get the vision statement that as long as the GOP is a little less socialist than the Berkeley City Council, and a little less corrupt than the New Jersey branch of the Teamsters Union, we should give them our votes.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 3:50 pm - May 31, 2007

  3. And yes, I exaggerate for effect, but the point is “Not as bad as the Democrats” just isn’t, to me, a compelling vision statement.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - May 31, 2007

  4. Exactly. Republicans can’t beat nothing (the Democrats) with nothing. They have to put forward the positive, good and principled things they are FOR. They tried “Because We’re Not the Democrats” in 2006, and it wasn’t enough.

    Strong GWOT… strong borders… strong states (vs. Federalizing everything)… strong markets… low taxes. Stuff that every American can (and many do) get behind.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - May 31, 2007

  5. “Stuff that every American can (and many do) get behind.”

    Except for terrorists, the MSM and the DNC.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - May 31, 2007

  6. #54 ILC: And just when we get done saying that, Hillary comes out in full-throated support of socialism. Cheese, and she’s the moderate one on the Democrat side. It’s like they feel obligated to suck worse than the GOP.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - May 31, 2007

  7. Well, V, maybe Shrillary is anticipating that run by Cynthia McKinney for president. And she’s positioning herself to the left again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - May 31, 2007

  8. Late-breaking smackdown: Romney says that Clinton is so leftist, she probably couldn’t even get elected in France.

    Romney/Thompson in 2008!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 31, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - May 31, 2007

  9. OK V, so maybe chalk one up after all, for those who have been advocating the GOP neo-mod platform.

    Rather than “Because We’re Not the Democrats”, we could equally title it “Because We Are Like the Democrats In Many Ways, But, Don’t Suck as Much… ssssss… Us or Hillary!!!” Matt and HardHobbit, have at it 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - May 31, 2007

  10. Let’s see, ILoveCalarato, you continue to slog through the day serving as my editor and rephrasing/rehashing points so you can postulate them into an absurd reduction… you continue on the “name calling” nonsense even tho you slyly, disingeniously try to call people liars and frauds (“… or so you claim….” etc)… and then you cry foul when caught in the snarkiest rhetorical gamesmanship yet. Is that a victimhood card hiding in your wallet next to the gay “conservative” card? And that echo chamber you and VdaK are living in these days is postively convincing to all.

    Sorry, not taking the bait –go play with sean for a bit.

    And VdaK, have you gotten the clue that your usual and standard MO of wild-assed speculative overstatements don’t cut it anymore? Like Hastert not being a “rock-solid conservative”… “Bush is calling immigration reform opponents unAmerican”… etc? And the ultimate ego-centric cynicism: “The GOP isn’t pure enuff for me then they’ll lose it all… cause I said so.” Umm, right.

    Cynics are an easy bunch to dissect –it simply takes a little work.

    At the end of the day, the GOP you want wouldn’t be recognizable to your hero RReagan because in the ensuing decade, conservatives have morphed into the “PROBLEM” and are no longer the answer. That’s simple and it eats you up like watermelon at a Little League practice.

    That’s ok, there’s always those uber-effective and salient Libertarians that will listen and submit to all those Litmus Tests. Wanna go play with them? They’ve got some conspiracy theorists over there left over the RossPerot BigEar Festival in 1992. And I hear hemp is Job #1.

    Stick with the facts, VdaK. Get an informed opinion instead of the knee jerk garden variety. And if you want to influence who the GOP nominee is… get on the F’ingThompson BandWagon… they’ll be stoning some Mexicans at 9PM. Hey, get on ANY bandwagon for that matter and work a campaign at the Primary Election level… then you can toss darts and brickbrats at the GOP vision thing you love to make fun of. The other day you were offering that Hillary was starting to look good to you… there’s a campaign I wish you would go join.

    Clear enuff? Pure enuff? Thought so. The GOP will moderate itself. It will return to the center. It will build an effective grass roots base without relying on “fair weather” social conservatives… and it will win in 2008 if it doesn’t allow the social conservatives to destroy it again… like they did in Congress.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - May 31, 2007

  11. VdaK at 53 writes: “And yes, I exaggerate for effect… ” I think there are more ultilitarian reasons for the exaggerations (read: wild assed speculative comments) V… especially on opposition to immigration reform.

    Like Tony Snow, Newt, the Heritage Foundation, CATO, AEI and others know… nothing gets done on immigration reform until the wall gets built, electrified and the veritable snipers in the guard towers have unlimited supply of dum-dums.

    I swear! The things that grown-ups have to do in order to have the FarRightFringe stop their stomping tantrums. By the time the bill is complete, we’ll have to expand GitMo by 10,000 beds and have them filled with domestic terrorists before the FarRightFringe will consent to immigration reform.

    Maybe in honor of the immigration opponents, we can rename GitMo “America’s Shining City on the Hill”? Funny, that would probably please the uber-social conservatives foaming at the mouth these days over illegal aliens raping all the white women. That and take away those Korans.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2007 @ 7:04 pm - May 31, 2007

  12. 1979 and 1980; hostage crisis in Iran, double digit prime rate and inflation, Teddy Kennedy telling the nation that we have to get used to the idea that America is now a second rate nation. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. He won because he knew how to appeal to the hearts, minds and common sense of the electorate. He evoked memories of an America that was prosperous, an America that was powerful, an America that was respected for the liberation of Europe and Asia from dictators. It was let´s make America great again. It was the shining city on the hill. In his infomercial on behalf of Barry Goldwater he stated ¨Back in 1936, Mr Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the party of of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from the party and never returned..¨ He reminded us that ¨No government voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is tne nearest thing to eternal life we´ll ever see on this earth.¨ And later he says,¨Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that we have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy ´accomodation.´ They say if we will only avoid direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his eveil ways and learn to love us. All who opposed them are indicted as warmongers.¨(Sound familiar?) He goes on to quote Alexander Hamilton who said, Ä nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one.¨(Nancy Pelosi and co religionists please take note.) And of course the famous 11th Commandment, Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans. It´s this kind of wisdom that I´m expecting from Fred Thompson. If he can even come close, he will be a breath of fresh air for the GOP, and for the nation. President Reagan had his moments when he preached to the choir during his campaign of 1980, when he spoke to the National Association of Religious Broadcasters telling them, Ï know you can´t endorse me but I can certainly endorse you.¨ Yewt in 1983 when a group from the relgious right were concerned that he hadn´t enacted any legislation from their agenda he satisfied them by telling them their issues were backburner. His number one priority was to fix the economy (we had longest period of prosperity when he did.) and of course communism had to be check in Central America and around the world.

    Comment by Roberto — May 31, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - May 31, 2007

  13. The mere fact that demands for border security are called “temper tantrums” by the elites tells you all you need to know. They really don’t want to secure the border.

    Accusations of racism always lend so much intellectual heft to an argument.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - May 31, 2007

  14. Three reasons for Reagan’s Presidential victories: 1) Reagan; 2) Carter; 3) Mondale/Ferraro. Claiming his victories were the work of Christian conservatives is simply (and unsurprisingly) a lie.

    Political fault lines run in very different directions from those in the Reagan era. Electorally, this is especially true for the GOP, what with its having to run largely against its current titular head, W. As long as the albatross of a badly conceived, badly executed, and very badly communicated war is around its neck (and its opposition more than willing to take full advantage, silver platter, noose and all), the party will have very little room for very little else on its no-longer-elephantine shoulders.

    My take on Thompson is that he’s riding a wave of ‘none-of-the-above’ popularity, whose strength is that he hasn’t really articulated anything at all about a future Thompson administration. In other words, we know nothing and so a coalition of the literally uninformed has formed. Of course, they will become despondent and his popularity will wane once he declares and is forced to take sides, to be vetted, to enter the fray with his fellow job-seekers. And I’ve never understood the claim that he’s telegenic. I find him as charismatic as a startled tortoise. Unless he starts making some serious noises about serious issues instead of eliciting a ‘Right on!’ via a spat with someone only the most vacant wouldn’t recognize as an utter creep, then I remain unconvinced and am as much on the sideline about him as he is about the Presidency.

    Can the GOP win the WH in ’08? Yes. Here’s one possible outline:

    1) Articulate clear, attainable goals for Iraq that will convince Americans that we will not be deployed there for decades.
    2) Visibly strengthen ties with right-leaning governments such as France and Australia. Give them highly visible supporting roles and let them take the credit.
    3) Establish economic relationships that favor nations that are at risk of Islamofascism such as Kenya. There is nothing better with which to fight jiihad than economic opportunity, which is why Wahhabists hate it above all else.
    4) Continue to enact and support common sense immigration reform, ignoring the extra-chromosome extremists on both the left and right.
    5) Promise to reform the tax code with a flat tax, forbidding exemptions for voting blocs with the sole exception of one large bloc: no longer requiring those under 25K to pay income taxes.
    6) Make health care a priority with savings accounts and other pro-market ideas; articulate a firm commitment to the health care of our veterans.
    7) Etc.

    Go, Rudy.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 31, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - May 31, 2007

  15. With Matt’s #60, let’s add to the scorecard from #46. The additions:

    — I’m accused of victimhood / trying to play the victim. (Bzzzzzzzt… Wrong answer 😉 )
    — I am accused of being “sly”, “disingenuous”, and of falsely accusing others of being frauds. (Itself a false accusation. Ironic.)
    — I am accused of snarkiness and rhetorical gamesmanship.
    — I am told I live in an echo chamber, blah blah blah.

    I did slightly invite it this time, by openly going with the _reductio ad absurdum_ of Matt’s neo-mod views at #59, which shows my disrespect for certain aspects of same. Having said that: I still have yet to call Matt names.

    Only updating the list, folks. OK, I must admit, I am also ROTFLMAO here 🙂

    On a different note, Matt I do still notice – and compliment you for – the names you haven’t called.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 31, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - May 31, 2007

  16. Meanwhile, at the RNC small donor donations are off 40% and the entire telemarketing staff has been sacked. “Everyone donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue.”

    But, hey, it’s just an extremist fringe of bigots that oppose the amnesty bill.

    Comment by V the K — May 31, 2007 @ 9:19 pm - May 31, 2007

  17. V, sometimes your capacity to spin is only equal to Ian’s capacity to ignore reality… at our peril. But I gotta hand it to and EchoCalarato, you never fail to ignore the truth in your search to score meaningless debate points.

    The article you quoted is from the Washington Times, for crying out loud… no one with a pea’s brain thinks they are a credible source on anything even if the writer has a press release in front of them for the story –they’ll get it wrong. Seriously, why not just quote George Soros directly on GOP internal politics… he’s got about as much credibility as the Washington Times. if you want to reference the WTimes on gun control issues, then go ahead since the newspaper is the pocket of the NRA… at least they know something about that issue.

    But let’s take a BIG leap and accept your source as credible… even if the article is based on the usual “unnamed sources” BS.

    The final line is THE money quote VdaK: “Any assertion that overall donations have gone down is patently false,” Miss Schmitt said. “We continue to out raise our Democrat counterpart by a substantive amount (nearly double).”

    And this with an admittedly inferior, outdated GOP phone system and tracking software for donations.

    Here in Michigan, our state GOP fundraising for candidates is off-the-charts, V… that’s in a state with a large migrant worker community, a significant Democrat Party presence at all levels of govt, and a state that went for Gore and Kerry overwhelmingly but voted against numerous liberal ballot initiatives.

    Hey, but you keep on defending those bigoted racists over on your side of the fence ready to toss Mexicans under the bus –afterall, truth isn’t going to get in the way of selling your brand of cynicism and defeatism.

    BTW, I also like the “peekings” of this new parallel smear you’re hoisting up the Nativist flagpole lately… calling people “elites” with a scorn and contempt normally reserved for racists and bigots. “I tell ya, it’s them, it’s them! It’s the ELITES that are doing this to us! They’re out of touch with the common man I tell ya!!!”

    Come one V, discuss the issues fairly and drop the rhetorical gamesmanship. Immigration reform isn’t causing a groundswell against the GOP… in fact, poll after bloody poll proves that most Americans want reform, want a more secure border and don’t buy into your cynical take on the issue –less so when the racial overtones are apparent.

    And like Newt, Geo Schultz, Tony Snow and lots of other GOP stalwarts note: it’s security first, immigration second in this bill.

    Opps, I guess you need to read beyond the headlines?

    Again, VdaK, like with your wild-assed assertion that Bush was calling immigration reform opponents “unAmerican”, you get this one wrong too.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 1, 2007 @ 8:49 am - June 1, 2007

  18. I guess Peggy Noonan is now a bilious, cynical, jack-booted, foaming at the mouth racist, too.

    And since I’ve repeatedly explained at great length, based on the language of the bill itself, that the actual bill has amnesty first, security later… maybe… there’s no point in my once again refuting that misleading White House talking point propaganda about security before Amnesty.

    I can say this because if the benchmarks for Phase II… half a border fence, planning and funding for more border patrol agents and a handful of UAVs … are not met, the probationary visas for illegals in the country stay. The illegals become legal, even if those half-assed “triggers” are never met.

    The proponents of the bill know this. They also know that the president certifies the benchmarks have been met… which he gets to do on his way out of the office.

    Certainly, there are a lot of people, including the president, who would just as soon do away with the border and let anyone who wants to come here just come here and take any job they want. But I’m not about attacking the motivations of the other side. My opposition is based entirely on the flaws of the bill itself. Leaving the argument there is what I would have thought civility demanded.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 9:43 am - June 1, 2007

  19. Apparently, someone didn’t read the entire article:

    “The GOP’s overall haul from its three national fundraising committees [the RNC, NRSC and NRCC] is down 25 percent from the equivalent period in 2005,” Mr. Ritsch said. “The Republicans still have more money than the Democrats but fundraising is down for Republicans and up for Democrats. That has to be a cause of concern for Republicans.”
    The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected $4.6 million in April, more than double the NRSC’s $2.1 million in April contributions. What’s more, the Republican group spent about $60,000 more than it had received in donations, while using only $260,000 to pay its debt.
    Overall, the NRSC’s total receipts of $9.1 million trails its Democratic counterpart’s total of $18.3 million since January.

    The RNC fundraising picture isn’t as rosy as some would have us believe.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 9:51 am - June 1, 2007

  20. Jim Lileks, another jack-booted racist brown-people hater.

    Anything short of dropping thousands of blank American birth certificates on the other side of the Rio Grande is construed as Nativist Hysteria…. What really irks me more than the Administration’s mulishness is their tone-deaf replies to the bill’s opponents, and it really is Le Straw Finale. Add to the list of lesser mistakes to which any administration composed of human-type people is prone, add the ham-fistery evident in their handling of those events, add the attenuated death of the Bush doctrine, interred quietly in the first bilateral talks with Iran since the war began almost three decades ago, and add the nagging, itchy suspicion that Iranian involvement in the Iraq conflict might have been turned away at an earlier opportunity with a judicious, gravity-assisted MOAB in a crucial industrial facility, and you have a general Throwing Up of The Hands on the right. Self-inflicted wounds, every one of them.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 10:27 am - June 1, 2007

  21. V the K – a question, just for my own curiosity –

    Have you ever “defend[ed] bigoted racists… ready to toss Mexicans under the bus”? (one of Matt’s many accusations on you, in his rant)
    In other words – would there be some genuinely racist / nativist person or group you have ever tried to excuse?

    I don’t believe I have seen that from you. Ever. (Granted, I was gone for a month and even now, I don’t read every comment.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 11:24 am - June 1, 2007

  22. Well, ILC, I brought up that very issue at my KKK-NeoNazi-Nativist meeting last night, and me and all of the other slobbering, jack-booted, extra-chromosome thugs agreed that throwing Mexicans under the bus, just wasn’t good enough. First of all, all the non-white races should be thrown under the bus, and it shouldn’t be a bus so much as a giant steam-roller with sharpened steel spikes embedded in the roller part.

    Later, we had pie.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 11:30 am - June 1, 2007

  23. I’ll take that as a firm “No” 🙂 Which I expected anyway, from everything I know of your (fine) convictions and character.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 11:39 am - June 1, 2007

  24. Well, since I’d stand a better chance of having a rational debate about the FMA with Andrew Sullivan than making any progress here, I’m just going to embrace the hate and ride it.

    Even if this amnesty bill passes, I don’t think the fight ends, even though Bush is pushing it as the be all and end all of the debate. There will still be a place to demand better border security than this bill offers. There will still be a place to demand better enforcement that the government will provide.

    For me and the rest of the vile, hatred-filled, ignorant, redneck, podunk, right-wing, inbred, white-trash, supremacist, brown-people-under-the-bus-throwers, our work will just be beginning.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 11:53 am - June 1, 2007

  25. LOL. I actually heard the “Mountain Town” theme from the South Park movie (the reprise at the end, where the townspeople describe themselves like that) in my head, as I read along.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 11:57 am - June 1, 2007

  26. So guys, #s 68-75: “EchoCalarato meets VdaK for some street theatre”?

    I think this is the point where someone with a sense of decency tells ya guys to “Go Get A Room”.

    Nawh, go ahead and keep the Johnnie-1-Note thing going and spoil some more threads here… you’re just defining petulant conservative for everyone who reads it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 1, 2007 @ 12:08 pm - June 1, 2007

  27. And that, Matt, is what I expected of you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - June 1, 2007

  28. You know, if we could figure out a way to torture all of the illegals before we deport them, we could piss off MM and Andy Sullivan.

    Comment by V the K — June 1, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - June 1, 2007

  29. Well, then at the end of the day, EchoCalarato, you can put down all your rhetorical tricks and say with affection “He didn’t let me down”.

    You have your attention for the day, now go play with sean or keogh, ok?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 1, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - June 1, 2007

  30. Matt, although I often find your specific accusations toward me and your other contradictory statements humorous, the overall experience of watching what you have sunk to is very sad for me.

    As I have told you before:

    I wish you well. Even when I am critical of… your behavior, I think your behavior is more emotional than intentional.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - June 1, 2007

  31. Private aside for David – If you can check from your vacation – seriously consider about the style-of-argument in #67 and other MM here. I’ll be curious to see if you still intend to align yourself with that (as the other day).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 1, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - June 1, 2007

  32. Only the most insecure commenter would take pride in being nothing more than a sidekick.

    Comment by HardHobbit — June 1, 2007 @ 9:27 pm - June 1, 2007

  33. Come now, HardHobbit. If you’re feeling the need to put someone else down or whatever, I know I’ve seen better efforts from you. Give it another try.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - June 2, 2007

  34. Hard Hobbit´s outline for a GOP victory to retain the WH has merit. It has to be articulated in a positive manner. His three reasons why Reagan won were really secondary. He won in 1980 for the reasons I suggested. He appealed to the best in the voter; not to their worst fears. In 1984 he co-opted the age issue from Mondale when he stated I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I will not exploit my opponents youth and lack of experience for political gain. Fred Thompson has the charisma to artliculate a positive message and that is what will carry him to victory.

    Comment by Roberto — June 2, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - June 2, 2007

  35. Just found your blog. I really enjoyed reading it. Just another gay conservative who would like to see Thompson join the race. I would like to see things shaken up if he does announce in July.

    Comment by Randy — June 3, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - June 3, 2007

  36. Rasmussen Poll. Thompson surges to second place, Rudy erodes, McAmnesty plunges to fourth place.

    Comment by V the K — June 5, 2007 @ 8:04 am - June 5, 2007

  37. VdaK, while Rassie sometimes gets it right, their real strength is in regional polling on cultural issues, not national races on partisan breaks because of Rassie’s model for conducting the survey instrument is constructed toward the cultural issues segment.

    You ought to get to know and check out Pollster –a fellow Wolverine named Mark Blumenthal runs the show and his model is more in tune with natl races, party races. He’s a Democrat… but that’s ok for pollsters.

    For a 6/1 poll, he puts it this way

    Giuliani at 30.7
    McCain at 18.5
    Romney at 9.3
    F’ingThompson at 9.3
    Newt at 7.6

    To use the conservatives’ inaccurate “Rudy McRomney” moniker, that would mean that at least 58.5% of Republican voters would chose the very candidate the conservatives from the “None of the Above” crowd claim is toast. Funny how that little math works out, eh? Meaningless, but funny.

    In Iowa, Romney is waaaaay out front at 30.1% of likely GOP caucus goers… which gets at the point I’ve been making and that is the grassroots among party regulars is where the nominee will selected.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 5, 2007 @ 1:41 pm - June 5, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.