Now, it's true that he's the frontrunner. No doubt about it right now. He's the breath of fresh air that the networks love, and that also means he's sucking up all the oxygen too, diminishing the airtime that otherwise would have gone to more deserving and conservative candidates.

But that also serves another purpose: Trump is naturally also the biggest target. He's absorbing the brunt of the liberal and media attack. His no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners approach has allowed him to shrug off these attacks, and he's slick enough to be ambiguous as to his actual principles and policy ideas. That's all to his benefit of course, as that makes him a blank canvas onto which a viewer can project their ideology onto. Sound familiar, 2008?

Indulge me in throwing out a metaphor or 4.

If you're a gamer, particularly a MMORPG'er, you understand the concept of a tank - a character that can soak up a lot of damage, focus all the enemy attention and effort, while the rest of the team is relatively unmolested and completing the objective. That's Trump.

Trump is the juggernaut. He is the immovable force that bulldozes forward to wherever he wants to go. His skin, his attitude, (and his hair) are impenetrable and imperturbable.

Trump is the alpha male. In all things, he maintains his frame, and resists attempts to ensnare him or to force a gaffe. He'll talk about whatever he wants to talk about and deflects so masterfully you won't even realize what happened until you rewind the tape.

Trump is the lightning rod which focuses all the incoming energy and channels it harmlessly into the ground.

Trump is the siege tower, inexorably advancing on the enemy walls, as the slings and arrows bounce harmlessly off his defenses, while protecting the soldiers behind it.

The benefit of this aspect of Trump's campaign is that it provides all the other candidates with cover, with breathing room. Trump takes the heat, while the others are free to respond after the fact. And while all the opposition is attacking Trump, they also reveal their attack vectors and strategies - allowing the other candidates to triangulate and counter-punch. Trump can hold his own extemporaneously, and defuse the "gotcha" questions with ease. Meanwhile, the other candidates are taking notes and won't be surprised when the same line of attack is used on them.

So a smart GOP candidate should be essentially trailing along in Trump's wake - riding his draft - following up and responding to any of Trump's missteps. But not in the sense of attacking Trump himself - for while he may not be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, he is at the very least the enemy of our enemy - but in the sense of addressing any weakness in the conservative argument. Let Trump take the heat from the media and the liberal opposition (but I repeat myself), for he is capable of defending himself through vicious counter-attack - but on the same token that also applies to "friendly-fire". You certainly don't want to also become a target of his.

The punditry seems to believe Trump has little or no chance of getting the nomination, despite strongly leading the field this early in the game. If Trump doesn't get the nomination, then a smart GOP candidate should aim to absorb as much of Trump's support as possible, and that means keeping criticism of Trump to a friendly disagreement as opposed to the kind of vitriol displayed between Rand and Christie. And if Trump does get the nomination as the anti-politician candidate, I'd imagine it's to his benefit to pick a VP that IS a politician, in order to bring a little political credibility to the ticket - and that also means a candidate which didn't burn any bridges with him. Therefore regardless of whether or not Trump does get the nomination, it's best to take him, his ideas, and his supporters, seriously, and treat them with respect. For while Trump may not be the king, it is completely within his power to be the kingmaker.

It may be sound tactics for a candidate to go hard after Trump right now, for the GOP opposition will certainly coalesce around an Anti-Trump. That may provide a short-term gain. But the ideal long-term strategy would be to play nice, be respectful, take notes, don't make mistakes, and be poised to step up should he falter.

Kind of like Ted Cruz seems to be doing. Smart guy.

Almost all businesses (i'm excluding private sales for now) already have a mechanism/framework for collecting state sales taxes, unless you happen to live in a state w/o sales taxes (lucky you). So how difficult would it be for a a business to report federal sales tax as well as the state sales tax which they are already doing? I must admit I do not remember what the FairTax's policy is on private sales, but as long as an item is USED (ie not new) the FairTax should not apply to it. FairTax only applies to NEW items at its final POS.

I'll leave the question of what this means for private sales of new items (ie cottage industry) to someone else.

If you put money into savings or if you have paid into social security, when you pull it out to spend it, you will have been double taxed on it.

FairTax COMPLETELY REPLACES the federal income tax. So the salary you earn has not yet been taxed! Therefore funds going into Social Security come from the FairTax in the first place. It's a little strange here as the consumption tax goes into SS, and when you get your SS check and spend it, a portion of it goes back into SS - however i'm not sure that's that big of an issue.

The tax rate for the "Fairness" is about 30% and the rate calculation is so vague, it's too easy for the government to raise it.

And this is different from how the federal government determines income tax rates ... how? Imagine no income tax brackets. Imagine how much easier it would be to set tax levels, when all the gov has to adjust is a single rate, instead of hundreds of income brackets! Again, this is another place where things can go screwy, because here it's up to the public to keep an eye on the gov and make sure they're not a) spending like drunken sailors and b) raising the tax rates for no good reasons.

The Fair Tax doesn't do anything to address the fiscal responsibility of the .Gov to manage the money and control the spending... this is like using your Debit Card instead of your Checks... your still spending it... your just transferring that money a different way.

Believe it or not, this is actually a FEATURE of the FairTax as it is written. Sure, it'd be nice to throw in a balanced budget amendment, but adding that in there would exponentially increase the difficulty of getting it passed (as if it wasn't going to be hard enough). That's why the FairTax is simply written as a replacement for the federal income tax, and that's it.

And now for another big reason to avoid the Fair Tax – A whole new economy will spring up almost over night... The Black Market. Organized Crime will be be the regulation there, the Mob, whoever. The Black Market will be able to service you for everything you need... Smuggling will become huge. As a result, ordinary people would easily become Tax Dodging Criminals. Or are you going to tell me that just because the tax is Fair everyone is going to all the sudden become completely and perfectly honest?

I don't buy this argument. Think about how much money is spent at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, car dealers, grocery stores, malls, etc. Businesses like those never be able to skirt the law and get away with not collecting the consumption tax. Now think about the percentage of the overall economy that these businesses represent - I'm no economist, but my WAG is that they represent the non-trivial portion of it. My point is that, yes, there may be black market profiteers willing to risk it all by skirting the tax, but they would represent such a small portion of the economy that the impact would be trivial.

As a bonus, think of all the illegals living and working in the US right now. How much is the federal gov't collecting from them? NOTHING - because they work under the table and don't file income taxes. But illegal workers, drug dealers, and the like still buy food, supplies, diapers, dvds, electronics, cars, etc. - so under the FairTax, for the first time, the fed gov would actually collect from them! As a bonus, because the illegal immigrants are not registered with the IRS (like all of us hard-working citizens who pay income tax), they don't get a prebate, making it harder for them to live/work in the US illegally. They would actually be ENCOURAGED to become a legal citizen, instead of today where there is a huge advantage in being here illegally. (Now I realize that the legal immigration process here is f'd up, but that's another discussion).

FairTax is a pretty much a direct tax on our GDP... 30% on our GDP.
You've heard the phrase that you tax what you want to reduce? Think about that. This would kill us as a nation. Look at how many business out there live for 2 seasons, Christmas and Tax Returns.
Fair Tax would damage our economy like a kick to the nuts. After it was already taken down to its knees.

Except that
1) The FairTax will be calculated so that the price of goods remains consistent. Whatever rate they set for the sales tax will be close to the rate of federal income tax embedded in the cost of each product.
2) If the price of goods remain consistent, and all of a sudden everybody no longer pays federal income tax... (for me in 2008 that would be equivalent to a 23% raise). What do you think happens to the economy when everybody gets 23% raises?



Now admittedly I've only read the first book, so I may be misinformed as well, but I found the arguments and logic presented by the FairTax to be very sound and even rooted in reality. I truly believe it is a "fair" tax (even if it is a tad skewered in favor of the poor) and worthy of honest discussion.

First, let's consider the current leaders for the Republican nomination:

John McCain - He's more in love with himself and the adoration of the news media than with conservative values. His "maverickism" has earned him the adulation of journalists but the enmity of the party. He won't have the support he needs from conservatives, and the people he seems to be actively courting are going to vote for either Obama or Hillary. He's not conservative and unelectable.

Rudy Guiliani - He has the electability and the popularity, and conservatives hate him less than McCain. However, he's more liberal than John is. Rudy's done a great job of leading NYC after 9/11, and cleaning it up before that, but conservatives will be put off by the fact that he was the mayor of an extremely liberal city, and as such, had likewise liberal positions on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. He's electable, but a RINO.

Mitt Romney - He seems to have decent conservative credentials, however, his records show several flip-flops regarding gun control and abortion, which will hurt him. Also, his Mormonism will probably be an issue for a lot of folks (Christian and atheist alike), however benign it may be. He suffers from the same problem that Rudy does in that he's the governor of an extremely liberal state.

There are other runners who are actually conservative, such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Newt Gingrich; however they either lack the popularity, the experience, or have too much baggage to be a serious contender.

So we need a candidate who is a) an honest-to-God conservative and b) electable.

That's where Fred Thompson comes in. Let me tell you why.

He's actually conservative

[tosok] Thompson’s record as a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003 shows that he was on the right side of every critical issue. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1997 to 2001, he voted for national-debt reduction, the all-important balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, a presidential line-item veto to eliminate congressional pork and efforts to privatize elements of Social Security. He supported legislation in the interest of free enterprise and opposed many regulatory and tax measures. He opposed growth in social-welfare programs, including expansions in Medicare and welfare for immigrants. He supported efforts to decentralize or disenfranchise unconstitutional government programs.

Fred voted for limits on death penalty appeals, product-liability punitive-damage awards and class-action lawsuits. He opposed decreasing restrictions on wiretaps. He supported increased oil exploration, including ANWR drilling permits, and is an advocate of free trade, understanding well the underlying national security implications. He supported an amendment to prohibit flag burning and voted for numerous measures in support of Second Amendment rights. (Charlton Heston campaigned for him in ‘94.)

On family and social issues, he opposed "marriage" between homosexuals, partial-birth abortion, cloning, the addition of "sexual orientation" to hate-crimes legislation and legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. He voted for many education-reform measures, including the provision of school vouchers.

Most important, Thompson’s support for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom was, and remains, steadfast. Thompson has the authoritative grasp of national-security issues necessary for a commander in chief, particularly with respect to the long-term jihadi threat.

He's a champion of the Right

[wiki] Thompson did voice-over work at the 2004 Republican National Convention. After the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005, he was given an informal position by President George W. Bush to help guide the nominated John Roberts to the confirmation through the United States Senate. He also is the chair of the International Security Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats. In 2006, Thompson signed on with ABC News Radio to serve as a host, commentator, and fill-in for Paul Harvey.[9]

He's a straight-shooter

[tosok] After earning his J.D. from Vanderbilt University in 1967, Thompson had a private law practice and later served as an assistant U.S. attorney-making his mark weeding out corruption. After his prominent role as Republican counsel during Watergate, it was Thompson’s 1977 investigation that toppled the crooked administration of Tennessee Democrat Gov. Ray Blanton. In 1980, Thompson was tapped to serve as special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in 1982, special counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[wiki] In 1977, Thompson took on a Tennessee Parole Board case that ultimately toppled Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton from power on charges of selling pardons.

He's right on the 2nd Amendment

[fox] WALLACE: Gun control.

THOMPSON: Well, I'm against gun control generally. You know, you check my record. You'll find I'm pretty consistent on that issue.

WALLACE: So this federal court - appeals court ruling this last week, I guess Friday, in the case of D.C. - you'd be perfectly happy to have people have handguns in their homes?

THOMPSON: Yes. Absolutely. The court basically said the Constitution means what it says, and I agree with that.

He's politically savvy

[tosok] In 1993, Tennessee’s Republican leadership convinced Thompson to return to public service in a campaign bid to fill the unexpired Senate term of then Vice President Albert Gore. Fred then demonstrated his formidable skills on the campaign trail. Despite all the support Bill Clinton and Al Gore could muster for popular six-term Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper, Thompson won a landslide victory in 1994, garnering 61 percent of the vote to Cooper’s 39 percent-the largest victory margin in any statewide political contest in Tennessee history.

Thompson’s success in his first campaign for national office did not pass without substantial note from the Democrat National Committee. He won by an even wider margin in his 1996 re-election bid. Rest assured, the DNC fears a Thompson draft for the presidency.

He's well-known

[tosok] In 1985, the Blanton scandal was the subject of the film "Marie," in which Thompson played himself-because the director could not find an actor who could capture Thompson’s power and determination. His success in that film led to his roles in more than 20 other big-screen hits including "No Way Out," "The Hunt for Red October," "Class Action," "Cape Fear" and "In the Line of Fire."

Let's not forget Die Hard 2, as well as regular role on all the various Law and Order series.


He's electable, or at least people can easily imagine him as president

[wiki] A 1994 New York Times profile described his roles as ones that portray authority: "The glowering, hulking Mr. Thompson has played a White House chief of staff, a director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a highly placed F.B.I. agent, a rear admiral, even a senator. When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to him."

[tosok] While there are conservative candidates for the GOP nomination, any of whom could deservedly win the Republican primary, none of whom would be likely to carry a majority in the general election. This list includes some true luminaries of the conservative movement: Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Jim Gilmore, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Gov. Tommy Thompson and possibly former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

However, if conservatives and the rest of the Republican electorate want to line up behind the most capable, qualified and electable candidate in the ‘08 presidential race, a man who can carry the Reagan mantle and draw an enormous crossover vote (as President Reagan did in 1980 and 1984 see 1984 election map), then call out Fred Thompson.

He's got good taste in movies

[pjm] "300," shows a small band of Spartans saving the lives of their countrymen AND the seeds of modern Democracy by kicking the much larger Persians forces effectively in the backside at Thermopylae until the sheer numbers overwhelmed them. If I remember my history, that’s exactly what happened.
[...]
I must say that I’m impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.

He kicked Gandhi's ass

[nro] [W]hen Saddam Hussein was being given a last chance to open Iraq to U.N. weapons inspectors, posters appeared around America asking "What would Gandhi do?"

And that’s a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?

It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife," he said. "They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." "Collective suicide," he told his biographer, "would have been heroism."

The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein.

Gandhi probably wouldn't approve, but I can live with that.

He's AWESOME

[imao] * Fred Thompson has blasted more people in the face with a shotgun than even Dick Cheney.
* The masked executioner of Saddam Hussein: Fred Thompson.
* Not only does Fred Thompson cut taxes, he cuts tax collectors.
* The reason Fred Thompson didn't want to stay in the Senate for long is because all the extra scrutiny kept him from doing his favorite hobby: Prowling the streets at night killing drug dealers.
* Fred Thompson took over what was Al Gore's Senate seat, thereby dramatically reducing the Senate's carbon footprint. Fred Thompson then created carbon offset offsets by wastefully burning hippies.
* Fred Thompson reconsidered running for reelection after 9/11 but later decided to handle things on his own. He was soon seen entering the Middle East with a bottle of tequila in one hand an a handgun in the other. They're still counting the dead.
* Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn't stopped wetting his pants.
* Fred Thompson's gaze can kill small animals.
* Fred Thompson once ended a filibuster by ripping out a Senator's heart and showing it to him before he died.
* The actual cause of global warming: Fred Thompson's burning rage.
* The budget to Law & Order was dramatically increased when Fred Thompson was added to the cast because he has to be digitally inserted into the scenes since anytime he's near Hollywood liberals, he kills them.
* Fred Thompson once stood on our south border and glared at Mexico. There was no illegal immigration for a month.
* Fred Thompson vows not only to win in Iraq but also to forcefully free Vietnam from Communism, thus giving America a perfect win/loss record for wars again.
* Webster's Dictionary defines "conservatism" as "how closely one's views resemble those of Fred Thompson."
* Fred Thompson's sense of strategy is so great that he can checkmate you using only a pawn and a knight.
* Fred Thompson can know both the exact position and momentum of a particle. Furthermore, he knows Schroedinger's cat is dead because he personally strangled it.
* When terrorists get to the afterlife, they'll find that none of their seventy-two women are still virgins. Why? Because of Fred Thompson.
* In a butterfly ballot, no matter where you punch it the vote goes to Fred Thompson.

Now, all that being said, he does have some things going against him:

He doesn't have the history of executive leadership that other Republican candidates do

[elephantbiz] Romney's one clear advantage over Thompson may be the fact that he's been both a business executive and a "chief executive" in government (as a governor), while Thompson has been a senator, attorney, prosecutor and actor but never has served in a conventional executive role leading either a large private-sector organization or as a governor or big-city mayor.

[rwn] A Fred Thompson candidacy seems to leave me with a suspicious grin, saying, "Okay, what's the catch?" Aside from his superficial qualifications, he's got a sterling, conservative record while he was in the Senate. The only flaw I can see is that the most dependable candidates for as long as I can remember have been former governors. ("dependable candidate" means those with the most hope of winning) Bush2, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, all former governors. Bush1, Ford, Nixon and Johnson were all vice-presidents. You have to go all the way back to JFK to find a president who wasn't either a governor or vice-president. If you dismiss those not initially elected (Ford and Johnson), or had a shoo-in election following an already popular president (Bush1), Nixon was the only former vice-president that was elected "on his own" (so to speak) and in that case it was actually eerily similar to this upcoming election: the DNC torn apart by anti-war idiots, leaving them with a moron for a candidate.

[ace] Although I like Thompson, it should be noted he only served one full term in the Senate, and wasn't considered particularly influential, innovative, or even hard-working. His "executive experience," such as it is, came long, long ago as a corruption-bustin' prosecutor. Good experience, to be sure, but he hasn't managed anything lately except a senatorial staff and the small corporation that forms around a working actor.

And Vox Day doesn't think Fred has the will:

But the silliest idea is the notion that a man who can't even decide if he wants to run for president or not can defeat a woman who is perfectly willing to devour alive every puppy and kitten who happens to find itself in between her and the Cherry Blossom Throne.

But will he run?
These negatives aside, Fred Thompson still stands head and shoulders above the current crop of candidates on both sides of the aisle. He certainly seems like the best man for the job. How can we help him decide to run?

Check out the following sites:
Fred `08
Draft Fred Thompson
An online petition


Finally, Frank J. has some tips on improving the chances of a Fred Thompson candidacy

* Eat Breakfast: Fred Thompson knows that breakfast is the the most important meal of the day. If you don't care enough about yourself to eat breakfast, why should Fred Thompson care about you? Fred Thompson will not be the president of just any country.
* Control Your Children: Make sure your children are well behaved. Fred Thompson is not going to run a country full of screaming kids running around.
* Clean Your Guns: Guns are an important right, and if you don't care enough about that right to maintain your guns, then Fred Thompson is going to wonder whether you deserve his leadership.

Other Fred Thompson links
Bud Simmons makes The Case for Fred Thompson