Growing Controversy over Tennessee Executive Mansion Renovations

Questionable politics is nothing new in the state of Tennessee in regards to the Governors office. Presidential candidate Fred Thompson was a part of bringing down the corrupt Blanton administration in the late 70's and early 80's for selling pardons, liquor licenses, and other favors from the governor's office. Former Governor Don Sundquist remains shrouded in suspicion of corruption during his administration for "no-bid" contractual awards for state work.

And now we have current Governor Phil Bredesen, a New Jersey native who grew up in New York. The Governor's tax positions have had him in hot water with voters during his second ("lame duck") term as governor, and now a situation that has been developing since his election and taking office during his first term is becoming a sore spot for the sitting Governor of Tennessee.

Group assails spending on governor's mansion

By KRISTIN M. HALL
Associated Press

A taxpayer group funded by a neighbor of the governor's mansion is criticizing the spending for construction and renovation to the executive residence in upscale Oak Hill.

Tennesseans for Accountability in Government, created by a donation from a Nashville auto dealer, called on the state Tuesday to provide cost details on renovations and the addition of an underground banquet hall at the mansion.

Susan Kaestner, vice president of the group, said the facility was an irresponsible waste of taxpayer money and the governor could use existing venues in Nashville for meetings. She said the group was created by a donation from Lee Beaman, a neighbor, but this wasn't a neighborhood group focused solely on the local impact to the community.

"The renovations have gone way past reasonable," Kaestner said, adding that the state hasn't been forthcoming with plans and costs.

When Gov. Phil Bredesen took office in 2003, he agreed not to move in the home so it could be renovated. First lady Andrea Conte has said the new underground facility is needed so the mansion — which was a private residence before it became an official home for Tennessee's governors in 1949 — will have sufficient and suitable space for meetings and entertainment.

It's the underground facility that has raised such an uproar. While residents of the Oak Hill community are concerned about traffic involved with the renovations and events held at the mansion with the addition of the "party bunker," as some pundits have labeled the underground facility, other taxpayers around the state are concerned with the price tag that comes along with it, and from where the funding for the project will come.

Meeting doesn't ease concerns over hall at governor's mansion
State architect gets earful from nearby residents

By SHEILA WISSNER
Staff Writer

Angry neighbors lashed out at state architect Mike Fitts Thursday night during a public hearing about a proposed underground meeting hall at the governor's mansion.

The Oak Hill Planning Commission called the meeting to solicit comments for Fitts to consider as the state moves forward with plans to blast though rock under the mansion lawn to create a 13,000 square-foot, sky-lighted banquet hall.

The city of Oak Hill has no authority to veto the project on Curtiswood Lane, but state officials have said they want to work with the city and residents.

Mansion neighbors said Thursday they remain concerned about the disruption the new "Conservation Hall" will have on their neighborhood.

"The renovation of the mansion was a good thing, it was needed, but I don't see a need for this," said Martha Thompson Elder, who attended Thursday's meeting on behalf of her elderly mother who lives near the mansion.

"Curtiswood Lane is a narrow street, and what will they do with all that additional traffic? It just doesn't need to be in a residential neighborhood.

"Why are we building something that is not needed and putting the burden on taxpayers."

In the past, large parties have been held in tents set up on the lawn. The underground hall will cut down on the tents.

Fitts told The Tennessean previously that tents still might be required for events too large for the hall. It is designed to accommodate 160 guests for a sit-down dinner or up to 500 guests and staff for other events.

Oakhill resident Tom Lawless worries about the effect the additional traffic will have on the community, and believes a formal traffic study should be conducted and a disaster plan considered.

Bill Hobbs of the Tennessee Republican Party has put together a comprehensive time-line for the events surrounding the proposed renovations and addition to the executive mansion:

DOCUMENTS INDICATE BREDESEN NOT ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL ABOUT MANSION BALLROOM PROJECT FUNDING

NASHVILLE - The Tennessee Republican Party calls on Gov. Phil Bredesen and his wife to “put the brakes on the ballroom” in light of documents uncovered that indicate the Bredesens have been playing a shell game to mislead the public about the true cost of – and who is really paying for - the massive underground ballroom and entertainment complex they intend to build on the grounds of the Governor’s Mansion.

The documents from the State Building Commission – which the TRP is making available online for taxpayers, media and legislators to view – show a timeline of rapidly ballooning costs as the original project of needed renovations of the state’s executive residence metastasized to include the ballroom facility.

The documents also show a shell game designed to mislead the public as to the source of funding for the ballroom, in total disregard for taxpayers who are just now learning that they’re paying millions for a project they knew nothing about as it was concocted in secret.

“Gov. and Mrs. Bredesen have claimed that the ballroom is being funded with private donations rather than tax dollars, but that’s not really true,” said Bill Hobbs, communications director for the TRP. “The Bredesens shifted nearly $3 million in private donations to the ballroom project that had been given for the renovation of the mansion itself – and then replaced that mansion renovation money with tax dollars.

(A 20-page PDF file of the documents can be found online at the Tennessee Republican Party website,
http://www.tngop.org/ballroom_SBC_documents.pdf .)

The State Building Commission documents show that the original project for renovation of the
governor’s mansion, described as a “maintenance” project and identified as SBC Project No. 460/028-01-2002, was first discussed by the SBC on October 10, 2002, three months before Gov. Bredesen took office. It had an estimated cost of $350,000.

The project – and its cost to taxpayers – soon grew like kudzu.

Kudzu, for those of you who are not familiar with the plant, kudzu is a plant native to Japan and Asia that was introduced to the United States in the 1800's, and when it was introduced to the Southeast it was determined that the climate made the plant grow uncontrollably. If you drive through the rural Southeast today, you're likely to see acres upon acres of the vine where it has overtaken the native vegetation.

The questions many are asking as the price tag for renovations balloons to nearly $20 million are why is the price tag continuing to sky rocket, who is going to be awarded the contract for doing the renovations, will there be "payback" involved in the price (a ballooned price tag to pay back political favors done for the Governor), and could the money not be better spent in building a new executive mansion rather than investing millions of dollars in a property that is not currently appraised at even $1 million? Many are also questioning why other State owned banquet facilities are not sufficient for hosting State sponsored events.

It should be noted that Governor Bredesen and Tennessee First Lady Andre Conte have not resided in the Oak Hills Governors Mansion during his two terms as Governor, but have maintained residence in their Forest Hills home.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man



.

Now THIS is the Fred Thompson we know in Tennessee

Debate by show of hands, anyone?

Sounds highly professional for a debate forum, doesn't it?

That's exactly how a question was posed to the Republican candidates participating in the Iowa debates the other night. Fred Thompson stepped up to the plate right away and refused to bow down to such tomfoolery in what SHOULD be a serious forum.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin and to Jay at Stop the ACLU for this one.



(For our email subscribers, the video can be seen here.)

THIS is the Fred Thompson we elected to the Senate in Tennessee. THIS is Fred Thompson's refusal to play politics as usual in a game that we're all quickly becoming sick of.

THIS is why THIS Tennessean is still solidly behind Fred.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Fred Doesn't Have a Hunting License, and Neither do I

I stopped watching CNN after they showed one of our soldiers being taken out by an enemy sniper. Through the years, they have done little more than piss me off anyway, so it was no big loss for my news hunting to do without the Caliphate News Network.

Now they're trying to call into question Fred Thompson's NRA and gun support because he doesn't have a current hunting license. Well big deal, I don't either, and haven't for several years. It's not that I don't like hunting, don't advocate it, and don't wish that I had the TIME for it, I simply DON'T have the time with my work schedule or I would be out there as much as I could doing the hunting and fishing I love to do and look forward to doing one of these days when I retire.

Thompson does not have hunting license

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — Fred Thompson has made a point of visiting gun shops and gun shows while hitting the campaign trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina, usually with camera crews in tow.

But Thompson said Wednesday he does not have a hunting license, nor has be been hunting recently.

"It's been too long, it's been too long," Thompson told CNN Wednesday.

Asked if he has a hunting license, Thompson said he currently does not.

"At the present time I do not, but I have been hunting plenty of times. I usually hunt birds and used to have my own skeet shoot, and I got a chance to shoot and practice a lot back then."

Thompson, an ardent defender of Second Amendment rights, was appearing in Columbia to pick up the endorsement of South Carolina Citizens for Life.

(...)

Thompson said Wednesday he wished he had more time to go hunting.

"It seems like other things seem to be getting in its way," he said.

I can certainly relate to that sentiment, all too well.

It's like this. The Second Amendment is about the right to bear arms, NOT the right to hunt. It's a stretch on the part of CNN to try to make this into something that it isn't, and, as usual, highly irresponsible of them to make this attempt.

One more instance of CNN trying to twist things. Seems to me they're afraid of Fred Thompson...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Weighing in on Gitmo: Symbolism or Substance?

(Note: Special thanks to Jay at Stop the ACLU for emailing this information to WUA)

It disgusts me when I hear Republicans take symbolic stands over the substantive. Feel-goodism might work with the Democrats, it might win Democratic votes, but Republicans, or at least the Republicans I know and associate with, are turned off by it.

Most Americans were unaware, really, that the United States owns a little chunk of the Island of Cuba, known as Guantanamo Bay, until shortly after 9/11, when we started detaining terrorist suspects there. The left went into orbit over the fact that this facility is NOT in the Continental U.S. and they don't have access to it. They would prefer to have these people, these terrorist suspects and known terrorists, ON OUR SHORES so that they can make sure that they are given "due process" according to the mandates of the United States Constitution.

My question has been, and remains, since when does someone, who is not a citizen of this country and is suspected of committing crimes against our citizens, have the benefits of the rights of our citizenry?

As of right now, I know the positions of two of the Republican candidates for President in regards to Gitmo; that of Fred Thompson, and that of Mike Huckabee.

Mike Huckabee's position, frankly, I find appalling.

I’ve been to Guantanamo, I was there, I guess it’s been about a year and a half ago. I think the problem with Guantanamo is not in that its facilities are inadequate. It’s the symbol that it represents. It’s clearly become a symbol to the rest of the world as a place that has become problematic for us as a nation. I was quite frankly impressed with the quality of the facilities and even the attention to care that was given to the detainees, but that aside, it doesn’t alter that Guantanamo to the rest of the world is a symbol that is not in our best interests to continue pursuing.

So Mike Huckabee is worried about Gitmo for "symbolic" reasons. Symbolism. Symbolism over substance. This is leadership?

Fred Thompson on Gitmo:

I'm telling you, as President, if the lives of a bunch of American citizens were at stake and I thought that there was a good chance that an individual had information and could impart information that would help save those lives, I'm just saying, that I would do whatever is necessary to get that information from that person. I would authorize that. Whatever is necessary to save a number of American lives.

"I would do whatever is necessary..." In my mind, THAT is the thinking of a leader. THAT is a substantive position.

We've just experienced a year of politicians putting symbolism over substance. How many "non-binding resolutions" can Congress pass during a term? I suppose we'll have to see how many more are passed before this Congress comes up for reelection again next year before we can answer that.

We've seen the benefits of having a do-nothing Legislative branch this year. Our military is struggling to decide what non-mission essential programs to cut because of the lack of funding thanks to our do-nothing Congress.

Can our nation afford a do-nothing President who leads by symbolism instead of taking a stand and actually leading? I don't think so. And I don't think that the majority of Americans think so, either.

Symbolism or Substance, America.

The choice is up to us.

God have mercy on us if we choose symbolism.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Fred 08

It's no secret I've thrown my hat into the Thompson ring. It isn't just because we both hail from the Volunteer State, it's because I honestly believe Thompson is the right man for the job of President of the United States.

The following is the latest from the Thompson campaign (hat tip to Stop the ACLU for this):



Strength, Conviction, Honesty.

Three words that definitely sum up Fred Thompson in my mind.

Primary season is looming ever closer. We're going to have to make a choice of what kind of leadership we want in our country for the next four years, a period of time that I and others see as a crossroads and a turning point in our nations future.

Whomever you vote for, vote for them for the right reasons, not for the normal rhetoric. This ad is a great example of Fred Thompson "down home."

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Censorship Anyone? Introducing the Thought Police

I don't really think that it's healthy to get as mad as I do about things. Injustice, hypocrisy, blatant lies and personal attacks on those exercising their constitutional liberties really, really get my dander up.

We've heard much ado about the Fairness Doctrine over the past year or so. Fred Thompson speaks out against this intrusive governmental policy being implemented again:

High Praise in The American Thinker
Fairness Doctrine Makes No Sense in Today’s World
Posted on October 8th, 2007
By Fred in Individual Liberty, Commentaries

[NOTE: The American Spectator reports this chilling news:

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

“Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” says a House leadership source. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.”

This news about Democrats trampling on the First Amendment for political purposes ties into Fred’s latest commentary. –Sean]

Whether it’s the situation in Iraq, talking about the economy, or the culture, conservatives and like-minded people are putting up a fight on TV, radio and alternative forms of media, and challenging what Democrats and some in the mainstream media would like to set as conventional wisdom. So – big surprise – Democrats are crying foul and are literally trying to change the rules. The latest example of this is Democrat attempts to pull the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.

The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area — so equal time rules were put in place.

As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates’ airtime.

Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable, satellite, and local access TV channels than anybody can keep track of — the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, podcasts, and satellite radio, and it’s absurd.

(...)

Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can’t compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts — because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.

(...)

Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not surprised, either. The left want nothing more than to shut down and shut up conservative commentators, conservative radio, and conservative blogging.

As seen on WUA earlier today how that CNN doesn't consider reporting good news from Iraq as being newsworthy, and how many people distrust the media. That's really great, guys, and it goes to show EXACTLY why we need the conservative outlets.

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? This isn't a Fairness Doctrine, it's the inception of the Thought Police.

Government belongs to the PEOPLE, the people do NOT belong to the government.

Make America safe again, people. Fire the liberals in political office next election season. The LAST thing they want is to protect your individual rights afforded to you by the Constitution.

Again, I have to call this...Inverted...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

Talk about not getting it...

The left have an agenda, and they have a new target. One could say a TALL target. And what they are doing is EXACTLY the reason that I wrote Underestimating Southern Demeanor last month.

It is this mindset that seems to have shrouded Fred Thompson during the first stages of what is likely to be his bid for the White House. Critics, especially Northern critics, have labeled him as "slow, unfocused, and gloomy." Is it gloomy to present the reality of things to the American people rather than doing the standard dance of rhetoric? I think not, and in Jonathan Martin's Fred: Sober and Serious, I find that I'm not alone in thinking so.

The latest polls show Fred slipping ahead of the pack of the Republican front runners. That little factoid seems to complete be out of the grasp of comprehension of Steve Benen, who has this to say at TalkingPointsMemo.

By any reasonable measure, Fred Thompson, the actor-lobbyist-presidential candidate, is off to a rough start. Particularly on policy matters, Thompson has been confused and uninformed about everything from Social Security policy to drilling the Everglades for oil to the 2005 Schiavo controversy.

But this has to be my favorite.

NBC's "First Read' reports that when Thompson was asked Thursday about Louisiana's "Jena Six" protest of Old South racism on his way into a San Antonio fundraiser, he replied: "I don't know anything about it."

Bush fielded a question about it at his news conference the same day, saying the events in Louisiana had "saddened" him. Thompson's staff said he knew all about the issue but was unfamiliar with the expression "Jena Six."

So what? I knew about the situation and the incident as well, but until this week I, too, was unfamiliar with the term "Jena Six." And I keep up with the news all day while I'm working.

With SO MUCH going on on the international level, especially with that little tin god from Iran coming onto OUR SOIL, THIS is what Benen picks as showing Thompson as being unaware? AND THEN has the audacity to put up another blog on his OWN site about NITPICKING?

Well.

Put me in that same boat, amigo, and hand me the damned oars. I certainly don't mind rowing the "I'm not fully up to date with all the bullshit catchphrases coined by the media" boat. How asinine.

They're grasping if they're going after him for things like this, and for taking stances on issues that are more common SENSE rather than being politically correct. Politically correct doesn't have much weight where we come from down here in Tennessee. Common sense goes a long way.

Maybe Mr. Benen needs to come down here for a while. We might even convince him to try some grits and join us in the long standing debate: with gravy or sweetened?

That's my kind of debate. I'm in favor of both.

OH YEAH, and while I'm thinking about it, I don't know anyone who isn't of the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton mindset (you know, stirring shit up and creating situations out of things where they should stay the hell away) who thinks that criminals being prosecuted for committing a crime is "Old South Racism."

There just may be a rubber chicken award in that whole situation for this week, methinks.

Just a few thoughts regarding people blow off when they don't know what they're talking about from:

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Fred Thompson: the Water is Fine!

You've heard the news by now. You've read it in the papers, online, in spree's posting earlier today. Or you've been under a rock.

Fred Thompson is officially in the race for the office of President of the United States of America.

Talk radio has been abuzz with discussions about his entry into the Republican race Why did he wait so long? Will it affect his race that he waited so long? Why did he not come into the race sooner?

I hate to toot my own horn, I really do, but I'm going to take credit for being one of the FIRST to mention Fred Thompson as a possible Presidential candidate, and I did so on this site WAY BACK on 9JAN07 in the comments section of spree's posting Deja vu, where I said this:

Ahem...

Has anyone approached Fred Thompson?

I know I tend to be partial to Tennesseans because I am one (we don't talk about Al Gore though, other than with dismay and amazement...) but I have heard his name mentioned a couple of times recently on talk radio.

Might be worth looking into.

It wasn't just because of talk radio that I mentioned Fred Thompson. Everything I've seen of the man, I'm impressed with his integrity, his forthrightness, and his calm, confident demeanor. To criticize Thompson for waiting until September to announce his candidacy is to criticize our entire process up until this year. Traditionally, candidates haven't formally announced until after Labor Day. Fred Thompson is merely staying in step with tradition in doing so.

By now you've had time to read the commentaries, to watch the youtube clips, and to see Thompson's own announcement clip on his site. Listen to Leno's audience. That was no canned applause, that was the audience. They were excited. Look at Thompson himself. Does he seem anxious? Does he seem tense? Quite the opposite. The man is the picture of calm and cool. Listen to what he says. Does he deride the other Republican candidates? He doesn't. In my own mind, he's already taking the stance that he's the man. That his announcement was more widely watched than the Republican debates FEATURING the other candidates speaks volumes in and of itself; candidates who, when asked ABOUT Thompson, had snide comments to make about him, by and large.

As I said, I first forwarded my opinion about Fred Thompson entering the race back in January. In the months that have passed, nothing has changed my mind that Fred Thompson should be the Republican candidate for President in the 2008 election. If anything, I'm more convinced than ever, having watched the other candidates through the passing months from then to now.

I suppose it goes without saying, my personal support goes to Fred Thompson.

Will it be a difficult campaign? What Presidential campaign isn't? Thompson has a few things in his favor that the others don't have. He's the fresh face in the crowd, the new voice, and since he hasn't been doing the active "hot" campaigning that the others have been doing this year, he's coming into the race fresh. The other candidates have had time to make their pleas, begin repeating themselves, in some cases redirecting their "spin" on things (McCain and his stand on illegal immigration, just as a case in point).

I DO see a man who WILL NOT apologize for our war, who will not apologize for America, backing down from anything he says. To my knowledge, he never has, in the political realm.

The primaries are drawing near.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's going to be an interesting ride from here on out...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Underestimating Southern Demeanor

John Wayne wasn't a Southerner, but he had a firm grasp on the mindset of BEING from the south in some cases. "Talk low, talk slow, and don't talk too much."

In the generations following the Civil War (I'll refrain from calling it the War of Northern Aggression for this piece, but make no mistake about my feelings on the matter as both a Southerner AND a historian) the South has endured the hateful punishment of the Reconstruction era, repressive industrial practices that deliberately left the South agrarian during the turning of the last century up until the middle of the century, depictions of Southerners as uneducated, unsophisticated, and unintelligent by Hollywood (The Beverly Hillbillies and the more recent modern version of The Dukes of Hazard come to mind).

From Wikipedia (I know it's generally not considered a refereed source, but for general information, sometimes it's a great place to look for things):

The Culture of the Southern United States or Southern Culture is a subculture of the United States that has resulted from the blending of a heavy amount of rural Scot-Irish culture, the culture of African slaves, Native American culture, and to a lesser degree that of French and Spanish colonists. Southerners have a unique shared history, which includes remembrance of difficult times such as the institution of slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Great Depression, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement, and more recent events or tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.

The South also hosts a vibrant African American subculture, a sense of rural isolation, and a strong regional identity. It has also developed its own customs, literature, musical styles (such as country music, bluegrass, southern gospel, rock and roll, blues and jazz), and cuisine. This unique cultural and historical blend has caused many scholars such as sociologist John Shelton Reed to speculate that Southerners are a separate ethnic group.

The largest group of Southerners are primarily the descendants of the Celtic immigrants who moved to the South in the 17th and 18th centuries. According to an 1860 census, "three-quarters of white Southerners had surnames that were Scottish, Irish or Welsh in origin." 250,000 settled in the USA between 1717 and 1770 alone. They were often called "crackers" [2] by English neighbors. As one wrote, "I should explain… what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascals on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode." Most had previously lived in Scotland, usually in the Lowlands and Scottish Border Country. The "Celtic Thesis" of Forrest McDonald and Grady McWhiney holds that they were basically Celtic (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all Celtic groups (Scots Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. Author James Webb uses this thesis in his book Born Fighting to suggest that the character traits of the Scots-Irish, loyalty to kin, mistrust of governmental authority, and military readiness, "helped shape the American identity," and indeed, these features commonly seen in the South have long been woven into fabric of American society and policy.

The other primary population group in the South is made up of the African-American descendants of the slaves brought into the South. African-Americans comprise the United States' second-largest racial minority, accounting for 12.1 percent of the total population according to the 2000 census. Despite Jim Crow era outflow to the North (see Great Migration (African American)) the majority of the black population remains concentrated in the southern states, and have transmitted their foods, music (see "negro spirituals"), art, and charismatic brand of Christianity to white Southerners, and the rest of the nation.

There has been much criticism over the years by both Southerners and Northerners alike of the negative stereotypes of southerners (especially those of the Appalachian regions) depicted in the media and in the general attitudes of some people from other regions. Critics argue that in this age of "political correctness" and sensitivity (especially taught in American schools since the 1990's) that the people of the southern United States are today one of the few groups that can be openly and "safely" ridiculed and discriminated against[citation needed]. This is primarily due, critics point out, to other Americans' lack of knowledge of the region and because of hostile feelings and prejudices in response to the south's history of poor education (in some areas) and racial problems. Offensive terms such as "redneck" and "hillbilly" are often used to pervasively blanket the entire region.

It is this mindset that seems to have shrouded Fred Thompson during the first stages of what is likely to be his bid for the White House. Critics, especially Northern critics, have labeled him as "slow, unfocused, and gloomy." Is it gloomy to present the reality of things to the American people rather than doing the standard dance of rhetoric? I think not, and in Jonathan Martin's Fred: Sober and Serious, I find that I'm not alone in thinking so.

Fred: Sober and Serious

INDIANAPOLIS — Fred Thompson thinks the country faces a tough road ahead and he's not glossing over the problems we face. In fact, he's anxious to outline the daunting litany and appears to be basing his forthcoming campaign on the assumption that his party shares the same outlook.

In a 25-minute after-dinner speech to attendees of the Midwestern Republican Leadership Conference here, Thompson offered a stark assessment of what he described as America's perilous condition.

"I simply believe that on the present course that we're going to be a weaker, less prosperous, more divided nation than what we have been," Thompson told the crowd in a deep baritone that rarely strayed from an even tone. "I do not say that lightly, but I think it's the truth. And I think the American people are ready for the truth."

There are three major challenges, Thompson said, and none are being given appropriate attention or sufficient commitment. National security ("our country's in danger; it's going to be that way for a long time to come"), the economy ("we are doing steady damage to our economy, that if we don't do things better it's going to result in economic disaster for future generations") and the polarization, cynicism and incompetence gripping the capital ("in order to have leadership you got to have somebody who's going to follow; our people follow, but they don't have any confidence in what's being said or who's saying it").

And Thompson's tonic for these thorny matters?

Well, befitting his still not yet being a formal candidate he didn't have specific solutions. Instead he returned to what he calls "first principles."

"I don't think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are outmoded documents," Thompson declared, finally giving the crowd something to clap about after the gloomy bill of particulars was laid out. Federalism or devolving power to the states would help, he said. Also, the rule of law, the market economy, respect for private property, free trade and competition came in for praise — hardly dangerous ground among conservative activists.

Perhaps recognizing that all his rhetoric was depressing a crowd that given him a loud and extended welcome, Thompson said it was very much possible for things to turn around. "We know how to do that, we've done it so many times before," he reminded.

We do know how, and yes, we have done it before.

In my mind, Fred Thompson's greatest opponent will not be Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. The greatest challenge will be in fighting Southern stereotyping. Fortunately, there seem to be enough educated people stepping up to the plate from other sections of the country to help fight this.

And I think we can surpass it, and Fred Thompson can win the Presidency.

Just the thoughts of a modern Southerner (and fellow Tennessean) who also happens to be...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Grasping at straws and making things up...

It's an amazing thing how fear can send people into terrorized frenzies. Fear of an individual, especially a powerful, strong-willed, charismatic individual, can create a stirring of rumor, innuendo, and fabrications, all in an attempt to discredit an opponent.

Yes, boys and girls, we're talking about "mudslinging." And with Fred Thompson going SO HIGH in the polls, the leftinistras are starting to add water to anything they THINK might be the smallest patch of dirt that they can find.

Part of the trick is to make you BELIEVE that a candidate is something that they aren't. Notice how the Clintonistas are trying to portray Hillary as a motherly, friendly, charming person? A stretch, I know, to make ANYONE think that she has a personality, but that's the attempt. With Fred Thompson, the attempts go a little more devious.

First let's address the attempts to make Thompson an abortion supporter, something KEY to conservative voters. If you listen to the spin doctors, Thompson lobbied for abortion groups and supported abortion issues during his time in the Senate.

Not so.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters for this one.

July 6, 2007
The Pending Mudslinging (Update: Show Me The Money!)
It's easy to tell when a candidate has the potential to do well in a campaign -- the opposition starts throwing mud as early as possible. This appears to be doubly true with Fred Thompson, as the Los Angeles Times will shortly publish a new story about a purported client of Fred's when he worked as a lawyer and lobbyist. The American Spectator steals the Times' thunder:

The Washington Prowler column has learned that the Los Angeles Times intends to publish a story that would attempt to link former Sen. Fred Thompson to a Washington-based, pro-abortion organization. Thompson, through a spokesman, is said to go on the record in the story as having no recollection of ever doing work for the organization in question during a period in 1991 when the first Bush administration was in power.

During that time, Thompson, was "of counsel" at the Arent Fox law firm in Washington, D.C. (meaning he was not a partner, but was provided an office for his use, in part because Thompson's own practice was based in Nashville, TN), and was used by the firm's partners as a "draw" for clients and potential clients, according to a source at the firm familiar with the arrangements with Thompson and others with the "of counsel" designation. ...

In the story that the L.A. Times will report out within the next 24 to 48 hours, the paper will claim that Thompson was "hired" by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association, whose director, Judith DeSarno, was acquainted with a then-partner at Arent Fox, former Congressman Michael Barnes. In fact, DeSarno worked as a senior aide to Barnes during his time in Congress. According to Arent Fox insiders, Barnes, who now directs the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and DeSarno are both well-known left-wing activists. Most recently, both were active against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Thompson was an adviser to Roberts, and served as his Senate "sherpa" during the confirmation process.

If the Times and its sources want to launch attacks on Thompson, they'll have to do better than this. Lawyers represent clients, and sometimes they do so for ideological support -- but most of them do it to earn a living. Even if Fred had done work for NFPRR, his political position on abortion has been rather clear. According to Project Vote Smart, Fred got solid zeroes from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, while the National Right to Life Committee have Fred a 77% rating.

That's a man who supports abortion whole-heartedly? Check out his record on this and other things here.

The next big thing that the leftinistras are going after Fred for is, now hold your hats, folks, this is going to make you laugh, he has a wife who is younger than he is.

Will Her Face Determine His Fortune

By SUSAN SAULNY
Published: July 8, 2007

AS the election of 2008 approaches with its cast of contenders who bring unprecedented diversity to the quest for the White House, the voting public has been called on to ponder several questions: Is America ready for a woman to be president? What about a black man? A Mormon?

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?

Mr. Thompson, who needs the support of early primary voters, is expected to formally announce his candidacy any day now. Meanwhile, much of the brouhaha around Mrs. Thompson, 40, is being stirred by photos of her in form-fitting gowns circulating on the Internet.

“You have a situation where a candidate happens to have an attractive wife, therefore it’s open season for smutty thoughts and lowbrow humor, and no concern for the fact that this is a wife and mother, a professional woman?” said Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official who is a consultant and the chief media adviser to the Thompson campaign. “One picture on the Internet and all of a sudden she’s reduced to being a bimbo?”

WHOAH! Say WHAT? Fred Thompson married a younger woman? So what? My grandfather on my father's side of the family was twenty something years older than my grandmother. It's a common thing. Hollywood CONSTANTLY puts older leading men in roles opposite younger leading women. How many women out there are NUTS over Harrison Ford. How many for Mel Gibson, DESPITE his recent brush with infamy? Check out this list for examples. In MY mind, it says a LOT about the man's stamina and outlook on life that he IS married to a woman nearly a quarter century his junior. OUTSTANDING. And if they are as happy as they come across as being, outstanding, indeed, to both of them.

Personally, and no offense to Laura Bush, but after having Hillary Clinton in the White House, and now THRUST in our faces again as a Presidential candidate HERSELF, would it be such a BAD thing to have an attractive younger First Lady? I don't THINK so. Especially not when she HAS the political savvy to have worked as a Senate aide AND as spokeswoman for the RNC.

Could it be that Hillary feels outclassed? GASP! I hope so.

Come on, leftinistras. Trying to make a bad thing out of something GOOD in a man's life?

Disgusting and appalling.

Shame on you.

And besides, didn't we already HAVE a President with a trophy wife when Jack Kennedy was in office (yes, I went there, I SO went there, I held back as long as I could but had to come back and add this question in. I WENT THERE). Makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Waiting...

The "Will he or won't he?" question may soon be answered concerning Fred Thompson entering the race as a Presidential candidate. There are many, many factors that come into play when determining when to enter a campaign, a great many of them concern laws governing campaign finances. As the primaries approach, however, it becomes a more crucial thing to enter at exactly the right moment and officially announce as a candidate.

WSMV-TV: Thompson Announcement Set For Nashville
Headquarters To Be Based At Fall School building
Reported By Dennis Ferrier

POSTED: 4:29 pm CDT June 22, 2007
UPDATED: 7:15 pm CDT June 22, 2007

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Channel 4 News Nationwide Exclusive


Fred Thompson is set to announce that Nashville will be the home of his national campaign headquarters, WSMV is reporting.

A source close to the campaign planning tells WSMV that that Thompson planned to announce his candidacy on the steps of the historic Fall School Building Tuesday, but Thompson campaign officials deny that Tuesday's announcement is an official run for the White House.

The source tells WSMV report says that the Thompson campaign has obtained the lease for that building to turn it into a national campaign office.

"Everything's in place for tuesday," the source told WSMV. "There are three major events built around his announcement." But Bob Davis, the Tennessee Republican Party Chairman, and Thompson's former Chief of Staff says "There will not be an annoucement Tuesday."

The Fall School is Nashville's oldest still-standing school building. It currently houses office space, including a local office for U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander.

I personally have made my own position on this very clear. If Fred Thompson enters the race, that's my candidate, that's who I'm backing.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.