Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Reflecting upon the 2008 US presidential race, can you think of a single American election in which the philosophical difference between the two candidates was as insubstantial as it was between McCain and Obama?

Perfectly encapsulated:

(*)

Obama: "I want change."

McCain: "Well, I want change too."

Obama: "But I want it for the sake of this great nation."

McCain: "Yeah, you have to put your country first."

Obama: "And that means taking your money."

McCain: "Yes, we're going to take your money. But I mean that in an increasingly conservative way as we get closer to the election."

Obama: "I still mean it in the socialist way but I'm going to get more and more vague on the details until I'm elected, mmmkay?"

Not A Joke: Obama Spent $11 PER PERSON On His Campaign

... Compared to McCain's spending of $1.49 per person.

4-Block World paints the picture for us:



There has never been a campaign in U.S. history that has spent even close to this kind of money. I guess the night was historic in more ways than one, am I right Mr. Obama?

Now, I should caution, the number $700 million may be a bit inflated. I found the number $640 million in a bunch of articles but the contrast is startling either way.

H/t Fairly Conservative

Well, Doncha Know, McCain Aides Are Just Gunnin' For The Barracuda, By Gosh

Since the old man's November 4th election loss, McCain staffers have started speaking out against Sarah Palin, accusing her of confusion over Africa's status as a continent and leaking stories painting her as a "hillbilly". I know, I'm shocked too. It isn't as if they've been subtly suggesting that if McCain lost it would be her fault for the last two weeks.

I'm not of the opinion that Palin is responsible for McCain's electoral defeat. He ran a weak campaign and he is a weak political character (to head off McCain supporters at the pass, that is to say a weak political character - I acknowledge the danger he has faced to defend his country and the quality of character that demonstrates).

Once McCain was nominated to lead the GOP, I essentially turned off the ideological side of my brain. My views were not well represented by either candidate for the American presidency. From a strategic standpoint, however, I was excited by the Palin choice. It was surprising - and who doesn't enjoy a plot twist? - and, more importantly, it seemed consistent with the spirit of the election period: change, change, change.

Now that I've turned on the ideological side of my brain again, however, I'm finding it extremely difficult to muster up an ounce of support for the so-called Barracuda. She represents the now-dominant side of the Republican Party that I evaluate to be the least conducive to pursuing policies with an eye towards liberty. She is socially conservative across the board, she could certainly benefit from purchasing "Economics For Dummies" from her local Indigo, and she fits very comfortably within the evangelical tradition of Republicanism.

If these were the reasons the McCain aides were gunning for Palin in the wake of the Republican election loss, I wouldn't have much problem with it. Unfortunately for them, it just looks bratty. The Republicans lost the election because many conservatives aren't too thrilled about a "maverick" running their divided and enfeebled party. Can you blame them?

Message To The GOP: No More McCain, No More Huck, A Lot More Reagan Please

John McCain is a war hero. Unfortunately, that about exhausts the characteristics that I can identify in his personality which made him a "great" pick for the party's leadership. If we're being honest, he was a profoundly mediocre candidate. He made a strategically interesting veep choice (and, for the record, I highly doubt a different choice would have produced a significantly different result) but his campaign was otherwise strategically ineffective. He focused on branding himself as The Maverick rather than exploiting the ample opportunity that the economic crisis presented him with from a policy standpoint. Most importantly, he failed to court the Americans that can be counted on to win you elections: the capitalists.

The Reagan Coalition is not dead; it's just dormant. There have been some important changes to the demographics - particularly the electoral play that social conservatism on the issues of abortion and gay marriage get - but not very many. A successful Republican Party will court the voters that have been active since Barry Goldwater's glorious (albeit ill-fated) campaign in 1964. The consequences of failing to do so are clear in last night's results.

I'm skeptical, however, about the chances of the GOP succeeding in saving their party in the short term. The McCains of the party (and, according to an unfortunate interview I saw yesterday, the Pawlentys) would tack to the center on economics and foreign policy and take the pragmatist approach. On the other hand, the Huckabees of the party would drag them further along the path towards an entirely religion-dominated platform. Neither of these models reflect the Reagan Coalition as it survives today. If the Republican Party wants to rebuild itself, if it truly has an interest in winning elections again, then it will drop the evangelical 'tude, tone it back on the social issues, and remember that Republicans used to be Capitalists, and that most Americans still are.

Four years of President Obama ought to be enough to remind the United States of the consequences of allowing the culture of entitlement to have free reign. While the moochers suckle on the teat of an expanding government, entrepreneurs and businessmen and women will fail because Obama is so eager to "spread the wealth".

This election was a wake-up call for the Republicans. Free markets, free people. This is what America wants. Why not give it back to them?

The Audacity Of Hope

No, seriously.

I can't take any more of this "hope" everybody keeps rattling on about.

It is beyond my understanding how anybody could be looking at the 2008 US federal election with hopeful eyes. Please take my following statement for what's it's worth given the characters that US voters have had to choose from in the past: never has there been a less palatable set of alternatives for the American presidency then there is today.

The Rule of Reason did some leg-work to help remind us just who these candidates are.

Barack Obama

Do we vote for Barack Obama, whose anti-American, anti-military, anti-freedom, serve-your-country-until-you’re-flat-broke-and-living-in-penury-for-a-cause-higher-than-yourself solution to all problems, foreign and domestic, might mellow once he is in office and is handed on morning one the intelligence reports from the various security agencies on what our enemies (including Russia and China, not just the Islamists) are up to vis-à-vis tightening the noose around America’s neck? Or would he just grimace and think: We brought it upon ourselves.

[...]

Do we vote for Obama, whose election most assuredly would guarantee another attack on this country soon after his inauguration, just to test his professed “love” of America? Or would our enemies be ferally intelligent enough to realize that he would destroy it for them, stay their hand, and settle for ramping up their cultural jihad, knowing that Obama would applaud it in the name of multicultural diversity? It is not for nothing that the Muslim world approves of his candidacy and more or less has remained mum about his alleged apostasy.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia, of course, macho dictator that he is, would have Mr. Change that Matters for lunch, and use Senator Joe Biden as a serviette. Would Obama be a diplomatic match for the heavyweight thug of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, or Snake Eyes Ahmadinejad? It is indicative of the world’s hostility for America that every dictator, sheik and “social democrat” is hoping for an Obama presidency and the chance to stick it to this country even more, knowing that Obama would contritely claim that America deserved it, as a kind of reparations for what the U.S. has done to the world. Like save it twice at great cost in lives and treasure, and after that act as the world’s selfless policeman and “democracy” builder, also at great cost in lives and treasure.

John McCain

Do we vote for John McCain, who may or may not be better than George W. Bush in foreign policy and in adopting a semi-rational attitude toward America’s dedicated enemies, but who is “pro-American” in the same sense that Mussolini was “pro-Italian” and Hitler was “pro-German,” that is, in an un-American, nationalistic, service-to-your-country-in-a-higher-cause-than-yourself way, which implies the partial or wholesale regimentation of the American population to combat the bogeyman of the moment?

[...]

Do we vote for McCain, whose “patriotism” would compel Americans to “give back” what they were never given, and who may or may not give the rational among us half a fighting chance to spread the word of reason? Would the Ayn Rand Institute and other pro-freedom organizations be safely sidelined by his domestic policies? Would conservative talk-show hosts be any more secure against censorship or persecution than under an Obama administration? Both candidates are preeminently anti-conceptual mentalities, but this does not mean they would not be aware of the peril of freely expressed ideas or organized opposition, and search for some means to squelch, silence, punish or harass the recalcitrant.

Do we vote for McCain, whose election might stave off another attack on America, because our Islamic enemies (Ahmadinejad of Iran, the Saudis, et al.) just might possibly believe that he would bomb Iran’s nuclear power facilities, or give the Israelis the go-ahead to do it themselves (Israeli intelligence on Mideast matters being vastly more informed than the CIA’s or the NSA’s)? Would McCain’s election give the Islamists pause? Or would they strike before Cindy McCain had time to redecorate the Oval Office?

And, like with all things, The Simpsons did it first:



Please ignore the stupid commentary. Unless you're a big fan of Steve Adams. Exactly, so just ignore the commentary, mmmkay?

Obama '08: Change When It's Expedient

Strong ad. Hits the right points.



Obama is a lightweight, pure and simple. A few more good attack ads and the polls are going to start reflecting that.

H/t Ace

McCain vs. Obama: Either Way, Capitalism Loses

"[O]ur individual salvation depends on our collective salvation. [Don't] take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy."
-- Barack Obama, 2008

"I led . . . out of patriotism, not for profit."
-- John McCain, 2008

We've come an awfully long way since the 1980s, haven't we? Do you think back fondly of the days when the influence of Thatcherism was producing massive privatization in Britain while Reagan valiantly battled the steady encroachment of socialism in the United States? Even a casual Capitalist can't help but read about Britain's 2008 decision to nationalize the private bank Northern Rock and blink in bewilderment. What happened?

Well, for starters, even in the 1980s Capitalism was no more than an uncomfortable ally for conservatives. Although Reagan and Thatcher were for the most part genuinely committed to economic freedom, the vast majority of their supporters were very definitely not. In both Britain and America, the political right defended Capitalism with one hand as the only legitimate economic system for a free and democratic society while, with the other hand, condemning the profit motive as selfish. These conservatives demanded, as they continue to demand today, that we sacrifice our rational self-interest for the higher good of altruism. With friends like these, Capitalism didn't need any enemies.

And it doesn't seem to have any philosophical enemies left anyway. Have you noticed that the Democrats have abandoned all efforts towards a substantive criticism of free enterprise? Why would they bother engaging in a debate about ethics and economics when there are so few real Capitalists left to oppose them? Instead, pseudo-socialistic organizations like the Obama campaign interest themselves with the "social consequences" of Capitalism as they investigate the "fundamental human aspect" of their economic system, thus deftly side-stepping any awkward questions regarding the economic reality of their country. Even Hillary Clinton would have the good sense to blush at this obvious evasion of a real discussion of the issue.

The upcoming American election is as true an example of a Sophie's Choice as I've ever witnessed. Barack Obama turns up his nose at big business to the cheers of Democrats everywhere while repudiating Americans for playing into the "money culture" that has made them the wealthiest country in the world. John McCain sneers at Mitt Romney and big business for daring to pursue the profit motive while claiming that his own motives are pure since they aren't tarnished by self-interest.

And so the question of who will win in November becomes economically irrelevant. True, if Obama wins he will roll back the Bush tax cuts, install a universal health care scheme, and impose unsustainable environmental restrictions on big business the likes of which the US economy has never seen before. A victory for McCain, however, would amount to the same thing in the long run. The Republican nominee has been committed to the anthropogenic global warming movement for years now and his voting record should be enough to convince any businessperson of his lukewarm commitment to a free economy.

As a John McCain presidency would swiftly demonstrate, there is no surer way to undermine an idea than to argue for it poorly. As the leader of the so-called "Party of Capitalism," McCain would destroy Capitalism in America just as thoroughly as would his Democratic opponent.

It all adds up to a demoralizingly clear conclusion: McCain? Obama? Who cares? Either way, Capitalism loses.

Snoop Dogg Doesn't Dig The Messiah

When rappers attack:

Hip-hop star Snoop Dogg has launched a scathing attack on U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, accusing him of gleaning support from the Ku Klux Klan.

The rapper, real name Calvin Broadus Jr., insists the Democratic candidate has received funding from the KKK.

He tells the Guardian, "The KKK gave Obama money. They was (sic) one of his biggest supporters ... Why wouldn't they be? The media won't tell you that. They don't want you to know that. They just want you to know that this [bleep] befriended this other [bleep] who be (sic) threatening your values.

"But we all know all presidents lie to get into [bleep] office. That's they (sic) job."

But Snoop insists Obama will still emerge victorious in the upcoming presidential elections. He adds, "In America's eyes, that mutha[bleep]'s gonna be president 'cos (John) McCain can't [bleep] with him. Hillary (Clinton) can't [bleep] with him. He's winning over white people, white ladies."

That's about as enlightening as any political commentary gets nowadays. Let's get this Snoopy Dre fellow a show on CNN. I'd rather get my news from the dee-oh-double-gee than from that punk Anderson Cooper. Nobody's hair looks like that naturally. I'm not fooled, Anderson.

UPDATE: Sorry, forgot to add the link.

Hillary Channels Monty Python: "My Campaign? It's Not Dead. It's Just Resting. Pining For The Fjords"

So our gal's got some fight left in her:

Hillary mocks obama
Uploaded by dollarsandsense123

So much for gracefully withdrawing her nomination for the good of the party. A protracted and ugly final chapter of the Democratic nomination process would definitely play in McCain favour, allowing him time to get conservatives on side, name a veep, and start sniping at Obama before the latter has a chance to focus on the general campaign. McCain is no doubt hoping to swiftboat Obama before the campaign even begins. If the Republicans can manage to define the Messiah before he gets a chance to define himself, we'll have a John Kerry redux on our hands. McCain better start mending some of those fences soon or it'll be an opportunity squandered.

H/t Allah

Sorry, Fellas: Condi Has No Interest In McAmnesty's Veep Slot

Condoleezza Rice has probably been the biggest name bandied about in discussions of McCain's potential running mates. This isn't the first time she's indicated she has no presidential ambitions so I'm not too surprised.

Yahoo! News reports:

Condoleezza Rice's name on the Republican ticket is a dream to some, but not a reality she can see happening.

The secretary of State told reporters Friday she will not be a vice presidential candidate in the upcoming election.

"I have always said that the one thing that I have not seen myself doing is running for elected office in the United States," she said at a news conference to discuss her recent trip to Africa. "I didn't even run for high school president. It's sort of not in my genes."

Instead, Rice told reporters: "You can all come and visit me in California."

Rice has said she plans to return to Stanford University, where she served as provost and taught as a professor.

She said she is looking forward to making her choice for president as a voter after being involved in President Bush's 2000 campaign and having a strong interest in his 2004 re-election.

"I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing as secretary of State to see if we can use the last few months, as the president has put it, to sprint to the finish because there's a lot of work to do," Rice said.

I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts it ends up being Pawlenty. The man is a perfect running mate. His youth, record of social and fiscal conservatism, position in a Northern Blue State, and history of friendship and loyalty to McCain all put him in the best possible position for the job. I'm sure most of McCain's advisors are telling him the same thing.

Who Will McCain Choose As His Running Mate: The Charmer Or The Quarterback?

The debate surrounding McCain's likely choices for a running mate has been drawing a lot of speculation on the right in recent days. There have been a lot of interesting, and in some cases even exciting, names thrown out there as possibilities. Early on there was talk about Romney or Huckabee filling the slot but McCain really doesn't like Mitt and that acrimony, combined with their divergent policies, would be more than enough to make for an awkward campaign. On the other hand, Huck shares some of McCain's more centrist convictions but would do little to nothing to satisfy the socially and fiscally conservative base that simply cannot be left behind for this election to yield a Republican to the White House.

Although a lot of other names have been proposed for the slot, two in particular jumped out at me as the most probable choices. These are Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts.

Vin Weber outlines why we might be seeing Pawlenty's name of the ticket in a Jonathan Martin article at Politico:

“First of all, his age is attractive,” Weber says, hinting at the nearly quarter-century difference between his fellow Minnesotan and the 71-year-old McCain. “Second, he’s from outside Washington. Third, he represents a battleground part of the country. And he has a nice balance of, on one hand being totally acceptable to conservative wing of the party, especially to social conservatives, but at the same time sharing a couple of key maverick strains of thought with McCain.”

Although you hate to bring it up, the age factor will probably be a central issue in the federal campaign. McCain is not a young man and Pawlenty's youth, coupled with his social conservatism and his strong stance on immigration, may go a long way towards convincing some of the Ann Coulter "I'd vote for Hillary before McCain" social conservatives to fall in line to keep the Democratic candidate out of office.

The article continues:

Declining to say how she got wind of the story, Taylor lavished praise on Pawlenty. "By far, he's the strongest candidate" to serve as McCain's running mate, she said.

"He's a conservative, rock-n-roll Republican and is counterintuitive to the party stereotype that we're old and rich,” says Taylor, who recalled visiting St. Paul and finding the governor jamming in his office to recording artist Bruce Springsteen. “He's young and blue-collar."

And, Taylor said, in a potential race against the 46-year-old Barack Obama, Pawlenty would be "as good as our party has for that [match-up].

...

“Politically, he’s pretty skilled, no question about it,” says Moe, who lost in a three-way gubernatorial race to Pawlenty in 2002. “He’s a bright guy and very charming, no question about it.”

Another name being tossed around is that of J.C. Watts, best known in Canada as the former quarterback and Grey Cup MVP for the CFL's Ottawa Rough Riders. The possibility of Watts as the Mav's running mate was mentioned over at the Halls of Macademia earlier today. The arguments for Watts filling the veep slot are strong.

The National Post elaborates:

Mr. Watts used to be considered a rising star in the party, and delivered a highly praised speech on character at the 1996 Republican national convention. He was selected to deliver his party's response to president Bill Clinton's State of the Union Address in 1997, and addressed the nation after Mr. Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

Now he is a multi-millionaire, running a variety of businesses, including selling John Deere tractors in Texas, offering companies strategies for business development, communications and public affairs, and lobbying government for small businesses, Fortune 500 companies, trade groups and historically black colleges and universities.

An outspoken conservative who once worked as a youth minister and associate pastor with the Southern Baptist Church, Mr. Watts has a congressional record sponsoring tax incentives for businesses in low-income areas. He also helped write U.S. President George W. Bush's "faith-based initiative," which was a key domestic part of his "compassionate conservatism.

...

The 51-year-old has courted controversy in the past by chastising some black Democrats and civil-rights leaders as "race-hustling poverty pimps."

Like Mr. McCain, he has not hesitated to speak his mind and criticize his own party's leaders."

Watts has been the source of quite a bit of controversy in his day and so would also bring a few of the maverick qualities - as well as the youth - that McCain will likely be looking for in a running mate.

A lot of other, less likely, names are getting attention too, including Condi Rice and, ridiculously, Joe Lieberman. All considered, Watts and Pawlenty seem to be in prime position for the slot. Only time will tell.

"John McCain '08: Like Hope, But Different"

Look what that bastard from the Black Eyed Pees hath wrought. Now there's a whole string of political music videos circulating. Check out the new one on John McCain:



Shamelessly stolen from Darryl Wolk.

President Bush: "McCain Is A True Conservative"

Uh, well okay, boss. If you say so.

The Times has it:

President Bush broke his silence on the 2008 presidential race on Sunday, giving his imprimatur to Senator John McCain of Arizona as a “true conservative,” who nonetheless has “got some convincing to do” to persuade fellow Republicans of his bona fides with the right.

The remark, in an hourlong interview broadcast on “Fox News Sunday,” was as close to an endorsement as Mr. McCain will get from Mr. Bush at this stage, before a nominee has been officially declared. It was also a sharp departure for Mr. Bush, who had refused to be drawn into commenting on the race.

“I think that if John’s the nominee, he’s got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative,” Mr. Bush told the Fox host, Chris Wallace. “And I’ll be glad to help him if he’s the nominee, because he is a conservative.”

With conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh saying that a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican Party, the senator’s advisers had been hoping for just this sort of public embrace. It came on the heels of Mr. Bush’s call for unity in a speech Friday to the Conservative Political Action Conference, which was also widely interpreted as an implicit endorsement of Mr. McCain.

Until now, with the exception of an early prediction that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would be the Democratic nominee, Mr. Bush had done his best to steer clear of extensive discussions of the candidates, especially the Republicans. He has repeatedly said he will not be the “pundit in chief,” and said on Sunday that he did not want to get “into the trap again of getting involved in this primary.”

Even so, Mr. Bush offered his thoughts not only on Mr. McCain, but also on the other remaining Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee, and the Democrats as well. He also defended former President Bill Clinton, who has been accused of playing on racial sentiments by attacking Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“I can understand why President Clinton wants to campaign hard for his wife,” Mr. Bush said. “And you know, these accusations that Bill Clinton is a racist I think is just wrong. I just don’t agree with it.”

...

Mr. McCain’s differences with the White House are well known. He did not vote for the president’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a sore point with groups like the conservative Club for Growth. And he disagreed with Mr. Bush on campaign finance reform and the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects. But Mr. Bush defended him.

“I know him well,” Mr. Bush said. “I know his convictions. I know the principles that drive him. And no doubt in my mind he is a true conservative.”

This quasi-sorta-but-not really endorsement may actually help McCain gain some credibility among conservatives but it doesn't change anything in terms of the problems Republicans have with the Maverick's history and policies. Bush may be convinced that he's driven by conservative principles but the base isn't so the President had it right when he said McCain's got a lot of convincing to do if he's going to win in '08.

Senator Tom Coburn Eulogizes McCain ... Convincingly

Well, we're stuck with him so we might as well hear what his supporters have to say. This is far and away the most persuasive ode to the Maverick I've heard to date. Coburn almost made me come to grips with McCain getting the nomination.

Hot Air has it:



So here we are. Coburn's voting McCain. Coutler's still voting Hillary.

Heartache: Mitt Romney "Suspends" Campaign

Allah's got the scoop.

So he's "suspending" his campaign...

Thus ends the last hope of the Reagan revolution for 2008. Watch as the principles of small government and low taxation fade into the back benches of the Republican party, becoming mere dissenting voices flanked by the evangelicals on the one side and the moderates on the other. Woe. Woe, I say!




On the bright side, this will sink Huckabee for sure.

Romney 2012? I hope so.

UPDATE: Romney to endorse McCain? Well, he doesn't exactly have a lot of options, does he?

Super Tuesday Results (I'm Going To Go Hang Myself Now)

Ace has the wrap up of the Super Tuesday primaries here.

I'm afraid it isn't good news for Republicans. McCain is still going strong, Clinton and Obama are drawing voters by the bushel, and Huckabee has surged in the South.

Is Romney done? Stay tuned and find out.



UPDATE: Insult to injury:

Romney's Newest Attack Ad Hits McCain Where It Hurts: Square In The Hillary

Romney's best ad to date, IMHO:



Good timing, strong message, tough but accurate. It should definitely be effective. Unfortunately, it's only circulating on the internet at the moment.

H/t Ace

Rambo Endorses John McCain

H/t Ace

Fred Thompson: "Today I Have Withdrawn My Candidacy For President Of The United States"

It's official: Fred Thompson has withdrawn his candidacy.

Here's the official statement:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the US. I hope my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.

-- Fred Dalton Thompson, statement issued to media

South Carolina was the coup de grace, as a lot of pundits predicted. This isn't the last we'll be hearing from Thompson though since rumours are beginning to circulate that he had his eye on the Vice Presidency since day one. My gut impulse is a McCain-Thompson ballot. Fred's Reagan conservatism would go a long way towards mitigating some of the worries that many Republicans have about McCain, particularly on taxation and immigration. On the other hand, a Romney-Thompson ballot would be perfectly acceptable as well.

H/t Ace

Fred Thompson Surges In South Carolina

Good news for the 'Heads:

The last of the candidates to enter the race, Mr. Thompson, 65, a former Tennessee senator, has so far seemed to distinguish himself mainly by a laconic style that has made him almost invisible beside the others on the stage in past debates, the Berenberks said.

“But then last night — we hadn’t even been thinking about him — all of a sudden it was clear he was the one,” said Mr. Berenberk, a retired teacher. “The bluntness, the forcefulness. He was really impressive.”

Whether this was a new Fred Thompson, or just a sign of mirage-inducing campaign fatigue among voters, many people attending Mr. Thompson’s campaign rallies here on the day after the debate reported having similar revelations.

Mr. Thompson, who remarked Friday that he had “always been laid back — laid back when I became a U.S. prosecutor at 28, laid back when I became staff counsel to the Watergate committee at 30, laid back when I ran and won election twice to the United States Senate” — was clearly more combative on Thursday night than he had been in past debates.

He attacked former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, accusing him of stealing his tax plan, tagged Senator John McCain of Arizona as soft on illegal immigration and jabbed repeatedly at former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas for taking what he called “liberal” positions. Mr. Thompson scored one of the more crowd-pleasing remarks of the evening when he said about a recent encounter between a Navy ship and several Iranian speedboats: “I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins they’re looking forward to seeing.”

In an official statement, a campaign spokesman, Todd Harris, said Mr. Thompson’s performance showed that he was the only candidate that voters in the Jan. 19 primary here should trust “to be a strong, consistent conservative.”

Mr. Thompson has made all the same points during campaign events throughout the state, aides said. But many voters who flocked to his rallies on Friday had never heard him make them until they heard him in the latest debate on the Fox News Channel.

Jim Sickles, a retired corrections officer; Natalie Bankowski, an office manager; and Maryanne Gasper, who said she was “a waitress, with two other jobs,” were among a dozen people randomly interviewed who said they had been undecided or leaning toward other Republican candidates — mainly Mr. Huckabee — until Thursday night.

...

Chip Felkel, a longtime South Carolina political consultant who is not working for any of the candidates, said Mr. Thompson initially seemed to be a candidate who might appeal to all the major voting groups in the state. “Social conservatives from Huckabee, military votes from McCain, economic conservatives from Romney,” Mr. Felkel said, referring to former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

“But so far he hasn’t done that,” said Mr. Felkel, who added that he had watched Mr. Thompson’s debate performance on Thursday and was skeptical that it had helped him much.

Sirita Long, a construction forewoman from Moncks Corner, disagreed. “He’s a straight-up shoot-from-the-hip guy,” said Ms. Long, who said she had been leaning toward Mr. McCain until the debate. “I could see him staring down our enemies.”

It seems like Thompson's strategy is paying off. We're beginning to see massive interest at his rallies and he has raised approximately $900,000 since the Fox News debate. This could very well be the tipping point he - and most Republicans really - have been waiting for.

H/t Ace of Spades