Did Fred have a plane up in the air? A boat in the harbor? A hard core rally after the debate? Overwhelming.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28I am still trying to get Beverly Sills to eat something. She is so frail and fragile. ......

Non blown up bombOriginally uploaded by Fr@nçois.A thousand years ago Hasan-i-Sabbah created the Order of the Assassins, a fanatical group said to have been drugged into committing political murder and promised the sexual delights of paradise if they ...

INTRODUCING...MISS BEVERLY SILLS REIDHEAD

Miss Beverly Sills Reidhead is about 9 weeks old. Her "birth father" dropped her off ......

Republican debate tonight on CNN with a YouTube jihadist twist ......

Bill Clinton asserted that he was opposed to the war in Iraq from the very beginning though his remarks at the time were much more tempered and did not portray a person who was absolutely opposed to the action. He indicated that it would not have been...

The rule of law is the cornerstone of a republic. The equal application of that law then can be considered the truss work. Yet, we find that in the case of the "oil for food" scandal that plagued the U.N.'s program in Iraq, an American citizen, who ...

Today I have reached 5001 hits! (I know it's odd, but I missed the 5000th.) I am very grateful for this seeing as I've only opened this site on June 12, 2007, and I've been back and forth to a paid site and this one. I've decided to stay right here...

Remember that it was the Dems that voted for the increased spending as well, nearly all of them in fact.

And it is because of the RE lobby that you have to allow both. They would never allow a flat tax because of the RE interest deduction. So you gotta have both and let people decide.

Yes, repubs have to do a better job to control spending. But cutting taxes IS the way to raise revenues. The proof is in the pudding. Revenue continues to roll into the treasury like never before. Libs want to raise taxes, and it is NOT AT ALL wise to think that this would not be devastating to the economy.

90,000 firms with combined annual revenue of $65 billion, with estimates of %30 of that revenue based on tax return preparation.

This is why the media's GOP darlings won't touch the issue. At all.

If you really want permanent tax cuts and simplification, I seriously suggest you look at the only candidate with the grass-roots backing to make it happen. You know who.

If raising taxes is insane, does that mean that you don't support Charlie Rangel's plan? You remember, the one the flooded for Hillary Clinton a couple weeks ago?

That point aside, let's just say I'm less than convinced that the Thompson campaign is in any degree of trouble at this point. Neither, apparently, is today's Wall Street Journal:

Fred Thompson’s Presidential campaign has been struggling, in part because of a sense that he lacks passion and an agenda. But late last week he unveiled a tax reform that is more ambitious than anything we’ve seen so far from the rest of the GOP field.

It strikes me, that this comment puts Mr. Thompson directly on line with what I had mentioned previously at my place, and here, I think, about him not wanting to keep too early in the campaign. the one it comes to campaigns, Fred Thompson is a come from behind a sort of fellow, and so he feels comfortable there, I think.

And if you wanna destroy the democrats chances in a really big hurry, simply toss the Thompson proposaland the aforementioned Charlie Rangel /Hillary Clinton proposal up side by side. Tell me the democrats have a snowball's chance, after something like that. (Given Triumph's comments, even he'd agree to that, right? )

Liberals are already objecting that the plan is not “paid for,” by which they mean it doesn’t raise taxes the way they hope the next President will. But Mr. Thompson is right in refusing to play by the “static revenue” scoring game that demands that one dollar in estimated tax cuts be offset by one dollar in estimated tax increases somewhere else. “The experts always overrate the revenue losses from tax cuts,” Mr. Thompson says, and history supports him going back to the Mellon reductions of the 1920s, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the Gipper’s in the 1980s, and this decade’s success with President Bush’s reductions.

Pardon my saying so, but it seems to me that this is precisely the kind of company that Fred Thompson wants to keep, and the names he wants to invoke. This was a natural, guys. What it means, essentially, is yet another come from behind race being won by Mr. Thompson.

And frustrated Democrats.