McRingtail Comics

… help Fred Thompson.

We’ve been holding off on endorsements here at McRingtail Comics largely because (1) I didn’t think the opinion of an anti-social raccoon and his sexually violent rooster friend would sway many reader, and (2) I figured an actual endorsement from said anti-social raccoon and his sexually violent rooster friend would hurt my preferred candidate.

But whatever. It’s late in the game, and my guy is behind. So I’m asking, if you’ve enjoyed this site over the last few months, or if at least it’s given you a cheap chuckle here and there, consider contributing to Fred Thompson.

Yes, at this point, Fred’s candidacy is, unfortunately, a longshot. But that said, it’s a shot worth taking because, in the end, his is a candidacy worthy of your support.

Why? In his own endorsement of Fred, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse writes:

He is a man who knows his mind and has the intellectual heft to flesh out his ideas in an impressive, rational, and completely logical way. He knows government, knows the Congress, and knows what he believes. As a communicator, he may lack passion. But he makes up for it by speaking clearly and concisely about issues he cares deeply about.

This touches on the two things that I think are most important in selecting a president. First, does he have a cogent, philosophical underpinning to his policy positions? Second, can he articulate his ideas to the American people?

The first question is is important because having a philosophy or ideology makes a candidate less likely to surrender on things he was elected to enact and to govern using something more dependable than a gut-feeling. Bill Clinton, for instance, had no philosophical undergirding towards governing absent preservation of his own power. While liberals may long for him now, I recall reading about their grumblings over how little he had achieved for them and the larger Democrat party when he left office. George W. Bush, on the other, had a gut-feeling approach to conservatism — which is why he’s right on some issue (like the war) and wrong on so many others (such as spending, the Harriet Myers nomination and immigration). Without a set philosophy to guide a president, policy becomes whatever feels right to him, which makes for inconsistent if not bad policy choices.

Similarly, the second question is crucial because it doesn’t matter if one has the best plan for America unless you can explain it well and convince others to buy into it. It’s been often said that during a war, the American public needs to be told early and often about the importance of what we’re doing in, say, Iraq, and how it fits into the larger war on terror. The Bush Administration has typically relied on press secretaries to get the message out, and understandably so; the White House hides President Bush because he’s not an able speaker, and even when he’s on the right side of an issue, it’s impossible to get a really good, clear speech from him. Unfortunately, this doesn’t cut it. On something as big as war, and often on even modest new domestic initiatives, it has to come from the president and it has to come from him regularly.

Thompson answers both the above questions in the positive. The man has a philosophical approach to conservatism. Just as importantly, he can convey big ideas with the clarity they need and the seriousness they deserve. Indeed, Moran notes in an update to his endorsement that Fred might be handicapped in the campaign because his arguments appeal more to the rational than to the emotional. Maybe so, but in a president, doesn’t that sound refreshing?

Bottom line: please join me in supporting Fred Thompson. A good showing in Iowa is crucial, so if you’re able, please contribute to Fred here.

The best part about our Torture Offsets is that they alleviate leftist guilt about what’s being done to all the poor Johnny Jihads down in Gitmo while not actually doing anything to free them.  Added bonus: by contributing to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, they also drain away money that may have gone to more viable Democrat candidates.

At the rate this is going, it’s starting to look like every question CNN chose for last night’s GOP-YouTube debate came from someone with an anti-Republican ax to grind.

Director Brian De Palma’s political snuff flick “Redacted” — a movie about American servicemen that rape a 14-year-old Iraqi then kill her family — has bombed. Everybody knows this, but I figured I’d just write it out here so in the weeks to come, when “Redacted” is forgotten except as an obituary to De Palm’s career, people will know what the hell this strip is referencing.

And speaking of willful suspension of disbelief, the administration hosted a conference in Annapolis this week, hoping that the Arab states and various terrorist enablers (but I repeat myself*) can build a lasting peace in the Middle East. The betting is that this will cause more harm than good. Meanwhile, showing their eagerness for peaceful coexistence, Palestinians are rioting over the conference. I’m sure we’re all shocked.

*Ace’s gag, which I am stealing.

Update at 12:40pm, 11/28/07: Since we’re talking about pro-terrorist agitprop, Captain Ed this morning has a pretty good rundown of Hollywood’s jihad against box office success.

And on that misogynistic note, thus ends Child Support Week. Thank goodness.