Fred Thompson apparently told a reporter in Indiana over the weekend that "he expects to officially announce his candidacy in either September or October."

Earlier this month, we were definitely on for an announcement in September-- around Labor Day, in fact. Before that, announcements had been pushed back from May to June, June to July and so on.

Now, as before, it sounds like Fred is planning to push back the timing of an announcement.

I don't want to be the party pooper where my FredHead friends are concerned, but my gut tells me at this stage that this guy is not running. And even if he is, given that he's obviously not able until he announces to go out and formally campaign like any old declared candidate, I'm questioning how he can build up the required momentum to actually win early primaries.

I like Fred-- honestly, I do. But I just don't buy that he's running anymore.

> Read more & share

I've been working on other stuff this morning, so am only just getting to writing on this.

So far as I am concerned, good riddance to Gonzo.

Gonzales was the lead man on some of the more serious efforts at infringement on civil liberties conducted during this administration, a less-than-slick operator who seemed incapable of presenting anything close to a coherent story on anything under questioning, and one of the worst human examples of the cliqueishness involved in the President's modus operandi-- which strangled effective government in the name of loyalty.

Unlike a lot of Gonzales-haters, I don't begrudge him jack when it comes to the US Attorney firings. As I wrote when that became an issue, the President can fire US Attorneys because he doesn't like the color of their underwear. Whether he fired them for political reasons, whimsical reasons, or job performance reasons is really irrelevant. The only thing that mattered, in relation to that "scandal" was that, as ever, the administration did a totally crap job of explaining itself, and ended up looking like they were up to something super-nefarious, instead of just looking like the slightly mean operators that they were.

I do, however, begrudge Gonzales where civil liberties are concerned. I'm no John Ashcroft fan, but I'll tell you what, Gonzo made him look like a hero. When that happens, I'm afraid it says nothing good about Ashcroft's successor.

Goodbye, Gonzo.

> Read more & share

I hate to quote CBN News, but it appears that they reported this first.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci is supporting Rudy Giuliani for President, instead of his fellow Bay Stater, Mitt Romney. And he has some pretty negative words about Romney's tax record, as contrasted to Giuliani's:

The Mayor is not just talking about taxes… He has a record of doing it in New York City. I certainly respect Mitt Romney. But I supported Rudy Giuliani because he’s an extraordinary leader…The difference is that Rudy Giuliani has done it (cut taxes) and Mitt Romney has not. He was Governor for four years…Mitt has not cut any taxes as Governor of Massachusetts. He proposed raises [sic] corporate taxes. (my emphasis added)

That Romney sought to raise taxes, not cut them, is a point I've made for some time.

Romney's team describe his record on taxes as "outstanding." But, like Cellucci (and CBN, which makes the point that Romney was not "outstanding" on taxes by reference to CATO's Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors), I beg to differ.

Here's the list of Governors that did better on fiscal governance for their overall current term, according to CATO, than Mitt, as of 2006:

Matt Blunt (R)* Missouri 63 A
Rick Perry(R) Texas 61 B
Mark Sanford (R) South Carolina 60 B
Phil Bredesen (D) Tennessee 60 B
Mike Rounds (R) South Dakota 59 B
John Huntsman (R)* Utah 59 B
John Lynch (D) New Hampshire 58 B
Sonny Perdue (R) Georgia 56 C
Bill Richardson (D) New Mexico 56 C
Brad Henry (D) Oklahoma 56 C
Tom Vilsack (D) Iowa 56 C

Got that? 11 other Governors, includi...

> Read more & share