Posted on 06/01/2007 6:24:56 AM PDT by shortstop
Run, Fred, run.
Please, for the sake of the country and the party, run. Throw your hat in the ring and start fighting for the nomination and the presidency.
As a Republican, yesterday was a red-letter day. Why? Because a genuine Republican was finally in the hunt.
The cat is about out of the bag and it seems likely that soon former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson will announce his desire to seek the Republican nomination to be president of the United States.
Glory hallelujah.
At last there is someone a conservative can vote for. At last, someone a Republican can vote for. At last, someone who stands for something other than guile and ambition. At last, someone who actually believes what the party is supposed to stand for.
Here’s the background.
There are three GOP frontrunners. All are wonderful men, two of them are legitimate national heroes. But all have fatal flaws.
Let’s list them.
John McCain is a patriot from a patriot family. His father and grandfather – both of whom rose to the rank of four-star admiral – stood together on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay when the Japanese surrendered. John McCain was the third successive generation of his family to graduate from the Naval Academy at Annapolis.
And he capped his fearless service to this country as a longtime prisoner of the brutal North Vietnamese.
John McCain is an American hero.
But he’s also a both-sides-of-the-street Republican who tends to mock conservatives more than he represents them. And, when Teddy Kennedy stood up to offer amnesty to every illegal alien in the country, John McCain was standing right there beside him.
That is the last straw. We’ve already had one Republican president who refused to defend the borders, we will not tolerate another one.
So McCain is out.
Rudy Giuliani is an outstanding man. His work cleaning up New York City, and then responding with inspiring leadership abilities in the wake of September 11, make him an outstanding candidate for president.
Unfortunately, he’d make a better Democratic candidate because his personal philosophies are far more consistent with the values of that party than the Republican Party.
Rudy is a liberal, plain and simple. And that just doesn’t fit with the philosophy and purpose of the Republican Party.
Which brings us to Mitt Romney. Less impressive as a leader, more impressive as an organizer. Mitt Romney’s strength is that he has created a superbly constructed and richly financed campaign. It is a tremendous asset and strength which might propel him into the nomination.
But he wasn’t a war hero, and the most notable aspect of his elective career – other than essentially socializing Massachusetts medicine – was failing to stop gay marriage from coming to his state.
Mitt Romney and I are the same religion – though he’s a whole lot better at living it than I am – and, frankly, that draws me to him. But I am nervous about the sincerity of his political beliefs and no amount of fellow-believer benevolence can overcome that.
My beef is that Mitt Romney seems to have been a certified liberal until he was 58 years old. Then he seems to have begun a public preparation for the presidency, including a miraculous and convenient conversion to conservatism. He has, over the last two years, reversed himself on almost all the big issues of the day. I just can’t get my mind around how a man of his age could so resoundingly change his world view.
Also, I think sometimes he doesn’t tell the truth. His account of his experience as a firearms supporter – claiming to have been a hunter all his life – seems to have been shown to be a fabrication.
So, Mitt Romney is not the guy for me.
Fred Thompson, however, he walks on water.
No, he’s not perfect. No, he’s not the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
But he is an unusually bright, gifted and experienced leader whose entire public life has been dedicated to being a genuine card-carrying conservative. He doesn’t believe in global warming, he doesn’t believe in open borders, he doesn’t believe in gun control.
He’s everything Hillary Clinton is not. Heck, he’s everything George W. Bush is not.
The Republican Party is on the verge of becoming pointless. It has so cynically sold out its core beliefs and supporters that it is now nothing more than a cheap copy of the Democratic Party.
George W. Bush has given us record deficits, a massive new welfare program, the attempted federalization of education, unrestricted illegal immigration, the right war fought the wrong way and now he’s a convert to global warming. Republicans gave him the White House and he gave them the shaft.
And they’re hankering for a little bit of the old-time religion, a genuine conservatism that is about something bigger than just winning the next election. In fact, real Republicans – like, presumably, real Democrats – see winning elections as a means, not an end. And while Republicans over most of the last 10 years have been good at winning elections, they have proven woefully inadequate at making those wins count for anything when it comes to advancing conservative policies that will help and strengthen America.
Which is where Fred Thompson comes in.
He is the last chance real Republicans have of getting a candidate on the ballot.
Which is why I hope he runs.
Which is why I hope he wins.
First let me say that I support Thompson 100%, and I don’t think he’s too old, but did you see him on Fox News the other day, when they interviewed him outside some building? In the close-up in the sunlight, he looked older, like he was in his 70s. He may have to have a little cosmetic work done or that’s going to turn some people off.
President Bush, when Governor of Texas, acted in much the same way as he has as President: he worked with all sides attempting to forge a consensus to address many, many issues. He welcomed opponents to the table with him. That style means refraining from using vetoes, as much as possible. Saying he’s “unwilling to do his job”, “deferred”, “punted”, “not competent”, etc., demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of governance in our political system, or a lack of management experience. I'm not "brush[ing] it off", you're simply refusing to recognize how effective he has been using the style he has adopted!
President Bush has gotten, in essence, many of the programs he espoused enacted into law: A huge tax cut - done despite EVERY pundit saying that wasn’t possible. Great economy (as a result) - Done. Controlling deficit, DESPITE the 5% hit to the economy by 9/11, now projected to be in the black in two years, so - Done. Lowered “discretionary spending” - Done. No child left behind - Done. Iraq & Afghanistan War against Terrorism - Done. Conservative judges on the USSC - Done. A prescription drug for elderly - Done. Ending the ABM and getting a national Missile Defense system constructed - Done. Quite a bit more, too.
Campaign finance reform - done. Though he was pushing for something quite different which would have been more like “no limits, but complete and immediate disclosure of ALL contributions by any person or organization within 48hrs on the internet”, he held true to his well-publicised word and PROMISE that he would sign anything that Congress passed. Bad promise, but he followed through.
He has been EXTREMELY competent in getting his program enacted into law, and fulfilling his campaign promises. That IS “DOING HIS JOB”, whether it is the job YOU were hoping he would do or not! Now he’s working on (unfortunately) a guest-worker program, which he was very upfront about in 1999/2000 and later. In fact, there are only two items that he has NOT gotten done that I can think of right now: Social Security reform (which probably should have been rolled into the prescription drug thingie - but that would have resulted in a tempest similar to this immigration bill) and completing the change of the tax code that the first cut was hoped to be a start on toward a “taxed once on income only” system (too circuitous for my taste as I favor the FAIR tax, but I understood the economic and political reasons for his doing it that way and unfortunately, much of the tax change is likely to go away due to fools helping Demodogs get elected.)
President Bush has been an extremely effective president. Whether you or I are happy about any particular campaign promise he made (or his personal style of governing which also was part of who we elected) or the legislation that resulted, it is ridiculous to say he's not been competent in essentially enacting his program.
Horsefeathers. It'll all come out in the wash. On the Iraq War, which was a mistake, he followed the advice of his betters, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, because he had no choice. He doesn't know what he's doing. On education and immigration, he took the advice of Ted Kennedy. On campaign finance, he hoped the SCOTUS would bail him out. In every instance, he's relied on people to advise him because he has no clue what he's doing. "Getting things done" is not the same as being effective. If I go give myself a mohawk haircut, I've "gotten something done." I've delivered on my promise to "get a haircut." But obviously, there's more to it than that. It's the quality of results that matter, not the quantity.
On the only thing you mentioned here that the results can yet be estimated, education, it is becoming pretty clear from test results that things are now finally moving in the right direction. Iraq/ Afghan/ WOT will be at least 20 years for realistic estimates and its clear to me that he has had his hand firmly on the tiller despite the changing winds. With CFR, he was following through on promises - I like that in an elected official, though I despise CFR and wish he’d stuck to his own “disclosure, nothing else” concept.
As far as anything else, it speaks volumes that you ignore all of the litany of what President Bush has managed to accomplish with his governance style, and demonstrates just how wrong your ‘incompetent’ paragraph of post#9 was.
Promised to be lousy, and followed through on it. Done. lol.
As far as anything else, it speaks volumes that you ignore all of the litany of what President Bush has managed to accomplish with his governance style
lol. ignore? i'm giving credit to him. only, it's bad credit. if i go smash my car into a wall, i've accomplished something. better yet, how about i promise to do it first, then do it. does that make me a good driver? of course not. bot.
One measure of the man’s success at enacting his agenda is the job approval level. To be in the 30’s requires a lot of your own people being upset with you.
But I didn’t walk into this blind. It was obvious in 2004 where he stood on the border and on aliens. For whatever reason, he’s always been a supporter of open borders. In terms of national security, I think it’s a disaster.
His JOB is to UPHOLD THE LAW. He willfully REFUSED to do it.
He violated his OATH.
You're right. We all knew what we were getting--the alternative to John Kerry.
I agree with that.
I recall wet eyes the day that Ronald Reagan was no longer president, even though GW Bush was taking over.
He was our last great president.
If you truly believe President Bush as “violated his OATH”, I guess you must be part of the “Impeach Bush” crowd now? If you’re not, you’re not being honest somehow. I’m not part of your crowd.
Weird times.
I’ll never understand Pres.Bush’s stance on the borders. It is almost as if there is an underlying belief, completely unstated, on the part of MANY of the “leaders” in this country that Mexico will eventually be incorporated into the United States. What is the discussion in the formerly smoke-filled rooms? If that is the case, they must think that anything that inches us closer together is acceptable. How would an additional 4-8 states be in your mind? I would wager that many people would vote Yes, if it were voted upon. One thing is certain though, the debate after this illegal invasion is going to be decidedly more heated than it would have been otherwise. It would be like bringing East&West Germany together but 20 times the impact - both positive and negative. If this is their belief, I just wish someone would state that is the case, and let us get on with the debate!
Continuing platitudes instead of substance... enjoy talking to yourself.
Any region that applies for statehood according to the prescription of the constitution should receive a fair hearing. If that happens to be the state of Chihuahua some day, then it should receive a fair vote on their petition for statehood. There is no law that says 50 states is a magic number above which we cannot go.
However, it must be done constitutionally.
That’s it. Run away!
It's really simple. First of all, to the "elites", there are two sets of rules. The rules they follow (few and far between), and the rules for the unwashed masses. So when it comes to laws being broken, it really depends who's doin' the breaking? Remember all that hubub a few years back when no one in DC could get a job cuz they all had illegal nannies?
Next, this is a big business issue. Politicians are parasites living off of the productivity of others. The system itself runs on tax receipts, but the parasites who populate the system need money just to get on board.
That money comes from big business, all their buddies at the US chamber of commerce, etc., and all those folks want cheap, illegal labor. Well, since they're the ones paying the freight for all these leeches we call politicians, they get their way. Screw the rest of us peons. What are we gonna do? Leave? Vote third party? Rebel? Puhlease.
I suspect the reason you can't understand GWB on this is because of cognitive dissonance caused by your belief that GWB isn't just another political leech. Accept that he is, and everything falls right into place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.