Posted on 10/05/2007 7:11:13 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
For the first time in over 30 years I am considering supporting a Republican for president of the United States. This may seem a little out of character for me, but I offer the following reasons that led me to make this decision.
First, but not least, is the fact I have always been opposed to one party controlling the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House at the same time, even if it is my own party. Division of powers allows for more checks and balances. Recent actions seem to validate this concern.
The second reason is really a little petty, but it seems unfair to me for a Democrat to have the job of cleaning up this awful mess made by the Republicans and I don't just mean Iraq. In addition to the mess made by this unnecessary war, they have amassed an obscene debt, making "tax-and-spend Democrats" seem like misers.
The final reason I am considering supporting someone from the other party is Fred Thompson has allowed his supporters to draw him into the race. Of course if he doesn't get nominated I will not be supporting a Republican unless one of the dark horses breaks out of the pack.
He may have a hard time winning the nomination because many in his own party claim he was a lazy senator because he didn't sponsor much, if any, legislation. To me this is a strong point in his favor. Just think if there were more like him, the hopper would not have been filled with so much garbage the Senate could hardly operate, and we would not have as many dumb laws on the books.
A quote form Mr. Thompson tells it better than I can: "No one person, including the president, has the ability or wisdom to single-handedly solve these problems. Nor does one party. These problems will be dealt with when our leaders come together, as adults, and honestly seek solutions that extend past the next election cycle."
While I disagree with many of Mr. Thompson's political positions, I do believe he favors smaller government, less interference with local governments, reduced spending and a strong national defense. I also think he is one of the only candidates that can actually reach across party lines and get the respect and cooperation to get things done, and I don't believe he will waste political capital on frivolous things.
He is not burdened with the "hate" factor as some of the candidates from my party are, which would make it impossible to achieve the level of cooperation necessary to get anything done.
“I do believe he favors smaller government”
we all were tricked on this point by our current president. i really do believe fred actually means it.
if the republicans really did stand for what the say they stand for, the people will follow.
Frankly this is why conservatives should like him!
At least he knows how to say “Federalism” and he apparently knows what it means. I’m not sure any of the other candidates do. I’ve certainly never heard them say they’ll veto a bill because it is not authorized by the constitution. Who knows if he’ll actually live up to the words though.
“You will have your bipartisanship.” - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater, July 16, 1964
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell numbers….. And if there are those that cannot subscribe to these principals, then let them go their way.” – Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975.
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn’t belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you’re absolutely...right!
from Sesame Street, by Joe Raposo and Jon Stone
It’s interesting that this letter to the editor is unsigned.
Met one of those today.Yes, I was shocked.I asked him who he liked for 08.FDT was the answer.I said he was a Thompson democrat.I see more of this as the days go by.
I don't think Thompson, Mitt or even Rudi will spend like Bush and Congress.
I think Fred is a conservative, but he needs to show that he can actually win if he is the nominee. The MSM has settled on a couple of talking points to try to derail his candidacy--"lazy" and "boring." He needs to dispel those impressions before they take hold.
I forced myself to watch part of the Shields & Brooks on PBS tonight. Both particularly emphasized the theme that Fred is boring.
Brooks tends to be full of gloom and doom for the Republicans, whether he believes it or just wants to be liked by his liberal friends at PBS and The New York Times, so I don't put a lot of stock in what he says.
” I’ve certainly never heard them say they’ll veto a bill because it is not authorized by the constitution.”
that is one thing he and ron paul both get hammered on. too often many conservatives drop their believes in place of personal desires.
Fred's not a flashy guy, and frankly, I think many folks appreciate that right now. The world is a scary place, and some folks are worried about the economy, even if THEY are doing well. Having someone directly and calmly lay out his ideas about how government should operate will give them a good feeling, and I hope that translates into votes!
An unnamed, unidentified person writing to a paper in Tennessee? I wonder if he is the cousin of the “republican” Lawyer in New Jersey supporting Hillary.
“Boring” is not a serious flaw in a modest politician. I kind of like “boring” for an officeholder in a position that should be cut down to human size, and the US Presidency is probably the office needing the most trimming in that respect of any political office in the country. It’s the charisma-laden ‘man on a white horse’ (or, in our present era, “doggess on a white horse”) that you need to watch out for, since they generally end up being the most dangerous and disastrous leaders.
Eh..not really.
In 2000 I mainly voted for G.W.B. because he was a social conservative and I despised Clinton and all attached to him.
He wasn’t a small government conservative then, or later.
IMO, a lot of people just chose to believe he’d change or at least not be as bad on that issue as he became.
Personally I think people have more cause to feel betrayed that he signed CFR, when he signed he would not. Or when he nominated Miers, after years of speeches alledging he understood what we wanted in a Justice and promised to deliver.
As for Fred, he seems solid in the sense I think he’s pretty set in his beliefs and unlikely to change. Might attribute to his age, but I doubt that’s the reason why. His record doesn’t reflect that to be the reason. So I hope no one ascribes to him the same hopes placed on G.W.B. What we see now is what we’ll get.
And I believe you are right, his tendency would be towards less government interference. I make that judgement based on his legislative record of “NO” votes and lack of desire to submit one bill after another. A large reason the government has expanded at the rate it has the last seven years is that G.W.B. came into the process with these dreams of programs re: prescription drugs and education. He had a Republican Congress that just went along. Thompson may or may not ave a Republican Congress. Who knows? But thus far he really hasn’t indicated a desire to advance too many programs.
The main issue he expresses concern about is S.S., ad his idea is to fix it by adjusting it to the rate of inflation NOT wages. I’m not an economist, but at face value that doesn’t sound like he’s planning another huge expansion of the government.
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.