AZ-Sen. 2010: Fred Thompson endorses John McCain (Fred lavishes praise on RINO McCain)

The Phoenix Business Journal ^ | 2010-02-15

[TigersEye]

You argued against my statement that McCain was a fixture in DC, while never explaining why you thought it was wrong ...

I did not argue against it I said it was a milquetoast characterization.

You argued against my statement that Hayworth isn’t the 2nd coming of Reagan, but never said he was, and implied that you agreed that he wasn’t.

No, I didn't do that either. I said it was an unsupportable assertion. I never said or implied that you were saying he was. Truth difficult for you?

[molybdenum]

Sod off.

[DoughtyOne]

I am a Conservative.   I make no apologies for being one.

I support Conservatism and all of it tenets.  I support the most Conservative candidate.  I support solid Conservative policy.

I respect our Founding Fathers and what they tried to achieve.  Our guaranteed rights are rock solid.  Our Constitution is a very important document, it's early form prior to 1800, a very wise well thought out set of tenets.  Some modifications since then, are problematic, but not beyond repair.

It is always my intention to support Conservatives and avoid supporting people who join it's detractors to help marginalize or defeat it, by design or ignorance.  I am not two faced about it.  You won't find me explaining away the past antics of some person I want to support, because I don't want others to hold those antics against them.  I will be frank about what they have done, and ask others to weigh those negatives as part of a comprehensive wise decision that takes everything into consideration.  Not surprisingly, that's precisely the policy I will ask folks to abide by, if I object to a candidate.

If I make a mistake and back a policy that was wrong, you won't have to come and tell me what I have done.  I will come to the forum on my own and explain what I did and why I think it was a mistake to have done it.  I'm not perfect.   I make the occasional mistake.  That being said, you won't go back and find literally hundreds of things I have said and done on different matters over fifty years, that were completely 180 degrees off the mark as it relates to Conservatism.

I came by most of my beliefs naturally.  I didn't have Republicans telling me what to think in my teens.  My parents didn't talk to me about Conservatism, Democrats or Republicans.  And when I did register, I registered in the party that most closely represented my beliefs.  And truth be told, I didn't grasp all tenets of Conservatism until the early 1990s, but that being said, I was 95% of the way there by then.  I mention this, because I don't want folks to think they have fully arrived at Conservatism by their mid-twenties.  A full comprehensive understanding of Conservatism on all tenets will come to folks at different times in their life, but we should not put ourselves into a position of thinking we have arrived at a full understanding at any point in our life.  There is always time and a reason to ask ourselves if we need to think something out more thoroughly.

Most kids think they have arrived at adulthood and full understanding at 21.  Most people at fifty plus understand what a fallacy that is.  It's no difference with politics.  And in truth, some people will never grow up intellectually, even at 100.  That's why I always question my own understanding and motives.  I am open to changing my mind at all times, if it is truly warranted.  I am obligated to question everything.  That being said, I have come to the place that I have questioned all my beliefs to the point I accept all but views on current issues to be just about beyond question.  Even then, my core beliefs generally make those decisions very easy.

Our Founding Fathers and our U.S. Constitution are examples of men and documents that were as close to perfection as they could be as it relates to sound governance.  There are no finer documents that have been handed down prior to or since by mortal men, at the establishment of a new nation.  There is no finer intent on display by mortal men, that casts them as more dedicated to doing what was right, than that of our Founding Fathers.   And those who seek to defeat their desires and the Constitution's tenets are enemies of our nation.  If you try to abridge our rights, if you try to push things that damage our sovereignty, if you just don't get it time after time after time, you are unfit to lead.  You will never get my support.  And those who run against you with higher values will.

Our nation is in the death throws fighting for it's very life.  Leftists have pulled no punches and are trying to overturn our Constitution, to turn this nation into a socialist bicameral or unicameral government, the fewer checks and balances the better.  There has been an effort to silence those who object to bad policy.  And every time the lights of Conservatism are turned out on one more available public office, those who object to bad policy are quieter by one voice, and those who support bad policy are louder by one voice.  And as that takes place, the total objectives of the left come one step closer to realization.

Along the way, we have come to the conclusion that many in our own party have lost their way.  We lament daily those who front for leftist ideology.  We have come to the conclusion that we must return to our founding principles, if we are to turn this nation around.  We look forward to the next election, sometimes for as much as six years, with the knowledge that we must replace a person on our side who has gone astray, so that we can move the entire body of Conservative office holders and thus the nation back toward the right.  It goes without saying what our goal needs to be with Democrat office holders, but it isn't said enough what we must do with our own.

Seeing the intransigence of Republican leadership, we have embraced the Tea Party movement.

Folks, do Tea Party movements pop up when they are not needed?  Do good solid Conservatives rush out to support such causes when they are not desperately needed.  Do they shun an organized leadership to back an effort with very little organized leadership, for no reason?

As a group here, we realize that something is not only terribly wrong with our nation's leadership, but there is something terribly wrong with the leadership we have chosen to represent us as Conservatives.  All too often our leadership has been willing to reach out across the isle in a bipartisainship trip down the road to destruction.  And so it is said here frequently, we must turn this ship around if we are to save this nation.  This isn't just an empty phrase.  We have come to this determination after decades of observation, and the realization that our nation has moved dangerously, almost terminally left.

Our party leaders say that Reaganism is dead.  They express views that mirror the left, that Conservatives are something akin to damaged people, their desires some manifestation of well-meaning (or not) lunacy.  In the most extreme cases, they say things like, "I like the Democrat Party and their goals.", or "You have nothing to fear from a devout Marxsist administration, led by someone who has socialized with people who absolutely despise our Founding Fathers, our Founding Documents, and the United States as it existed at the end of Reagan's administration."

How can I possibly stand up for a person who would fit the model I described in the last paragraph?  How can I stand up and defend someone who would stand up for such a person?

Folks, we have a number of boards and organizations in my city.  You do too.  Some of those boards and committees may be run by bad people.  None the less, if a bad leader of a group asks you or me to join, wouldn't we be obligated to weigh the benefits of joining in an effort to help turn that group around?   Would we be wrong to join with that goal in mind?  Of course not.  After joining such a board, would we be an ungrateful individual if we voted against the bad leader who asked us to join?  Of course not.   And if that leader were to run for public office after bringing us on a board, would we be obligated to support them as a flawed individual?  Of course not.  It would be our moral obligation to support sound people and policies and retain our moral obligation to vote for them.

Can someone seriously tell me they think it would show character to back a person whose policies were bad for my community, just because they brought me on a local board?  Can someone tell me with a straight face that it would show moral character to support them for public office, knowing their goals were detrimental to my community?  To the contrary, I would be a moral relativist to explain away this person's poor policies, and back them just because they brought me on the board.  And if they tried to use my name as a person who supported their activity,  I would have to stand up and differentiate my views with theirs.  I would be morally obligated to do so.  And if another more solid person were running against them, I would have to support the views and candidacy of the better person.  That would be the moral thing to do, the only path to the expression of a wholesome character.  And if neither candidate were of high moral fiber, it would be my obligation to weight heavily supporting either one.

One of the best ways to break down an issue, is to take certain views and blow them out to the extreme.

We are told today that it shows character to back people who helped us along the way.  If that is true, then we can never expect replacements of our current party leaders to be more sound on policy than the person they replaced.  The people who supported the candidate that is leaving office, will more often than not be the people who make the decision to support his replacement.  So when they come a calling, the very act of them supporting the new candidate, would obligate that candidate morally to back their views.  And that is what has taken place, isn't it.  We have good people go to Washington, D.C., and they have been coopted.

That's the moral conundrum those who support a person backing an extremely flawed individual for re-election, because that person once did them a favor, have to come to terms with.

Are any of us morally obligated to completely ignore our own moral standards simply because someone who doesn't share them once did us a favor no matter how big?

If the answer to that is yes, then check your Conservatism at the door.  Similar claims of obligation will be claimed at every election, and Conservatism might just as well fold up it's tent and die.

If we can't support a man like J.D. Hayworth against a man like John MeCain today, then when can we?

We will never see a worse candidate to represent Conservatism on a Republican national ticket than John MeCain.  And if we can't stand up to him, then Reaganism IS truly dead.

Rush, I don't say this often, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

Folks, don't come on this forum to say that we need to turn things around anymore, if you support MeCain today.  This is your opportunity to strike a blow against the status quo.  This is the time to turn things around.  This is your opening.  Use it or lose it.

If you can't work up the muster to oppose John now, you never will.  And if you can't oppose an extremely flawed individual today, then how can you be expected to do so in the future?  And if you cannot object to an extremely flawed individual today, how can you be expected to object to someone who is flawed to a lessor degree at another time?

This is a defining time for Conservatives.  Either you are one and can only support people and policies that advance your cause, or you are a leftist and can only support people and policies that advance your cause.

Anyone who thinks John MeCain's candidacy is an example of middle-ground, at the very least, has temporarily lost their way.

Character?  Morality?  Loyalty?  These are all good words, but even good words can be bastardized to destroy their wholesome meaning.

I will oppose the candidacy of John MeCain with every fiber of my being.  I will weigh heavily the implications concerning those who can't.

Left or right folks?  Which path is it to be over the next six years?

Morality is calling.  So is moral relativism.  Whose call will you answer?

By the memory of Ronald Reagan, I have made my determination clear.  He is not dead to me.

John MeCain, tear down this wall.  Let Conservatives have a voice.  Quit siding with marxists to defeat our movement.

[SeattleBruce]

Right. I agree, I hope you’re right. My point is that oddly Scott Brown the hero in one case is contributing to the McLame travesty in this case...it’s a multi-faceted fight.

I hope you’re right about the grass roots!

[SeattleBruce]

“JD Haworth was cleared of any wrong-doing.”

Yes, he was cleared. But it’s still a bad appearance to have taken Abramoff money and then voted in favor of the Abramoff position with the Indian tribes there, and his wife collected something like 20% of the $550,000 for his PAC (over 5 years, granted)...may not be legally wrong, but it does rise to the level of conflict of interest, imho.

I’m not here to bash JD.

[molybdenum]

There isn't enough time to list all the stuff McCain has done against us, but when you keep harping about Haworth's few shortcomings, it's bashing. You think maybe Mother Theresa will come back, you want perfection?

If you like Cap & Trade, Bailouts, Open Borders, BigWelfare, crossing over to 'Rats, and throwing the election to a communist dictator-in-waiting, and enjoying the title of King of the RINOs, then help Mac get elected for another 6 years.

Haworth would be a wonderful change.

[CharlesWayneCT]

So you didn’t think it was funny that, in a post where you were criticizing me for spelling his name wrong, you spelled his name wrong?

Kind of Ironic, isn’t it?

[CharlesWayneCT]

So now your argument is that you never disagreed with me about anything I said?

Maybe you should figure out exactly what it is I said that you disagreed with, as opposed to what you thought I didn’t say in the way you wish I had said it.

Or maybe you have just proven my point, that if you actually disagree with something said, it’s better to just say what it is you disagree with, rather than complaining about how someone said it.

Because so far as I can tell now, your argument with me has been because I was insufficiently assertive in my comment about McCain being a career politician.

And I have no idea anymore what your complaint was about my statement that Hayworth isn’t the 2nd coming of Reagan. You say it is “unsupportable”, which implies that you think Hayworth IS the 2nd coming of Reagan, but before when I asked if that was what you meant, I was sure you said that’s not what you meant.

Maybe you could explain what exactly you thought was unsupportable.

[TigersEye]

My posts are clear and easily understandable. Unlike your carefully couched smears.

[TigersEye]

And I have no idea anymore what your complaint was about my statement that Hayworth isn’t the 2nd coming of Reagan.

You didn't say that. You said this...

I don’t know how Hayworth became the 2nd coming of Reagan for this group.

Entirely different statements. You do have a problem telling the truth don't you?

[molybdenum]

got a problem??? BWAAAAAAAAA You & your kendoll, goaway alreddy

[CharlesWayneCT]

Man, you can’t spell anything right, can you.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, if you have no interest in explaining what you are trying to say, I have no idea why you wasted your time trying to say it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

OK, now we are getting somewhere. When you FIRST complained about this long ago, that's what I thought you meant, and in fact I responded with the statement:

From your comment: You also made this ridiculous unsupportable statement I take it that you agree with me that Haywood isn't really Reagan. But that you don't think people here were treating him as if he had no flaws. But if that is ttue, why are you so upset that I pointed out the flaws that you seem to think everybody else is NOT ignoring?

And your response to that post was to agree that Hayworth wasn't the 2nd coming of Reagan, but you did not say that I had correctly identified your complaint.

At least now you have done so. But that just brings me back to the question, if you don't think he's Reagan reborn, why were you so upset that I pointed out a few votes he had that pointed that out? You never said that my facts were wrong, you just seemed really mad that anybody would point out any flaws Hayworth might have.

That type of response to criticism is what is meant by the shorthand "2nd coming of Reagan" -- that just like Reagan, we don't cotton to any suggestions of imperfection.

Anyway, you obviously dislike what I am saying, and how I am saying it. And you don't think people are treating Hayworth like he can't be criticized, so we'll have a disagreement of opinion on that. But you haven't disagreed with the points made about Hayworth, so at some level we have agreement.

Unless of course you want to go back to the beginning, read what I said, and actually complain about my facts. In which case, my suggestion that you do so a while back would still be in effect.

It is getting rather difficult sometimes to have rational discussions here at FR, with people getting so sensitive that you can't mention things without people going off the deep end.

[molybdenum]

yeah...girls like you get all the breaks.

[molybdenum]

Mister Doughty One, I hope you have a lot of children, because we need more men like you!

Great words, great thoughts. To be bookmarked right now.

[molybdenum]

Bickering with a poster who has nothing better to do, I missed your post earlier. Better late than never. Again, great, sir.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

[TigersEye]

My posts don’t need explaining. Neither do yours actually. They are transparently dishonest.