Posted on 11/28/2007 10:48:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I enjoyed watching Chris Wallace’s recent interview with Fred Thompson — and I share Thompson’s bewilderment at Fox’s nitpicking negativity, so far, about his budding campaign.
In general, I agree with Matthew Dallman’s assessment of Thompson; he feels to me like the most presidential and even-minded of the candidates.
While I could support Giuliani, something about him often strikes me as ... dark and edgy. Maybe I just don’t have enough East Coast in me to take to him right away.
Thompson is the first (and, so far, only) leading candidate reminding us that social security still needs reform, and soon. That shows me he is a man unafraid to deliver important news even though it’s politically unpopular.
Although I disagree with Thompson that abortion constitutes the “taking of a life” in any legally meaningful sense — to me it’s more like taking the life of a fish than of a human — I do agree with him that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that decisions about the legality of various abortion procedures can be made at the local rather than federal level.
My own position is that abortion is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree, with no end in sight. So why should such a truly gray-area subject — I mean, when does human life start for those of us who don’t think it’s at conception? — be subject to such absolute rule at the federal level.
With the possible exception of his position on immigration — seems to me immigration should be fast, easy, and well-documented — I definitely like Thompson’s list of principles.
“Dissolution of the IRS as we know it”? Count me in. “Free market solutions” to problems in the health care industry? Love it.
But what I like best about Thompson is his explicit, repeated, and principled emphasis on the importance of federalism. Ultimately, that’s why I can agree with him on Roe v. Wade while disagreeing with him about abortion.
Federalism is a beautiful thing, and I’m glad to see a major presidential candidate pushing the subject so strongly.
Rush said he’s not endorsing Fred because he doesn’t do endorsements during primaries, but he talked about Fred for about 5 minutes. Would be interesting to see how many hits on Fred’s webiste after Rush gave his tacit approval to Fred.
FRed was the first candidate to denounce Harry Reid when he sent that infamous letter, so I think FRed has a special place in Rush’s heart because of that!
I heard that too. He said Fred was the only one that seemed serious. IMHO Fred and Duncan seemed serious. I’d vote for either one.
Anyone who knows where Rush stands (I listen and watch on the dittocam everyday). And has followed Fred's career, as I have, know that Rush and Fred are political/philosophical soul mates.
C’mon Rush. Just come right out and endorse Fred and watch the wave.
You still have 15 million listeners. That ought to mean something!
It only takes one little statement from Rush to start something.
Ask Harry Reid...
Thompson has his task cut out before him. If he can win South Carolina, he should start to pick up steam. Rush's favorable words can only help.
While Rush said he is not endorsing anyone, he said it was obvious after the debate last night that Fred Thompson is the only conservative among the top tier. He said that redefining the term to fit other candidates was not something he did not like to see. He said that the other candidates are being called the “new” conservatives but that there is no such thing as a “new conservative”. You are conservative or you are not.
I sent Rush a big THANK YOU for standing up for true conservatism in the race by stating what many of us have been saying all along. If you want to support a true, proven conservative among the top tier and not one who calls himself a conservative but who has a liberal or a moderate Republican record, the only choice is Fred Thompson.
Mark Levin is a strong Fred supporter.
I don’t know if it’s my computer or FR, but everything is running slow for me today.
I watched a replay of last nights debate and definately feel that Thompson won the night.
There are those that support Duncan Hunter, so at least they know what a Conservative is, but I don’t think Duncan can hang much longer. Then these guys will have to call the ball. Anything but Thompson reveals them as less than Conservative.
When Goldwater ran in 1964 and Ford in 1976 the evangelicals voted for their opponents. LBJ and Carter.
I had hoped that Fred would do what Reagan did. Unite social conservatives with fiscal small government conservatives. Like Reagan, Thompson is not particularly religious. But he recognizes the importance of religion as the foundation of our society.
The problem I have with many evangelicals is that they are not practical in political matters. Their faith gets in the way of their logic. e.g. their illogical support of Huckabee and their support 30 years ago of the idiot Carter merely because he claimed to be a "born again Christian".
Thompson calls himself a "practical" conservative and I believe he is that. I sense he is similar to Reagan and Goldwater. Two of the greatest statesmen in my life time.
I haven't checked the Rush thread to see if this was brought up, but part of the reason this thread is getting so little attention is it's posted in GOP Club.
I'll bump the thread as much as I can, but as slow as my computer is running it may not be much. :)
Perhaps there will be a transcript snip available later and it will make it to its own thread.
I remember Rush also said that though Fred has taken hits about being lazy and having “no fire in the belly”, he does not believe anyone would put themselves through a run for the Presidency without wanting the job.
I was encouraged and I hope it causes some in his audience, who have fallen for the MSM spin, to take another good hard look at Fred.
Almost 40 years ago, Kevin Phillips wrote The Emerging Republican Majority, in which he predicted that white evangelical voters in the South and the Border states and white Catholics in the Northeast and Upper Midwest would gravitate over time to the GOP even as the old Republican base of middle class mainline Protestants of British, German, and Scandinavian ancestry in the Northeast and Upper Midwest would move toward the Democrats. Phillips' prediction was only two-thirds correct, as the white Catholics who flirted with the Republican Party in the 1980s have to some extent returned to Democratic ranks, as evidenced by the general collapse of the GOP north of the Potomac and east of Indiana, all states with high concentrations of white Catholics, except Maryland and Ohio, where their proportion is close to the national average. If the GOP is somewhat viable in Pennsylvania and Ohio, it is mainly due to the Scots-Irish, German, and Pennsylvania Dutch voters who dominate the rural areas.
The problem with evangelicals, by and large, is that their economic views remained mired in the days of FDR and LBJ. Mike Huckabee is the most egregious example. To some extent, their evolution to the Republican Party parallels that of the formerly liberal intellectuals sometimes dubbed neo-conservatives who left the Democrats when that party become one of "amnesty, acid, and abortion." If Fred Thompson wins the nomination and the Presidency, he would do well to use his "bully pulpit" to champion truly free market solutions to our economic and budgetary difficulties, rather than the "compassionate conservatism" that is merely big government liberalism wrapped in Christian rhetoric.
To my in-laws, guys like Ron Paul are fringe candidates. When we’ve discussed politics in the past, they’ve gently reproved me for “throwing away my vote” on third-party candidates.
Obviously I don’t agree with that, but that’s where they’re coming from.
You are talking about my ancestors. Scots-Irish from rural Pennsylvania. Socially conservative but big supporters of FDR and his "new deal".
They were and many still are Democrats. But started voting Republican decades ago. They were "Reagan Democrats".
Thompson fits this mold. His parents were Democrats and I'll wager he's Scots-Irish.
However, the dominant culture was that of the Scots-Irish, and people named Mueller or O'Neal who reside in the Upper South are indistinguishable from the Jacksons or the Thompsons. If you read obituaries in, say, The Dallas Morning News, people with German or Celtic Irish surnames who have first names that are more characteristic of the South are likely to be native-born Southerners and evangelical Protestants, whereas those with saints' names or ethnic names like Carl or Sean are usually Northerners and Catholic or Lutheran. Thus, the Scots-Irish influenced culture encompasses millions of people who do not have Scottish surnames.
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.