Posted on 04/10/2007 5:00:14 PM PDT by SE Mom
...It’s been said by many including me, that America is experiencing a nationwide epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder. ..
But in watching the Fred Thompson phenomenon develop, I am coming to a different opinion, one that might explain the clear political apathy of the average American voter and the current Fred Thompson fever all in one shot...
.. The problem is looking more like a nationwide state of extreme political boredom. A case of a nation bored into a trance, or a deep slumber by a nauseatingly boring group of over-stuffed politically correct and morally bankrupt blowhards saying nothing..
..Eventually, it all just blurs together to make one big boring indistinguishable white noise and nobody is listening anymore. Why should they? Nobody’s saying anything...
..And that my friends, is what people like about former two term, then back to the real world, plain spoken Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. I mean aside from the fact the he is a professionally trained orator capable of completing a sentence using only his own thoughts and no old cue cards from any political party campaign guru...
..Fred Thompson stands out in the crowd like a real live candidate with a mind of his own, even when trying not to slip up and accidentally agree to run for president. And as long as he retains his traditional irreverence for Washington nonsense, he will continue to be popular among voters who can very much relate to that uncommonly outspoken irreverence....
...And that’s why folks all over this nation are sitting on their wallets waiting to see if Fred will answer the people’s call before committing a penny to the ’08 political circus already center stage and raging out of control, a year before the primaries are even supposed to begin...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalledger.com ...
“Rudy is indeed the ‘purple’ candidate, and you are clearly a ‘purple’ voter, all of which is fine my friend. However, ‘purple’ is NOT conservative and this is exactly why ‘purple’ will NOT get the conservative voter today, as you can see by reading all of the conservative posts on this thread and many others.”
Don’t delude yourself by thinking that I am not a conservative. I am. And I’ve explained why I’m backing Rudy—because only he can attract enough blue and purple states to win. I’m well-aware people coming from your perspective believe this is unprincipled. But the rejoinder must be to ask what good being “principled” can be if in the long run we hand the Democrats a victory? Yet you would do this by backing conservative candidates with no appeal outside of red states—a sure scenario for political suicide. To which I say no thank you.
I also disagree about your claim about the timing of Rudy’s run. In fact, the bad timing is your own. This is not a time when either pro-life or second amendment issues weigh heavy on the mind of most voters in the Republican Party. It is a time when they see clearly the need to attract purple and blue states, something you dismiss as if it were of minor imporance.
As for the posts on this and other threads—what exactly do you expect them to prove except that there is a volatile fringe of conservatives who despise Rudy? How is this proof of anything? In fact polls consistently show that a great many conservatives—people like myself—want Rudy to lead the ticket and they show this by making him the clear frontrunner. That’s what you should be noticing—not how many disgruntled single-issue types post on FR.
Keep watching - Thompson has not entered the scene yet...
The mere speculation has already upset the entire RNC anointing process...
Keep watching...
No conservative would ever call abortion, gay rights and gun control “back-burner issues”.
There are no blue/purple states, only a handful of terminally blue cities which make a few states look purple and these cities will go Democrat no matter who the RNC runs.
I am not attacking your “principled” position. I’m simply pointing out that your “principles” are NOT shared by the conservative base of our party.
You’re right, I’m not a bit interested in a candidate who appeals at all to blue city socialists. Why would I be? Have you counted the red states anytime recently? Maybe a county by county map will help you understand.
As for winning concerns, you have it exactly backwards. How do you plan on winning without the support of your party base? You are also making a HUGE assumption that Mrs. Bill Clinton won’t defeat herself with her sharp tongue...
You can argue with me from now until your candidate concedes the nomination if you want, but you can’t argue with the vast size and scope of the grassroots conservative movement to replace the liberal RNC frontrunner's with a real conservative in ‘08...
You are free to disagree and time will tell which of us is right. But all the facts are on my side at present and 90% of the comments on this thread a dozens of others just like it should tell you that.
You are trying to push the same old tired liberal RINO line down the throats of real conservative who have had their fill already.
How can you miss something so obvious?
Are you sure your not a Democrat? No offense, but conservatives are usually quicker to catch on...?
One last thing, it is no small fringe conservative movement, it is a very broad grassroots movement of the conservative base of your party, who has in recent years, allowed the party to drift left in the name of defeating someone further left. That’s over now, since you have not noticed...
And, most of us don’t “despise Rudy”. I personally like Rudy. I just don’t want the next leader of the free world to be left of Bush and neither does any other conservative...
Thanks!
I'd only add that Rudy's 'authoritariansim' may play well in some messed-up major city (liberalism is what screws them up to begin with) but has no place at all, at the national level.
Unlike Hillary's Village/parent-child/common-good approach to issuses as an "end" worthy of jettisonning our constitution, our government was founded upon protecting the "means" (individual liberty) to which a particular "end" remained illusive (though divinely inspired-should be acceptable).
LOVE THIS!!!!!
(We need a ‘divider’ this time around. No more ‘uniting’.)
Bravo!
April 10, 2007
For Immediate Release
For More Information, Contact: Don Feder at (508) 405-1337
Values Voters Swing Towards Thompson and Edwards
A recent Vision America online presidential preference poll of over 2,500 Values Voters across the United States indicates significant support for a current non-candidate.
37.6% of the 2,678 respondents supported former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
Other results: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (14.1%), U.S. Representative Ron Paul (11.3%), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (10.6%) and Senator Sam Brownback (7.4%).
For the Democratic nomination, 817 respondents, or 30.5%, picked John Edwards, while 1,179, or 44%, indicated they would not vote in the Democratic primary.
Vision America President Rick Scarborough said the results reflect widespread uncertainty over the current field of GOP candidates: “It’s clear that our members, like Values Voters everywhere, are looking for an authentic conservative and hoping that Fred Thompson will turn out to be that man.”
Scarborough continued: “The Republican establishment is now on notice — Values Voters are not going to flock to socially liberal candidates, regardless of what label they bear. Conservative rhetoric is less important than a conservative record in office.”
For more information and to schedule an interview with Rick Scarborough contact Don Feder at (508) 405-1337. Complete poll results are available at www.visionamerica.us.
“It is your diluted conservative values that make you not a conservative voter my friend, not me. It’s okay, that’s allowed in this country. Don’t be so sensitive about the title that goes with your ideology and Rudy’s. No conservative would ever call abortion, gay rights and gun control ‘back-burner issues’.”
My conservative values are intact—I am pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-tax cuts, pro-smaller government, pro-military, pro-war-on-terror, etc., etc. And I am not at all sensitive about acknowledging these principles or to admit that I disagree with Rudy on the social issues. But so what? My argument is still fool-proof—and you don’t address it. The simple fact is that many conservatives like myself are willing to back Rudy because he alone can win blue and purple states in the next election at a time when Democrats are showing a great deal of political strength. This doesn’t mean I’m not conservative, it means that unlike one-or-two-issue conservatives like you who reside in a political la-la land, I’m a conservative accustomed to facing reality.
As for abortion and gun-control being “back-burner issues”—that is exactly what both issues are for the next election—even for staunch conservatives. Why? Because with abortion the whole issue of Supreme Court nominees has been considerably mitigated by the ascension of Roberts and Alito. In a similar way, regarding gun-control, the recent federal court decision affirming the right of individuals to own firearms has taken a good deal of sting out of the issue. Neither party wants to deal with those issues in November ‘08—which makes them pretty much moot, however important they may seem to some conservatives personally. If in fact you place them on your “front-burner” as the most compelling political issues this country currently faces—while ignoring the damage the Democrats do to this country by their treasonous behavior in the war on terror—then you are the one with the bad timing. Fortunately most Republicans see things as I do—which is why Rudy leads in their polls.
“That’s his [Thompson’s] formal position on abortion and always has been, so far as I know.”
I like the caveat you slide in there—the word “formal.” What’s his “informal” position? In fact the pro-life issue has never been big with him. He spent little time on it in the Senate, though he voted appropriately—he was far more passionate about McCain/Feingold, for instance. That tells us something—for instance, how we can rightfully wonder how much we can trust him with Supreme Ct. nominees—just judging from his tepid attitude on most social issues. At least Rudy has been up front. And at least he’s defanged the issue by agreeing to nominate justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. This is why someone as conservative as Ted Olson now backs him.
“His views on the singular issues of abortion and gun-control will not carry very many, if any, of the southern states or the west. His abilities to ‘fire back’ at the media also show a preclivity to argument instead of negotiation, something a chief executive HAS to have to survive in Washington.”
I disagree on both counts. He is currently running well in the South. He is doing very well indeed in North and South Carolina, in Georgia, in Florida, in Louisiana, in Texas—in most of the big southern states—as well as in the mountain states. As for his “in your face” attitude—that’s EXACTLY what is necessary for the Republican Party at the present time. Rudy fulfills a deep need—the need for some strong-minded and articulate Republican to stand up and face the Democrats who spew their hatred daily, accusing our president of lying, smearing our military, pushing for appeasement and defeat at every turn, while wimpish Republicans remain perfect gentlemen. So thank God Rudy is made of sterner stuff! He’s the kind of streetfighter we need to fight the opposition in Washington—exactly as he did in NYC. He understands power and knows how to use the levers of government, having served in the Justice Department and having been an outstanding executive. He’s also a great communicator. He would certainly inspire fear in the opposition—which I believe is long overdue.
“One last thing, it is no small fringe conservative movement, it is a very broad grassroots movement of the conservative base of your party...”
And it’s going nowhere. You just don’t get it. You single issue people stayed home in ‘06—even after you were handed Roberts and Alito. I call that ingratitude. It also served to prove how unreliable many of you were as Republicans. You are conservative in a narrowly-defined way, but are not averse to handing the Democrats a victory. You want it your way or the highway—even in the face of all logic. Logic in this case tells us clearly that an ideologically pure candidate can’t win in a general election. To which you cover your ears and dream of a Hunter or a Gingrich candidacy.
“My conservative values are intact—I am pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-tax cuts, pro-smaller government, pro-military, pro-war-on-terror, etc., etc. And I am not at all sensitive about acknowledging these principles or to admit that I disagree with Rudy on the social issues.”
No, but to cast a vote for Rudy, you’ll have to check your clearly deeply held values at the door before entering the voting booth, then take a long shower upon exiting the voting booth before trying to explain to the rest of us how voting for a “pro-abortion” candidate upheld your deep conviction to your “pro-life” position. Then try telling those honest citizens he took guns away from all about your firm pro-second amendment vote.... shall I keep going?
These values may remain intact as you say, but if they aren’t worth supporting and defending, what good are they? I forgot, these are just the “back-burner” issues, right?
“My argument is still fool-proof—and you don’t address it. The simple fact is that many conservatives like myself are willing to back Rudy because he alone can win blue and purple states in the next election at a time when Democrats are showing a great deal of political strength.”
Your argument is not fool-proof, it’s foolish, as I addressed it directly. This argument foolishly assumes that there is such a thing as “purple states”, which minimal research will debunk. There are only a handful of “blue cities”, LA, NYC, DC and a couple more, which turn those states “purple”. But NO Republican candidate is going to win those cities, therefore, those states will remain “purple” with or without Rudy. The entire argument is bogus, based on liberal drivel, that only a liberal Republican can compete with a socialist Democrat in a general election.
If this is true, then America is already finished as a free society. I don’t believe it and you shouldn’t either, if you indeed believe in the things you say you do.
The liberal press has a reason for selling you those goods. They can’t lose. Liberal Republican or socialist Democrat. They win either way. But what about you and those conservative values of yours?
“As for abortion and gun-control being “back-burner issues”—that is exactly what both issues are for the next election—even for staunch conservatives. Why? Because with abortion the whole issue of Supreme Court nominees has been considerably mitigated by the ascension of Roberts and Alito.”
No, a pro-life voter is seeking to reverse the courts current position on abortion, not hold status quo. Same goes for gun rights, property rights, gay rights and the lot. Go check Rudy’s judicial appointment record in NY...then tell me he will seat conservative judges.
“Fortunately most Republicans see things as I do—which is why Rudy leads in their polls.”
The real fact is, some Republicans aren’t conservatives. Most Republicans are still and they don’t agree with you at all, as you can see in this thread among others.
The simple truth is, conservatives not only hold conservative values, they act upon those values. This is where all RINOs come up short, incuding Rudy.
I’m telling you one last time, if you want Hillary to win with a similar minority popular vote just like her husband did twice, then ignore the base of the party that is looking for a real conservative candidate or none at all...
The base bent-over twice for Bush and took it in the shorts both times. They have allowed the party to drift as far left as they are going to at this point and Rudy can’t beat Hillary or Obama without the base of the Republican Party. The math just won’t work my friend...
But believe what you will...
He’s not pro-abortion, gay rights and anti-gun like your candidate... So what are you asking for?
No, YOU single issue (9/11 WOT as if Rudy is the only candidate tough on terrorism) voters don’t get it.
Almost every RNC candidate will be tougher on terrorism than any DNC candidate. That wins NO votes for any Republican in the primaries.
That means the only thing separating Republican candidates from each other are the domestic “back-burner” stances.
IF Fred runs, your guy is going down in flames alone with all the other RINOs, watch and see. There are over 200 comments on this threat now. How many of them seem to even remotely support your spineless position?
Conservatism is first and foremost about having the backbone to take a stand for what is right. Yet you have gone to great lengths to describe in detail all the reasons you are eager to compromise the values you claim to hold dear. Why?
How does this make you a conservative?
To add to everything else, he dresses nicely. :)
Possibly all three.
Really? You don't know that for a fact.
sw
“No, but to cast a vote for Rudy, you’ll have to check your clearly deeply held values at the door before entering the voting booth, then take a long shower upon exiting the voting booth before trying to explain to the rest of us how voting for a “pro-abortion” candidate upheld your deep conviction to your “pro-life” position.”
It’s easy to understand my position—if you properly appreciate the principle of double effect. According to this ethical principle first put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas, one may morally posit an act which may have both a good and a bad effect—provided one intends the good and not the bad effect and provided the good effect outweighs the bad. For example, a nation may bomb an enemy’s munitions factory, even if it has the bad effect of killing innocent civilians, as long as the good effect of ending the war quickly was primarily intended. In such a case the good effect would far outweigh the bad effect—because many more lives would be saved. In the case of supporting Rudy, I would be voting for someone whose personal views on abortion are morally reprehensible, but would do so knowing he has the very real potential of winning big in ‘08 and helping return the Republicans to power in Congress—which would do far more for the pro-life cause in the final analysis than not voting for Rudy ever would. This decision is made even easier by his clearly stated public commitment to the nomination of strict constructionists.
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.