Posted on 04/20/2007 6:02:18 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
It seems that conservatives are about to make the same mistake that they made in 2000. Every Cassandra warned the movement conservatives that GW Bush was a liberal, but they were all duped by his "compassionate conservatism," which we since have learned really means "liberal globalism."
Now, despite all the warnings, they are about to be conned by Fred Thompson too - another neocon (aka liberal globalist). Will they get what they deserve? Can people really be so shortsighted? In 2011 will we hear GOP cheerleaders, "If only I had known...."
Let's look at Fred Thompson on the issues.
First and foremost, let's ponder immigration, the greatest threat facing the West today. As Jean Raspail foretold in Camp of the Saints, the "best conservative novel ever written," a third-world invasion of the West is taking place, and we must make a stand - before it is too late.
Although tough talking on border control, Fred Thompson has a rather weak record from his time in the Senate. Americans for Better Immigration only gave him a career grade of C. And on chain migration, visa lotteries, reducing unnecessary visas, asylum fraud, and reducing amnesties, he received rather low marks.
Thompson is almost certainly pro-abortion, regardless what he feigns. He has said, "The ultimate decision must be made by the woman." In other words, he believes it's a "choice."
Thompson is pro-affirmative action, and his two votes in the Senate guaranteed that under-qualified minorities would be given preference over Euro-Americans (i.e. white people). Thompson obviously believes that victimology should trump hard work.
And like all neocons, Thompson supports free trade, which is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. Historically, conservatives opposed free trade, and they should; it's national suicide. But Thompson like many GOP cheerleaders has been "neoconned" on this issue.
In foreign policy, Fred Thompson is an adamant neocon globalist. He is a fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and a member of the neocon / neoliberal Council on Foreign Relations, which supports the creation of a North American Union and the eradication of American sovereignty.
In short, Fred Thompson is no real conservative. He's a neocon globalist. Only look at his past actions, memberships and words.
We already have three real conservatives in the running (Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter) and let's give them the support they deserve. If Fred Thompson receives the nomination, I'm voting Constitution Party.
The CFR is nothing but a think tank with a nice magazine.
Huh? I am pro Choice too. Pro choice for the baby
Yep.
Bush deserves credit for this week (with some of our help, a la Myers).
It would take 2% of the GOP to defect and effectively take over the Constitution Party, an option that many of us consider in hotter moments. Their adds show that they currently need to refocus, something that Conservatives here could easily help them do. Ultimately, it may come to this, but not now, IMO. FDT is easily palatable as a candidate, and absolutely “sellable” to the public.
That is about the most stupidest thing anyone can say
So having said that, let me weigh in on Fred Thompson’s supposed “neocon” record.
The article writes,
“We already have three real conservatives in the running (Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter) and let’s give them the support they deserve. If Fred Thompson receives the nomination, I’m voting Constitution Party.”
Personally this comment tells me that the writer is not a conservative himself, but is rather a Libertarian. Ron Paul is not a conservative. He shares some ideas with conservatives, but his record is clearly libertarian. People need to realize that there is a difference between conservatism and libertarianism. They are not the same. And true conservatives need to realize that libertarians will never win an election to the White House. They win very few elections in the first place; they are surely not going to win a national election. Some of their views (where they differ with conservatives) are just plain nutty, and few folks will vote for them.
Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter aren’t libertarians (though I do think they may sometimes support populist positions on issues), but neither would be able to defeat who ever the Democrats elect. (I seriously doubt whether any one of the three has a chance to win the Republican nomination, whether or not FT runs.)
“Every Cassandra warned the movement conservatives that GW Bush was a liberal, but they were all duped by his ‘compassionate conservatism,’ which we since have learned really means ‘liberal globalism.’”
I don’t know what a “Cassandra” is (and I don’t care), but it is absolutely foolish to call GB a “liberal.” Whoever makes that comment is an extremist right winger, not a conservative. (Conservatives aren’t extremists. That’s a contradiction in terms.) To be honest GB was not my first choice when he first ran for President. He was my governor, but I wanted someone else. I didn’t like his “compassionate conservative” rhetoric either, and I still don’t. But I didn’t call him a “liberal,” because he isn’t. Still President Bush has been a far better President than I originally gave him credit for. His reaction to 911 has been superb, and his appointments to the SCOTUS have been better than anyone else’s including Ronald M. Reagan. Yes, he has made some compromises I wish he had not, but he hasn’t have a particularly helpful congress to work with even when the Republicans were in control.
“Now, despite all the warnings, they are about to be conned by Fred Thompson too.”
Since this writer fills free to insult other conservatives, I’ll feel free to speak my mind about him. The writer is an idiot. No one is being “conned” by FT. FT from what I can tell is one of the most decent politicians I have seen in a long time, and he gives the sense that he is honest in all that he says. I suspect that when he disagrees with conservatives, he will let us know. We won’t need “warnings” from simpletons like this writer. Not all will agree with him on every issue, but he will be respected.
“First and foremost, let’s ponder immigration, the greatest threat facing the West today. As Jean Raspail foretold in Camp of the Saints, the ‘best conservative novel ever written,’ a third-world invasion of the West is taking place, and we must make a stand - before it is too late.”
I haven’t read the “novel,” but I think it silly to base foreign policy on books of fiction. Whenever I hear folks call illegal immigration “a third-world invasion” I have to ask myself, “Why is it, if their opposition to what is being done regarding illegal immigration is justified, do they have to resort to outrageous exaggerations like this?” I want to see something done about illegal immigration myself. Hey, I want to see something done just as badly about folks exceeding the speed limit, but I don’t see anyone clamoring for enforcement there. We also need to find a way to deal with the mess that has been created through lack of immigration enforcement, and rounding everyone up and shipping them to Mexico isn’t the answer.
Mexican illegal immigration is a problem, but it’s not terrorism, and it’s not a war. That kind of rhetoric hurts the cause of those who want to find a realistic solution.
I think FT is someone who wants to find a realistic solution. He will never satisfy the “shoot first and ask questions later” crowd, but anyone who wants to follow that approach has little chance to win the Presidency.
“Thompson is almost certainly pro-abortion, regardless what he feigns. He has said, ‘The ultimate decision must be made by the woman.’ In other words, he believes it’s a ‘choice.”’”
Others have addressed this by pointing out his voting record is decidedly pro-life. He has always been supported by pro-life organizations. I personally have attempted to verify where FT said what is claimed of him. It seems to have come from a pro-abortion advocate trying to discredit FT among pro-life voters. If that is indeed the case, idiots like this writer are playing into the hands of those pro-choice advocates.
“And like all neocons, Thompson supports free trade, which is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty.”
If he didn’t, conservatives should oppose him. Free trade is a conservative value. Populists and liberals in general have been against free trade. Is the writer of this article a populist or a liberal? He’s not a conservative obviously. Free trade is a benefit to consumers in a capitalist society. It enables competition, and helps to keep prices down.
“Historically, conservatives opposed free trade, and they should; it’s national suicide.”
This is false. Historically liberals oppose free trade, because they want to please labor union bosses. Conservatives have always supported free trade, because of its alignment with capitalistic ideas.
“In foreign policy, Fred Thompson is an adamant neocon globalist.”
If this means that he supports the War on Terror, good for Thompson!
“He is a fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and a member of the neocon / neoliberal Council
on Foreign Relations, which supports the creation of a North American Union and the eradication of American sovereignty.”
What foolishness. The writer is claiming that if the US enters into treaties with other countries, then we give up our sovereignty. That’s ridiculous. Working together with other countries is essential to the security of the US, and helps to build our economy. Isolations like this writer would rather see our economy ruined, and have us cower in fear of terrorists rather than stand up and fight against our enemies. Isolations have always hurt our country, and we don’t need them.
He tells us that if FT wins the nomination he will vote for a third party. Let him. If he would rather let the Democrats win, than have someone as decent as FT in the White House, he will deserve what he gets.
Two lines into the article the author shows he has no idea what the heck he's talking about. Bush may not be what he shopuld be, but a liberal? Might as well call him a ham sandwich.
LOL!
Free trade is a conservative, small government, concept. Heavy handed government protectionism is not.
Fred's stand on immigration is also more conservative that the author wishes is was.
Fred has supported cracking down on illegal immigration, but he has also supported increasing legal immigration in the past when there was a high demand for workers.
That stance may not sit well with some who consider themselves republican, but it is conservative.
The author also doesn't seem to be too concerned with presenting Fred's stance on the issues very clearly, which reflects poorly on the author.
I say the following with utter sincerity: Get bent.
i like it!!!!
Paul is also the only “conservative” candidate that is enfgaged in treason. He consorts with Code Pink and spouts their talking points; his vote on the supplemental funding for the war and his statement explaining it was pretty much a rewrite of their position on the issue. Heck, there are some Dems in the field who haven’t committed treason!
You apparently have the comprehension problem -- Thompson is still in favor of campaign finance reform; he is just specifically against how McCain_Feingold does it (or more to the point, doesn't do it).
Good lord, have you never made a mistake in you life that you tried to go back and correct?
Seems to me that Thompson left the Senate for similar reasons.
Once again, with absolut sincerity: Get Bent.
I heard Fred state fairly recently that he now believes the only way to handle campaign finance is to take off all restrictions and add instantanious reporting of sources.
To be fair, he didn't say that was the only way. He said something more to the effect of "I'm not prepared to go there yet" but that such an approach may be necessary.
I do applaud him for keeping open the most conservative option (get the government out of regulating political speech and contributions as much as possible), however.
Also, given your support for Rudy and his record as the Mayor of a sanctuary city, you really have a lot of chutzpah bringing this issue up. It's like a Hillary supporter saying they can't elect Obama because he met some Chinese guys once.
This is the worst primary season I can remember. Not one candidate’s supporters are busy finding things they like about their own candidate.
Every article and 90% of the FR posts are why the other guy is terrible.
By the time we’re out of the primaries, we will have convinced the rest of the country that whatever guy emerges as the Republican candidate is, in fact, a rotten SOB who has no business being dog catcher.
My personal preference is for Hunter at this time but —— it, if conservatives can’t see that any win for our team means guys like Alito and decisions like this week’s vote on partial-birth abortion, and that ANY (R) is way better than a (D) victory, then nuts to ya all.
Whether you’re for Hunter, Thompson, Guiliani, Romney or even McCain, if you like your guy give us reasons to share your opinion, not just more flamebait.
LOL! I didn’t bring the issue up about immigration someone else did on this thread. I just gave that link so that that they will get a gist on his votes and not go by what this blogger’s own words. Besides The link was used by the Fred Heads many times before. That website is not new to FR.
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.