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.
Well, it’s up to each of us who see genuine value in Duncan Hunter to roll up our sleeves, inform our friends and families, build a network, send generous checks to the campaign, get bumper stickers and brochures, (can be obtained if you call 1-619-463-3896) forward emails on Duncan Hunter, have “Debate parties” on May 3, and on and on. This man is not being pushed by big business because they know he cannot be bought. If we allow big business to continue to run our government, we certainly deserve what we get (er, I mean lose!) Freepmail me if you need further information.
“No.6, do a search for threads using keyword “Duncan Hunter”. You will find many articles extolling this great candidate. Unfortunately, the media gives him scant coverage at this point, so not 1000s of articles to choose from.”
The media is only going to cover the top 3 or 4 names on the list; and at the same time we know that it’s hard to get in the top 3 without coverage.
Everyone here already knows who Hunter is! Nor do I think there’s anyone here doesn’t know Rudy’s tendencies.
I submit that time is better spent spreading good news among people that don’t know it already. The drop in Rudy’s numbers as Thompson’s name has entered the chase tells me that as people find out there’s something to vote *for* they get enthusiastic.
In addition, I’ve noticed that every zing directed at the Rudy supporters just makes them entrench; it doesn’t change minds. Let’s say that Hunter actually wins the nomination. Now there’s this big group of people here who were Rudy supporters, but they’ve just spent the last year being insulted by Hunter supporters. Do you think they’ll turn around and start organizing for Hunter? It’ll take all of us to win in November ‘08.
If, on the other hand, the mode of approach is “OK, Rudy cut taxes, but wouldn’t you rather have fiscal responsibility AND solid conservative values too?” then there is no rift to mend.
Lastly, if your opinion is that if Rudy is the nominee then there’s no difference between him and a Democrat, then I can only point at the Supreme Court, at your recent 1040 form, at the fact that there is no ugly-gun ban in place, and say, hey, for all the flaws, look at what a less-than-perfect Republican has done. Think about partial-birth abortion, guns, and taxes in the hands of a Clinton or Obama and if that doesn’t make your skin crawl, well hey.
I really think it’s worth it to spend our primary season pumping up our candidate of choice, not throwing mud. Do what ya want, your electrons are just as valuable as mine; but that’s my opinion.
The problem with that thinking is that Rudy is not fit for the GOP nomination. McCain has problems, but there is no question he is generally conservative. Romney may be a milquetoast flip flopper, but he’s flipped definitively in the conservative direction and is emphatic about his renassaince. Hunter, Tancredo, Huckabee, etc are all known conservatives.
Having a liberal like Rudy at the top of the ticket is a recipe for the demise of the GOP as a conservative party.
This is the primary.
I have a hard time reconciling your statement with Fred’s outstanding record of fighting to restore proper Constitutional power to the states.
OK. My opinion is that Rudy shouldn’t be our nominee (my #1 issue is 2A rights, and he’s terrible for that), but that he’s way better than an Obama or a Clinton, for the reasons I gave above.
Many are prepared to split if Rudy is the GOP nominee; but given the invective thrown at them daily, would you be surprised if Rudy people split if a Hunter or Thompson became the nominee?
In either case we get a Clinton or Obama, something far worse than bad.
Besides, I don’t think we get a victory in the primaries for our guy by being bitter or angry. People desperately want to vote *for* something good, especially now in a time of turmoil.
When we have to zing the other guy, do it with humor, which defuses the resentment. That was Reagan’s secret, like referring to Mondale’s ‘inexperience’ in the debates. Everyone laughed, but *bang* the whole issue of Reagan’s age was _gone_ and Mondale’s on the defensive.
Again, I understand and appreciate your position; I’m coming at this with the mindset of actually accomplishing the goal.
DH stock is not going anywhere. It’s a penny stock now and it will be a penny stock when his campaign folds or is “suspended” by February 1st 2008.
Hmm.
And all this time, I thought conservatives were most concerned about the Islamo-fascist threat.
Better update my list.
As I understand it, the neocons (like me and thee) support Israel, but they have no problem with making the Middle East democratic by force, and they have no problem with big-government socialism. They are not small-government. (I support our efforts in Iraq, by the way, but I don’t believe one of our purposes is to convert the Middle East to democracy at gunpoint.)
Paperdoll wrote: “Duncan Hunter is not owned by big business. His support comes from citizens concerned about the disappearance of their country.”
According to www.OpenSecrets.org, Hunter’s top contributors are Defense contractors:
Top Contributors to Duncan Hunter (R) 2006
Rank Donor Amount (US Dollars)
1 BAE Systems $ 22,060
2 L-3 Communications $ 19,600
3 Northrop Grumman $ 11,700
4 Phoenix Management $ 10,500
4 Lockheed Martin $ 10,500
Nothing wrong with that. Just don’t try to portaray it as some sort of citizen’s grassroots movement, which it ain’t.
Thanks, Sturm. I repeat, “Duncan Hunter is not owned by big business”. Thank God some businesses put the country first.
Still hoping Duncan Hunter gets his run in gear tho.
I agree with you generally. However, the facts should be made known on all candidates in order that voters are informed enough to make a wise decision. No visciousness is acceptable.
>...and is no reason to give up.<
Thank you for your encouragement. :o)
I’d rather see us remove the restraints from our own industry, but in the end I’m a reasonable person, a rational actor, and I’m more interested in what’s good for me than what’s good for the economy as a whole. I’m more of a fair trade kind of guy than a free trader.
In terms of the defining issue of 20th Century Conservatism, limiting the role of government, Fred appears to me to be to the right of every other GOP candidate except Ron Paul. (Possibly Tancredo as well, though he is more known for his immigration stance than any efforts to reign in the federal leviathan) BTW, on the issue he is WAY to the right of Bush.
Consider the following in a recent article explaining why conservatives are so excited by a possible Thompson run.
“Thompson ran on a strong small-government—even antigovernment—message. “America’s government is bringing America down, and the only thing that can change that is a return to the basics,” he said. “We will get back to basics and make the sacrifices and once again amaze the world at how, in America, ordinary people can do very extraordinary things.” Thompson emphasized issues that would appeal to disaffected voters—making laws apply to the members of Congress who pass them; congressional pay raises; entitlement reform.
...
His voting record suggests a strong belief in federalism. Thompson was frequently a lonely voice opposing the federalization of what in his view were state issues. His unwillingness to compromise on that principle even put him on the losing end of a 99-to-1 vote on the so-called Good Samaritan law, legislation that protected individuals from being sued if their good faith efforts to help someone in distress were unsuccessful. He thought it should have been left to the states.”
I remember in the 1996 primary, Alan Keyes denounced the Buchanan approach to protectionism with the observation: “Trade Socialism is still Socialism”. What is conservative about the government trying to control economic transactions? That is what socialism is all about.
While I do understand the opposition to the creation of regional or global bodies set up to regulate trade and erode our sovereignty, that is not Free Trade. What many people call Free Trade today is really globally managed trade. I oppose this approach, but I am also vehemently opposed to government directed economic protectionism, which is another socialistic excuse to let the government control the economy. Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about this in his Report on the trade on December 16, 1793:
“Instead of embarrassing commerce under piles of regulating laws, duties, and prohibitions, could it be relieved from all its shackles in all parts of the world, could every country be employed in producing that which nature has best fitted it to produce, and each be free to exchange with others mutual surplusses for mutual wants, the greatest mass possible would then be produced of those things which contribute to human life and human happiness; the numbers of mankind would be increased, and their condition bettered.”
It makes absolutely no sense that the CP would end up different from the Republican party. It would be made up of the exact same flawed human beings. They cannot magically manufacture enough new voters without the current Republicans. This is a pipe dream—and not very realistic at that.
Well said, HT! The rest of the world doesn't disappear just because a fool has pipe dreams.
The Rudybots are the textbook case of the condition. Their grip on reality is so tenuous, I wonder sometimes how they can function at all.
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.