Replies

Since this is an opinion piece, with the author giving an opinion about whether Fred's overall record is conservative or not, I thought I'd check what else the author had written to see what he thinks a "conservative" is.

I found an article from March of 2007, on basically the same topic, titled Fred Thompson: Neocon Globalist

Noting that in the article just posted, the author claims 3 real conservatives (Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter) I found THIS comment from the March article interesting:

There already are two fine conservative candidates seeking the nomination: Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo

So, why a month ago did the author not say Duncan Hunter was a good conservative? Did he simply forget Duncan was running, or has he been "shaped" since then to include Hunter in order to get more support for his cause of stopping Fred?

The rest of that article was a repeat of the claims made in this article, except for this paragraph about why the "neocons" are pushing Fred:

Why are neoncons backing Thompson? Ideally, being ex-Trotskyites themselves, neocons would prefer a liberal candidate, like McCain, Giuliani or Romney. But they see that conservatives deplore these candidates, and now are going to try to peddle Fred Thompson, who is just socially conservative enough and just tough enough on the borders, even if it is feigned, to woo naive GOP voters. But let's hope this nefarious neocon plot fails.

I found this article by Basil Conservatives Fleeing the GOP.

As the liberal/globalist stranglehold over the GOP strengthens, more and more conservatives are considering leaving the GOP.

The third-world hordes are invading the West, and we must ask ourselves: are we going to fight back? The Treason Lobby in corporate America and in the Democrat and Republican Parties has sold out America for cheap votes and cheap labor.

I found this post at "reformedchicksblabbing" (a blog) where the author made a good enough argument regarding Basil's viewpoint that I'd rather steal her words than write my own:

Our Daily Dose of Fred Thompson:

It's all very well and good for Basil Harrington to blast Thompson's record on immigration and say that he'll take his ball and go home if Thompson's is the candidate but the problem is serious people (not those who will abandon the party if they don't get their way) need to elect a president from the current poll of candidates. So we have to find the one that is the closest to our values. I know that all the top tier candidates would not meet this criteria (and I assume that only two of the second tier do). And on all the other conservative issues, none of them is a perfect match. I think that as the candidates interact with the public they will see that their immigration policy is wildly out of step with the electorate and it will evolve to reflect what the people want, as we saw with McCain yesterday. These people want the job and will move in the right direction to ensure that they get it.

Thompson is conservative where it really matters: he's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-small government, he's anti-tax and spend and he understands the war on terror. And he has a record to back this up. Plus (and this is a big plus) he is electable in the general election. I would put him up against Clinton any day.

Basil's columns above appear in a lot of places, but I couldn't in my recent searches find any google references to anything he wrote other those three attacks on Fred Thompson. It's like either he just started writing to write this, or he was not well-followed before he wrote this.

I even found a Basil Harrington Blog on "NewsBull", but the only two things they have posted are 2 of the three colmns noted above about Fred Thompson.

What I am saying is that it was hard for me to research any other opinions of Basil to compare them to what I would consider more standard conservative thought.

It does appear Basil is in the Pat Buchanon camp regarding immigration, opposing not just illegal immigration but our current legal policy. And he is a protectionist on trade, something I've never been but that Basil insists used to be the "conservative" position. Maybe I've been taken by the neocons as well.

So all I can say is this: If you believe as Basil believes, you should definitely vote for Tom Tancredo, or Ron Paul, or maybe Duncan Hunter. None of them has a chance of winning at this point, but I couldn't vote for a candidate I thought was selling us out to the new world order, and I don't expect anybody else to either, as bizarre as I think their arguments on the matter to be.