Posted on 06/11/2007 12:14:09 AM PDT by goldstategop
I was not writing this column during the campaign prior to the 2000 election, but I did follow the battles for the Republican nomination with some interest. I found it hard to believe after eight years of the William Jefferson Clinton circus, American people would wish for symbolic continuation of his presidency.
Unfortunately, the Republican candidates on offer were a lightweight collection of Conservative no-hopers, moderate Republican establishment figures and one popular governor of a large Southern state. That governor, George W. Bush, understandably looked like the only reasonable choice, and if his conspicuously non-ideological language was suspiciously protean, it made it easy for conservatives to see in him whatever they wanted to see. (I didn't buy it and did not vote for him. But I understand why many people did.)
It is hard to condemn Conservatives for supporting Bush in 2000, even if his “compassionate Conservative” language sent a clear signal that he did not consider himself a proper Conservative. And, if his disavowal of nation-building and advocacy of a humble foreign policy were misleading, it must be recalled that the vast majority of Conservatives initially supported Bush's neocon-inspired world democratic revolution; indeed many still support it today. Nevertheless, Bush was portrayed as a Conservative by the entire Conservative commentariat – many of whom described him as the second coming of Ronald Reagan – and any blame for being fooled by Bush lies with Bush, his propagandists and his apologists.
There is no similar excuse for having supported Bush in 2004. Despite widespread optimism about his double-secret conservative plans, the Patriot Acts, the Medicare Drug Entitlements, No Child Left Behind, general subservience to the United Nations and his nation-building in Iraq made it clear that he was not only no Conservative, but was markedly hostile to basic conservative concepts such as human liberty, small government and personal responsibility.
Now, when even the most blindly loyal Three Monkey Republicans are beginning to express some doubts about the president, and the three leading Republican candidates for 2008 appear to be shaping up to play the roles of Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand in a replay of Southeast Asia versus the Indian Ocean, another apparently reasonable choice is being presented to Republicans. This time, however, the nominal Reagan cum Messiah is the laconic actor, Sen. Fred Thompson.
Like President Bush, the younger Sen. Thompson gives off Conservative vibes. And as with Bush, those vibes are largely, if not entirely, misleading. According to the American Conservative Union's ratings, Sen. Thompson is little more Conservative than Sen. McCain. He voted for Sen. McCain's attack on free speech, voted for first-trimester abortions and, despite his recent opposition to the Bush-McCain Amnesty act, has a mixed record on immigration. In light of his record on immigration and the extreme unpopularity of immigration amnesty, his disavowal of the amnesty act should be taken no more seriously than Bush's pre-presidential rejection of nation-building.
Thompson is actually one of the less Conservative candidates; he is markedly less Conservative than Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter, or Paul and only looks halfway Conservative in comparison with the overt liberalism of Giuliani. Of course, it also helps that the so-called “Conservative” commentariat is running interference for him and trying to burnish his appeal to the party polloi, as they did on behalf of George W. Bush in 2000. Consider the way in which Sean Hannity intervened to prevent the senator from committing a gaffe that would have betrayed his true views on abortion to pro-life Republicans on Hannity's show:
After asserting he "always thought Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision," the actor-politician said: "I would not be, and never have been, for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that, if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and …" Co-host Sean Hannity then interrupted: "So, states rights for you?" Thompson replied: "Essentially, federalism. It's in the Constitution."
In other words, while Thompson believes, quite properly, that Roe v. Wade infringes upon states rights, he still opposes the criminalization of abortion on a state level. This means he is pro-choice; he is simply not rabidly pro-choice like feminists and other Democrats who are perfectly happy to use the Constitution as toilet paper if that will allow them to murder just one more unborn child.
First time Conservatives were fooled, and it wasn't completely their fault. The second time, they had no one else to blame. If Conservatives are dumb enough to be fooled the third time in a row and nominate Fred Thompson as the Republican candidate, they will not only deserve the Clintonian tidal wave that will likely ensue, they will fully merit their dismissal by the Left as a community simply not based in reality.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I don’t know Vox Day but if he voted for Al Gore he’s probably not who Freep wants candidate advice from.
I'm still backing Duncan Hunter at this point.
After looking Theodore Beale (Vox Day’s real name) up, I can’t imagine why either.
I won’t read this crap. He can’t even get the votes correct.
Fred Thompson NEVER voted for abortions of any kind.
AMEN.
Unbelievable, isn’t it.
I’ve only read one column of his in the past. It’s the one about the fence that was edited after he claimed it should be relatively easy to deport 12 million illegals since, after all, Hitler managed to round up the Jews. That pretty much put an end to any interest I had in reading his columns.
Lord, help us... when someone would say that about rounding up Jews and then call themselves conservative.
I’ll start worrying when I DON’T see any anti-Fred articles on FR. When you have the first truly grassroots groundswell and draft movement in American politics in generations, naturally some knives will come out. Oh, and for those that consider Dr. Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004 to be a grassroots effort; study it some more...
Sorry, as far as I got. There was a very strong reason to support Bush in 2004. John 'F'in Kerry (rumored to have served in Viet Nam).
Bush might not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier and I certainly have my differences with him, but he heads above a Kerry presidency.
I'll be happy to no longer vote for the lesser of two evils.
Ok, I’m curious, did you put (anti-Fred Thompson garbage) in the title of this thread? Based on the information contained in the article, the Tompson information doesn’t sound like ‘garbage’ to me.
Look, the article was poorly written. But there's a lot of conservatives like me who are sitting on the fence waiting for one of the candidates to make the sale. So far, noone has. It's way too early for a cheerleader squad.
I would appreciate some well written columns outlining his voting record and fewer attacks from the cheerleader squad.
I have seen that sequence from Hannity quoted in the article elsewhere. Doesn't it bother you just a little? Not only is it pretty clear that he is pro-life at the state level. It is also pretty clear that he had to be bailed out by Hannity, who is no rocket scientist. That concerns me about his skill as a candidate.
After our experience with W, don't you want to be a little more cautious this year before picking up the pom poms? It's time for the candidates to realize they have to come out and make the sale to us. We shouldn't be doing it for them. That's how they get us to delude ourselves into thinking they are something they are not.
I have some serious doubts this guy voted for Al Gore, but can’t be sure as his statement was confusing as to whether he meant he didn’t vote for Bush in the primaries. Beale, whose dad is a billionaire doesn’t believe Federal taxes are legal, and refuses to pay them. Beales is a Christian author and the family also has some ownership in World Net Daily. Amynda Marcotte, of Pandagon, formerly of Edwards campaign fame seems to hate him, so there is something in his favor. She despises all Christians, so it no surprise and with his being a Christian Author and his family being instrumental in developing a Minnesota Christian Coalition, Marcotte isn’t going to dig him. So that is what I know of him , and as far as the source article is concerned, I see nothing wrong with it, unless of course the 3rd tri vote info was inaccurate, I’ll have to dig some more. The article made some very solid points and I liked it overall, but to be sure the Beales are a family of real eccentric characters.
It is true that many conservatives voted for Bush hoping that he really didn’t mean the whole bit about being a “compassionate conservative”. He did. Oh well. But not one time, not one single time in all the time I spent paying attention to politics from 2000 on, did I -ever- hear Bush seriously referred to as “the second coming of Ronald Reagan”. Right there is when I knew this writer was 100% utterly full of crap.
And no one can say they are more pro-life than me, but his objection to Thompson’s position is ludicrous.
Qwinn
Ok, I can’t see that Fred Ever voted as described in the article, but this is likely the source of his confusion, a survey from Project Vote Smart, Under abortion: He checked the box for: “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion. That was his view in 1994, but he never voted that way, not that abortion is anything that is really voted on anyway, other than the government funding, notification and certain restrictions thereof.
This dufus, (Vox Gay), is a Ron Paul shill.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56000
Nuff said.
Small issue, but just the fact that the author thinks that Fred is younger than the President, tell me that he really doesn’t know what he is talking about!
Fred is a federalist so in the case of Roe v. Wade, that he thinks states should decide the matter. He’s pro-life.
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.