Fred or Ron?

Fred Thompson or Ron Paul? Like Perry and some others, I would rather see a big government Democrat elected than a big government Republican. At least that would bring back some opposition. Republicans in Congress have a much better record of reining in the Democrats' presidents than their own. And as I explain later, I think that one of these two is the only Republican candidate capable of winning the national election.

Ron Paul answering the What programs? question by naming three cabinet level departments ... Wow. Good answer. If there was no rest-of-the-world, he would possibly have my vote.

"Possibly?!" Yes. Possibly. Why? Because good intentions are not enough. Many people have the right ideas. Even if elected, he needs to maneuver his ideas through both the Washington players and the great ambivalent middle of the electorate. He needs to explain and convince massive numbers of mainstream people that what he will bring is better for them personally. How many think Ron Paul is up to that job? I don't.

Does any small government candidate have a chance both to be elected and a chance of accomplishing a rollback if elected?

Fred Thompson. Beyond all doubt he will achieve far more of Ron Paul's goals than Ron Paul himself has even the slightest hope of achieving.

Reagan was the most recent president that was able to shift the entire national government onto a new course. What unusual skills did he have that made this possible? A big one is that he was an actor before he went into politics. His nickname was 'The Great Communicator'. It wasn't enough to know what he wanted to do, he had to be able to achieve it in an arena where selling the product is everything.

To achieve anything a president must be taken seriously, both as an ally and as an opponent. Power in Washington is popularity, persuasiveness, trust... Gravitas. A president who would roll back government needs to naturally inspire respect and confidence. Rolling back government frightens most people. Even most of us who are determined to see government greatly reduced want to see it done in a planned and controlled way. Particularly in times of external threat, a civil collapse unleashes, not reins in the government. The differences I have with Perry on this topic are because first, I believe the world is entering a far more dangerous time militarily and economically than we have experienced since the height of the cold war. And second, I believe Fred Thompson will actually achieve many of the goals that Ron Paul could only attempt. Unlike Fred, Ron Paul has the gravitas of a helium balloon. And when he gets excited he even sounds like he has been inhaling from one. Sigh. This image certainly did not help.

Fred versus Ron to successfully reduce the size of government? Not even close. Fred.

Libertarians of many stripes are telling us we should be spectators of international affairs. This is a short course to oblivion. We positively cannot stay uninvolved in the rest of the world. To believe we can just allow other nuclear players to 'have it out' is as delusional as sitting in the corner of a four man tent watching the other three fighting with hand grenades while stating solemnly "It is their fight, I am not involved." We are on a small planet full of big weapons. Libertarians who claim we can be uninvolved in other nations' quarrels are gambling that no nation will ever actually use a nuclear weapon. I reject that assumption. They can and if they can imagine a benefit, they will. This genie is not going back in the bottle. And fall out is no respecter of national borders. Our food production is still at risk no matter how neutral we are.

MAD, mutually assured destruction, is the butt of many dark jokes. The truth however, is that it works well when dealing with a rationally self interested opportunist. For fifty years it has prevented the rational holders of nuclear weapons from using them. But in the case of irrational or potentially irrational nuclear powers, its effect cannot be assumed. With nations like Syria, Iran and any new wannabes, if we have or can create the opportunity, preemptive strikes against nuclear facilities must be kept available as an option. We must also be alert for unstable nuclear states being used as a first-use surrogate by other nuclear powers.

Redeploying back within our borders, Ron Paul's approach, requires abandoning international trade with any nation that is attacked or even threatened by any other government or terrorist organization. World trade requires the staffing and basing of military forces around the world. To believe we can avoid foreign entanglements and yet still trade internationally is fantasy. It has been tried many times throughout history, the last time we tried it, submarines attacked merchant and passenger shipping. The targets will include air traffic now. Rejecting involvement in foreign entanglements means rejecting foreign trade with all aligned or attacked nations.

Ron Paul is by far the highest profile pure anti-war candidate (Dennis who?) and consequentially he has picked up the majority of the anti-military and quite a bit of the anti-American demographic. While many of his supporters here argue energetically that he is not an isolationist, they have convinced me that if not a deliberate isolationist, he is an accidental one. This is the far worse case as it would mean that he doesn't understand the role of a strong, prepositioned military in prevention. President Bush eagerly threw the military answer at far too many questions. The answer is not to forfeit those capabilities.

I am sure there will be guffaws of laughter from some Paul supporters when I say "peace through strength". With his forty years of experience in politics, law and communication (beginning with the Goldwater campaign), Fred Thompson understands both the domestic and legal repercussions of strength diplomacy. Over a decade before first being elected to the Senate, Fred served as special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Unlike any other candidate, he not only knows the "what?", he has a strong constitutional and international grasp of the "how?" For those of you who wonder what a 'Special Counsel' does, their most visible role is leaning forward and putting words in the politicians' mouths during public hearings. Fred is able to put the words in his own mouth. Go figure.

More valuable than any other candidate's security credentials, I think Fred understands the mechanism of strength diplomacy. The choice on foreign affairs goes easily to Fred for anybody that wants to sustain foreign trade even if they mistakenly believe we can hunker down safely in a world of militarized satellites and missiles targeted at us.

Last qualification, electability. Much has been made of Giuliani and Romney being 'electable'. Riiight. Does anybody seriously believe that a voter wanting an east coast style big government liberal is going to vote for a Liberal Lite big government Republican instead of the real thing? Not even remotely. A big government Republican is not going to draw away any Democrat voters but will drive away many Republicans. Fred does satisfy voters concerned about our safety and about his understanding and capacity to protect it. And he has an almost Churchill like deliberate and imposing persona. Fred is the only Republican candidate that has a serious chance of winning the national election.

Fred will be the first time since Reagan that I actually vote for a presidential candidate instead of against their opponent.

Here is the real shocker. Cynical me, this is also the only time ever that I have donated to a political campaign except for one time I was a candidate for local office. That was a case of putting my money where my mouth is. I guess this is too.

Well, anyone who has read my posts in the last couple months knows who I'm supporting. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who stands for significant change, back to what conservatism WAS about - limited government, less taxes, going by the constitution, protecting our rights, doing something about the out of control debt, etc.

And with the possible exception of Hunter, he is the only non-globalist, which to me is one of the most important things. I don't care if you call it crazy, the fact is, there are people in power who (whether it's intentional or not) are disregarding our constitution and our sovereignty, and are taking us in the direction of global government, which many people feel is downright subversive.

Anyone who will continue that status-quo is not someone I can get behind, and the only candidate who seems sincerely and adamantly opposed to it is Ron Paul.

Why did Ron Paul oppose Reagan’s deployment of missiles against the Soviets? This was how Reagan beat the Soviets, and Ron Paul opposed it. Now Paul is opposed to another war we’re winning.

And Ron Paul is strongly supported by George Soros. What does your instinct tell you about that?

Ron Paul has some serious explaining to do.

"And Ron Paul is strongly supported by George Soros. What does your instinct tell you about that?"

LOL, you guys need to come up with some new material. ;-) I haven't seen any actual proof of that, and you can look up who gives to Paul (unlike some other candidates, the info on who has donated is out there for anyone to see). All I've seen is a lot of speculation from some paranoid Paul-haters.

Even if it were true, one of the greatest things about Paul is that he is one of the few people in government who doesn't change or sell out his principles, so what matters is where he stands on the issues. He is strongly pro-constitution and THAT is what guides him, so if anyone with differing political views gives to him, that's their right, but it doesn't mean that Paul supports their views, if that is what you're implying.

As far as your other question... I'ts super late right now, so I have to go. I'll try to reply tomorrow if I have time.

I don't think Fred will get the nomination. But if Paul doesn't get it, and it's one of the "top 5", I can't in good conscience vote for any of them. (Hunter is the only other candidate I could vote for, but it looks like he won't get the nomination.) If it isn't Paul, maybe I'll just write in his name, if I can.

*prepares to be tarred and feathered*

The main one is, he represents the status-quo. More of the same. I realize that for many here that is ok, or it's a good thing. But I think our country is on the wrong path and there are some very serious problems that need to be reversed, before it's too late. To me, electing a status-quo candidate at this point is out of the question.

So are you opposed to his position on federalism? His position on property rights? On the rights of the unborn? On upgrading the military? On securing the border? On fixing social security? On keeping taxes low? On the war on terror?

A difference of opinion is allowed, but a little bit of reason wouldn't hurt. If the fact that he worked as an actor (among many other jobs in and around government) is what upsets you, maybe you'd prefer a lifetime bureaucrat. You can change with status quo without destroying what is good about it. Reagan did it.

I really don’t understand the idea that one should vote for the person who best shares their beliefs. That would be fine if you got some sort of result proportional to the voting results. I simply can’t see saying I prefer Ron Paul so much, I’m willing to get Hillary just to make a point. That’s a very selfish position it seems to me.

BTw, you know I’m frequently attacking Ron Paul but I am on record that if Ron is the nominee, then I will support him.

“nothing he proposes to stand for can actually be achieved by a POTUS. We don’t elect emperors”

Don’t forget about Supreme Court nominations. This, in my humble opinion, is the greatest danger to our freedoms. Forget all the veto powers and executive orders... it trumps them all on the power scale and it seriously dangerous.
You can’t directly force things into law, but you can damn well steer things in your direction for many years to come.

“Well, I might get lambasted...”

Of course not. This isn’t KOS, that’s what sets us apart.
I’ll even say it out loud, I don’t like GW at all, I think he’s a closet liberal. I don’t like a LOT of things he’s done.
However, look at the alternatives we had back then... I think I’m quite satisfied with him as president, regardeless if there is someone out there who could have done better, they weren’t running for president at the time.
I remember when Ronny got elected and thinking oh my God, we just elected a grade B actor for our president, we are doomed.
Look how that tured out !
Fred is no Ronny, but looks like the best thing we have to run with.

I would support Fred if nominated. I would rather have others like Hunter or Paul.

I base my decisions on smaller govt & a healthy respect for constitutional rights. 2A & property rights figure prominently as does 4A & due process. At moments, Fred has shown support for larger govt and certain gun control. Not alot, but its definitely there.

I encourage any candidate that hasn’t already irreparably tainted themselves (e.g., see Giuliani’s HCI pic) to campaign on smaller govt and constitutional rights. These issues trump all others. For a candidate to be hostile toward them or simply ignore as irrelevant them gets nothing but my contempt. These topics need discussed & debated.

Then you must feel we would have been better off these last eight years with Al Gore or John Kerry?

Cuz that is precisely what you contend.

One could argue that the House and Senate could have had a much better chance of staying Republican...and with a Democrat as president, more gridlock would have been nice for small government conservatives, assuming that more gridlock would have actually occurred.

There is, however, the trade offs. Our response post September 11, 2001 would have likely been softer with monetary concessions to build a coalition and we would not have had Alito and Roberts at the high court for many more years to come.

You know what, come to think of it, I didn't need to make a reply after working that one out. And, since I just went through the effort of composing this, why even bother deleting it and not sharing my breif and fleeting conflicting thought.

FRed is not “a typical politician”. A typical politician doesn’t return to private life after a Congressional term.

“A typical politician” isn’t the single holdout no vote on multiple bills, due to Constitutional reasons.

And FRed’s only acted because he brought down a corrupt governor, and they couldn’t find anyone to play him.

“You can’t directly force things into law, but you can damn well steer things in your direction for many years to come.”

True. I did mention the SCOTUS in my first comment and also that such appointments do nothing more than act as a temporary patch to a self destructing process as we now have.

No matter how many bandaids get put on an infected limb, if the infection isn’t treated, it’ll go to gangrene. Then, the only option left is the knife and a lot of trauma.

Fix the problem at the source of infection, not as attempts at addressing the symptoms.

There are a few reasons why I don't see Ron Paul getting withing 100 yards of the Oval Office. One of which is his foreign policy does not match with the desires or the needs of the people - it would be splendid to be isolationist and do formal declarations of war but some Muslims have declared war on US! They aren't a govt entity so we can't declare war back on them. The majority of the people understand that.

Unfortunately, for Paul, the war will not be an issue come Nov08, as predicted by Rush, and domestic policy will become at least equally, if not the dominate factor. That is where Paul will fail. His ideas are too radical for people to understand at this point. Maybe sometime later, the conditions will be there that people will go for dramatic change but they aren't quite there yet. Almost nothing he proposes to change domestically can be done or will be accomplished without huge political backlash - and that is assuming that Paul isn't cut to shreds by MSM and Democratic Demonization, putting in a Democrat POTUS.

“...he (Fred Thompson) represents the status-quo”

The Status quo won’t build a border fence. Fred Thompson will.

“..he (Fred Thompson) is a typical politician”

Typical Politicians do not impose term limits on themselves. Fred Thompson chose not to run for a third term in the Senate.

“And the fact that he is an actor is another thing I don’t like.”

As far as being an actor, he never sought out an acting career, but fell into one, after an outstanding legal career. So what if he has employment completely outside of government and the law? That’s good. Would you prefer he was a lobbyist instead of an actor?

CFR member? What’s that?

I would trust Fred on immigration issues before I would Paul.

I know how it distresses Paul fans when anything is posted about his RECORD.

Paul has some questionable votes in this area (3 times voted for amnesty for visa over stayers, etc), but let’s look at just a couple of recent ones and you decide WHY he would vote against these measures.

H.Res. 800- a resolution stating that that States should not issue driver’s licenses or other government-issued photo identification to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.
Paul voted NO http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/ROLL_100.asp

H.R. 4160- legislation withholding highway funds from those states which issue a driver’s license or identification card to illegal aliens.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4160/show Paul did not co sponsor- no final vote yet.

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.