Posted on 12/31/2007 8:45:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The campaigns are in the final stretch. The Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary are but days away. In just over a month, the presidential nominees for both major parties will be effectively set, and a nine-month contest for the leadership of our nation and the power to choose between starkly different directions for our republic will ensue.
The Democrat nominee will advocate higher taxes and more government involvement in Americans’ everyday lives. The Republican nominee should advocate lower taxes with greater fiscal accountability, limited government intrusion, and tough law enforcement. Any of the Democrat candidates can advocate their party’s agenda; only Fred Thompson is equipped to carry the Republican banner.
Our government has become a money-hungry behemoth, annually devouring a greater share of taxpayers’ incomes through either direct spending or borrowing against future revenues. It is very adept at collecting taxes and almost completely inept at accounting for its use of those dollars.
In 2001, Senator Fred Thompson, then head of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, published Government at the Brink, a report that detailed flagrant examples of fraud, waste, and abuse in governmental agencies. No other GOP candidate has Thompson’s insight into government accountability. If we are to tame the greedy beast we call a government, that insight is an imperative in the White House.
“Limited government” encompasses the essence of traditional conservatism. The drafters of our Constitution were very specific in limiting the power of the federal government. Over two centuries of legislation and litigation, the limitation has been reversed; today, federal policy trumps state and local preferences. Far-reaching changes to our culture stem from judicial rulings, issued by judges who have lifetime tenure and no accountability to American voters. Our only hope to reverse this trend is to elect a committed conservative -- one who will appoint constructionist judges and restrict the regulatory powers of executive branch agencies -- to lead our nation.
A man documents his values through his actions, not his words. If those actions have been consistent, you can predict how he will respond in most any situation. If his words do not match his record of actions, look beyond the words. Of the remaining Republican candidates, only Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter can claim to be conservatives based on their records. Despite his appeal to evangelicals, Governor Huckabee’s performance in office did not establish his conservative credentials. Senator McCain’s record speaks of his willingness to compromise, which is exactly what led us to the place we are now. Governor Romney has yet to demonstrate conservatism, and Mayor Giuliani hasn’t tried. Congressman Paul’s record is conservative, but he is promoting a platform that he lacks the credibility to deliver.
The next eight years could be pivotal for our nation. The US dollar is at historic lows compared to world currencies. We are borrowing record amounts to prop up our economy. Social Security and Medicare costs will soon exceed our ability to meet demand through current payroll taxes. Our trade deficit will continue to grow because of the weak dollar and trade agreements that penalize American products and make it profitable to export jobs.
In November, we will choose between two candidates. We already know what the Democrat’s plan will be: tax more, spend more, and hope for the best. I hope that Republican primary voters will have the foresight to place a candidate atop their ticket with the knowledge of how to fix what’s broken and the commitment to conservative principles to make the fix -- Fred Thompson!
Huck you are such a sham that you screen name is perfect. Every other week you are coming out saying some candidate has lost your vote and you’ve decided on someone else.
User histories are just as damning as political records, FRiend.
Oh you KNOW it’s not going to be Fred? There’s some folks in DC who will pay you good money for your ability to determine a race before the first vote is cast.
(Too bad it’s OUR money they are spending.)
Or they are HOPING he goes nowhere fast. The Media builds up the candidate that is flashy. They could care less about substance and policy. They’ve determined that the nuts and bolts of government are boring and that the average American won’t pay attention. That’s how we have Nancy Pelosi “The road to peace leads through Damascus” as Speaker of the House. We get “style” over substance and we all lose in the end.
Do you.. do ANY of you.. want another flash in the pan media candidate determining the course of this country during a time of war?
This morning on Fox & Friends they had the little girl on who tried to ask Chelsea Clinton a question to no avail. The little girl did say that Fred Thompson talked to her and said he would answer any questions she wanted to ask. No other candidates mentioned. GO FRED!
Since the Platform is pretty comprehensive (not quite as comprehensive as the Texas Republican Platform), it’s not surprising that there are a couple of points that any one person can’t support.
It turns out that the Senator disagrees with the parts that I do - the need for Amendments to the Constitution to outlaw murder and define marriage.
If we need an amendment, it’s to limit the SCOTUS. But, again, “The SCOTUS shall not have more power than the States” should be as self-evident as “murder is wrong,” or “slavery is wrong.”
We don’t have a nation-wide law determining the difference between the definitions and punishments for capital murder and manslaughter. We know that it’s wrong to murder other humans, but accept that Aquinas and Augustine deliberated extensively on the difference between killing and murder.
I’d like to see any amendment come up from the States, after a majority of them have defined elective intentional abortion. This will only be possible after R v W is overturned and good Presidents appoint judges that understand that the SCOTUS is restrained to deliberating the Constitution - not between the people and our elected State Legislatures.
"I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban." -- Mitt Romney, 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007.
"[Mitt Romney] reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress' crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. `I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,' Romney said." --Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Aug 1, 1994
Sounds like he's defending his gun control to me!
Come hell or high water, I’m voting for Fred in the primary!
It not illogical at all when the candidates are falling all over each other to convince the voters that they are each the “true conservative” The day when those running for Republican nominations proudly proclaim that they are not conservative (like Romney a few years back) then you will have a point. However, as long as those seeking office seem to equate Republicanism to Conservatism, then it is a fair criticism.
However, the current move to redefine the Republican party as a “party of moderates and liberals” Romney, Arnold etc., then it may well be true that Republicans are defined by their liberalism and the term RINO will refer to those few conservative hold outs.
And I am not just bashing people who aren’t my guy. I have nothing bad to say about Hunter or Tancredo the other two conservatives in the race.
If voting for the ban on the sale of a few guns is the liberal position, there’s not much room for labels for all the really bad things people want to do to deny us our 2nd amendment rights.
I guess if we label a ban on the sale of AK-47s as a “liberal” position, we could say the gun-free school zone is the socialist position, that requiring background checks and denying guns to people who have seen a shrink would be the communist position.
But now I’ve run out of room on the left for the people who support DC’s gun ban, or think it’s a good idea to sue gun manufacturers.
Sorry, but on the scale of things people try to do to take away the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens, supporting the AWB hardly earns you a “B” from the NRA — much less makes you “liberal” on the position.
If Bush is “liberal” on guns, then just about everybody is liberal on guns.
I guess my mistake was trying to allow for the term “liberal” to have meaning, rather than simply being a label to apply to any minor difference in opinion.
Ok, let’s drop the conservative and liberal tags and talk about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Mitt Romney has demonstrated that either A) he doesn’t care about the 2nd Amendment, or B) he doesn’t understand the 2nd Amendment. Either way that is a problem for me. Therefore I do not support him. On the other hand, Fred Thompson has repeatedly upheld 2nd Amendment principles.
But now you have this other issue to deal with. You claim Romney doesn’t care or understand the amendment, but his statements and actions show that he does, except that he has in his mind the idea that some weapons CAN be banned.
You seem to say that anybody who thinks it’s OK to ban ANY weapons doesn’t care about, or understand, the 2nd amendment.
Then you say Fred Thompson is your man. But Fred Thompson has not said one word about opposing the ban on automatic weapons, or the ban on other weapons that already exist under two previous gun control bills.
Fred Thompson believes that it’s OK to ban some weapons, just like Mitt Romney believes it’s OK to ban some weapons. I think they are both wrong, but it’s a minor quibble.
However, you disqualify one candidate for thinking it’s OK to ban some weapons, while you praise another candidate who thinks the same thing.
About the only difference being that the NUMBER of different weapons they might decide is OK to ban might be different — which is a matter of degree, not caring or understanding.
Meanwhile, you mention the bill of rights, which has 10 amendments, not one.
You disqualify Romney because he takes a position in minor opposition to the 2nd amendment, in that he would keep a very small number of weapons from the hands of a few people who might want them.
However, Fred Thompson, who you claim is acceptable becuase he has upheld 2nd amendment principles, has shown a total disregard for the 1st amendment, and in a much more severe way.
For while Romney has simply expressed an inclination to support a ban on a couple of weapons for a few people who want them, Fred Thompson banned free speech for every citizen of the united states, not only voting for it, but working for it, speaking in favor of it on the Senate floor, convincing others to vote for it, AND defending it in court.
Thompson’s actual assault on free speech was much more severe and impacting than Romney’s inclination to support a limited AWB. And someone who professes to disqualify a candidate for even a minor slight against our bill of rights should hardly be praising a man who took a sledgehammer to a freedom of speech that is essential to our liberty.
If you are attributing Thompson's silence on the 1968 Gun Control Act to tacit agreement, I don't know if that's accurate. I suspect Thompson might disagree with that legislation but it would be political suicide to say so. Besides, I don't think it is even on the table. Reenactment of the 1994 AWB (or a stronger version) has been on the table, and your man Mitt would sign it.
I'm not going to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment or what weapons are included. I believe the Supreme Court will do that in March to whatever extent. However, Romney is actively supporting a position (and did as governor) that I believe violates the 2nd Amendment. Thompson voted for something in the past that should be a violation of the 1st Amendment but has repudiated it. There is a difference.
Fred Thompson is also a proponent of the 10th Amendment, one of the forgotten ones. I haven't heard Mitt Romney discuss the Constitution much at all now that I think about it. I wonder if he's ever read it.
BTW, do YOU believe the semi-automatic rifles banned by Bill Clinton fall under 2nd Amendment protection?
Last question first, yes. In fact, I am hard-pressed to find a clear reason why any personal weapons should be banned.
Mitt Romney has said he will work to repeal CFR. Fred Thompson has NOT said he would repeal it. So he has not “repudiated” it, in fact all he’s really said is that it hasn’t “worked”.
I credit him with understanding that it didn’t work, but he’s never said he was wrong to restrict our free speech on principle, he’s just said that it wasn’t working. If it was working, I have no idea if he would say it was still wrong, which it would be.
Hold up, there. IF -- and that is a humongous IF -- Hillary didn't lose in a spectacular train wreck, she would immediately become the most despised and villainized president in American history. It is as inevitable as the failure of communism or the fall of Hitler. Guaran-damn-teed. THEREFORE, Congresscritters would be much more prone to take the popular position against her.
Boo Hillary! She is a puff of greenish-blue smoke.
*ping* to my post 117. [^) (that’s a smug smile)
Go FRED!
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.