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!
Cute, but no.
The GOP is not willing to take the risk of a McCain run in the General much less the responsibility of getting him in the White House.
I beg to differ. Better Hillary that any of our RINO candidates, since the Republicans in congress (particularly the sentate) have no trouble blocking the efforts of a Democrat liberal in the White House. On the other hand, the Republicans will go along with the same socialist agenda if proposed by a RINO president from their own party.
Republicans in congress would actually work to block Hillary’s socialist agenda. They would go along with the same agenda if proposed by Romney, or Rudy, or McCain.
Other than national polls showing him beating Hillary, there is no evidence he could beat her.
More importantly, should we make Barrack Hussein Obama the GOP nominee, just because we think he could beat Hillary. If you don’t care about the issues, then why do you care who wins the election in the first place.
What do we do?
We donate time and money. We do what some of the candidates’ followers do, and try to become leaders in our County and State Republican parties (we’ve heard of people showing up to file for precinct chairs who’ve never worked - maybe never voted - in the County Republican Primary), and we go to the Primary to cast our vote for the man of our choice - as well as local and State candidates - no matter who seems the delegated MSM or Inside the Beltway choice.
If you’re willing to vote 3rd party, at least give $10 and some time to your candidate - the little donations let the powers that be know which way the wind blows. Work to give your man his best shot through the Primary.
If you’re willing to sit home for the Primary or even in November, then consider voting “write in.”
Don’t give up! Read the Republican Platform: This is what we’re working for.
Those are good valid points, what I worry about most if the beast gets the white house is what will happen to our military. She hates the military and they hate her and her sicko hubby. I imagine massive resignations and replacments with scumsuckers seeking only power that Hillary promotes. It can't get any scarier than the beast as CIC of our soldiers.
Baloney. remind the mainstream Democrat that Hillary voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and wants to take from anyone - any family - making over $70,000 a year to give to others, and at least claims to want to recreate the fall of Saigon in Baghdad, and I bet they’ll see that they can’t go along with Kos, Sheehan and Soros.
Believe me I know, I’m on active duty, but sometimes you have to put the contry’s interest first, and I believe that in the long run, Hillary would be less damaging that would our current crop of RINOs.
Right on brother, Right on !
So, if the Republican Party nominated Hillary Clinton, I’m assuming you would be her biggest supporter out of party loyalty.
The fact you are forgetting, is that FReepers tend to be Conservatives first, and Republicans only so long as it doesn’t conflict with their Conservative principles. So, if the Repulicans nominate a liberal, they are not my party.
“Let’s all get excited about Fred Thompson now. It’s contagious......”
FRED has been my man for a number of years....going away back to when Country Singer Lorie Morgan was using all her charms and wiles on him and he had the good sense to tell her thank you, but no thanks. And then he later married the lady who is now his “trophy wife.” Just a few hours ago I watched a C-SPAN rebroadcast of Sunday’s Fred Thompson get-together in someone’s Iowa home. Man, he looked and sounded Presidential! Every time I see him in action lately, I feel better about him and what he might be able to do for the Country.
What “they think he used to be”...
Are you suggesting Romney was lying in all those You Tube clips when he passionately defends his liberal positions on everything from abortion to gun control. If conservatives are mistaken about what Romney “used to be” and arguably still is, pray tell, what do you think Romney “used to be” that we’re all missing.
“Let’s all get excited about Fred Thompson now. It’s contagious......”
FRED has been my man for a number of years....going away back to when Country Singer Lorie Morgan was using all her charms and wiles on him and he had the good sense to tell her thank you, but no thanks. And then he later married the lady who is now his “trophy wife.” Just a few hours ago I watched a C-SPAN rebroadcast of Sunday’s Fred Thompson get-together in someone’s Iowa home. Man, he looked and sounded Presidential! Every time I see him in action lately, I feel better about him and what he might be able to do for the Country.
Three words: Supreme court nominations.
Pardon me for asking... but since you mentioned the Platform... isn’t Fred the one who’s said he’s NOT for it and that platforms are silly and a waste of time... somethin’ like that?
Rudy and Romney would likely nominate the same people that Hillary would. Huckabee publicly approved of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (Sodomy case) which was decided on the same mythical “privacy right” that is at the heart of the Roe v. Wade case. Huckabee is cluless on the whole strict constructionist vs. judical activisim argument, so it is hard to tell who he would nominate. Other than Thompson, McCain certainly wouldn’t nominate any judges that had ever heard of the first amendment.
So, if you’re worried about the SCOTUS, you might want to support Thompson or Hunter.
I’ve been working on that question for weeks now. I’ve already seen the writing on the wall for Fred. I’ve moved on to the next question...if not Fred, then who? I’m currently residing in the Undecided Zone.
I am sure not sayin’ I have the answer... Just that after watching all the 90% Fred posting around here following the purge... I really wanna know.... “what now”?? Cause it ain’t gonna be Fred and that is just the fact. I’m holding out for someone with a good answer... and I hope it isn’t just “Bash Hillary for 4 years”...
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.
You write of Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain:
They may fall short on one or two issues, but they’re still conservatives.
Fall short? They all endorse the concept of man-caused global warming and thus validate legitimacy and need to placate liberal environmentalist socialists with guess what? Increased government regulation and taking of power, costing more tax dollars! Romney totally embraces the idea of government-controlled health care. Huckabee likes the idea of a nation-wide smoking ban. All four of them see growth of government as their legitmate means to govern. Fundamentally, they embrace the whole idea that bigger government is better government in their hands, from intrusive labor laws prohibiting employers from firing people for legit reasons, to dictating what's best for us in health care choices. FUNDAMENTALLY, these guys see nothing wrong with taking those choices from us.
Fred Thompson is the only guy who has made a point in his government career as a senator to fight for and defend LIMITED GOVERNMENT, which for me at least, is the fundamental soul of Republicanism and conservatism.
It is not "passion" for our candidate that makes Thompson supporters identify the big-government Republicans in the race as liberals. It is the standing record, the past actions of those guys, that makes us label them liberals. You talk about demanding "all or nothing." When you think you can force Republicans into voting for politicians who essentially reject the concept of limited government, you are the one demanding all, and ending up with nothing.
Bird, government "solutions" always come at the expense of two things: our personal freedom, and our labor (tax dollars). Real republicans fight for less government and therefore for our FREEDOM. Liberal Republicans are a bigger threat to Republicanism than Liberal Democrats.
Great FRed article. Thanks for posting.
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.