Rush is Right (Yet Again)
By gpasman Posted in Archived — Comments (105) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
On today's Rush Limbaugh program, Rush made a very interesting observation. Rush stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson. He pointed out that Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani all had answers which showed they were moderates. Rush did not even state McCain was a moderate, because anyone who listens to Rush knows his opinion on McCain, and that he does not believe McCain is conservative. Rush does not make an endorsement in any primary, but if Rush is saying Fred Thompson is the only conservative in the race, that is good enough for me.
I had written a blog recently on why I supported Fred Thompson, and documented why he is a conservative with ideas. I know many people had excellent comments on these ideas and about Fred.
Rush did state that no matter who the Republican nominee is, he will support them against Hillary. I absolutely agree with that statement, and I believe nearly all at redstate do as well.
I am curious on how supporters of Romney, Huckabee, Rudy and McCain will respond to Rush.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
...pull a Lott and decry how talk radio is ruining the country because listeners are too brainwashed to think for themselves and ignore people like Rush (and to ignore the record Huck's trying to run away from).
Then he'll probably talk about how nice the Fairness Doctrine was.
The Huckabee campaign has responded to many of its critics with slander/libel. The Rush Greedbaugh comment was merely an allusion to one such slander/libel from the Huckabee campaign.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Will any candidates have the guts to take Fred up on his offer of a roundtable discussion? Adult Americans would love to hear actual discussion of topics and policies. Our country and the times we live in deserve such a discussion.
back then. Do you honestly believe any first tier candidate would give time to debate someone so far behind. Fred re-iterated his challenge and based on Huckabee's move up, I'm sure Fred will debate him. Let the one-on-one debates begin. We'll see who is conservative and who is not.
Thanks Rush for telling it like it is!
Let the one-on-one debates begin
Who else agrees that Fred should debate Huck one-on-one, Lincoln-Douglas style?
1. No moderator. Speaking time will totally depend on the etiquette of the candidates.
2. No audience.
3. Each candidate can bring a laptop. Wireless access provided.
4. No time limit. Candidates can leave at any time.
I can see why Fred would do this, but can not think of one reason why Huckabee would. Why would he do it? There is a huge upside for Thompson, but no reason for Huckster to grant this opportunity as long as he is rising and Fred is falling.
But I don't see why it should be Thompson v. Huckabee in particular. They're just two of the four guys tied for second.
The american people, across party lines, are looking for serious debate.
It's power that doesn't want that to happen.
Fred needs it, Huckster doesn't. Won't happen, not now. Fred had a chance earlier. They are going to close him out.
I think a round table discussion would be wonderful. Fred needs more than a 90 second soundbyte to get rolling along. If you can find it, his interview with Larry Kudlow is quite solid. My subject refers to an NRA endorsement. They usually don't. I'll be very surprised if they do this go around.
"Hobbes, what do you think happens when we die?" "I believe we play saxophone in an all-girls cabaret in New Orleans." "So you believe in heaven?" "Call it what you like."
I thought last night's CNN/YouTube debate was a serious roundtable discussion of the issues...NOT!!!
I'll admit that it'll be difficult voting for Romney if he wins but I hope to God that that doesn't happen.
However, the problem does remain that he's got to get out there and be energetic.
I read a lot of debate response and especially was interested in how younger people responded to the debate. Most of them had Fred as an after thought because of style.
I agree that he'd make a very strong VP although I'd prefer to see him in the top slot.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Amy Tuck for MS Senator" on First Cut Politics
What about him specifically, is not energetic? Repetition of the charge does not make it any more valid. His itinerary is as full as anybody's. His output of serious policy statements is far above anyone else in the race.
Again, repeating a charge does not make it accurate.
Let the "Yeah, buts..." begin.
not energetic, I think, because his answers tend to draaaaaag on a bit, and then you hear Huck with a witty response. When Thompson is being interviewed he does seem energetic, but when he's next to people who are quicker on their feet, Thompson's deliberate style comes off as just old.
This is as close as Rush can come to endorsing a candidate without actually doing it. If he were to endorse a candidate he would violate his own rule of not doing so untill after the primaries.
Fred Thompson did have a great showing at the debate where he showed he was a true conservative and even got a chance to briefly showcase his detailed plans for Social Security, Immigration, the Military and Tax Reform.
I encourage anyone who is interested in the details of his plans to go to www.Fred08.com and read them for yourselves. Then you can make an informed decision to support Fred Thompson for President.
Edward E. Richardson
DAV/SSG-Retired
aka: SSGRichDAV
DFT FredHead
Everybody knows Rush is a Conservative and a Republican. What's the point of waiting until the general? We all know, and everyone who listens to him knows, that Rush will endorse the Republican. I think it's more important to hear what people like Rush, Hannity, and the other conservative commentators think NOW, not after we're stuck with someone.
I know Rush thinks other candidates' partisans might stop listening. But there's a difference between shilling and endorsing. Rush needn't spehis whole show campaigning for his guy - but he could still say "I'm for X" - I'm sure even those supporting Y, Z and the rest would be interested to know who Rush is going to vote for when his primary comes around.
I'm only guessing, because I haven't heard him give an explanation.
Simply because Rush is RUSH, his endorsement would be BIG. Too big. It isn't his job, nor his right, to choose the nominee, which in a close race could be the result.
Also, he probably doesn't want the aftermath of what would happen if "his" candidate lost or won in the general election--recriminations on one hand, wannabes pestering for his primary endorsement in the next election on the other.
This is the closest I've ever heard him come to an endorsement, although he was always very positive about George Bush's good qualities in 2000.
As I said, just a guess.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
There's still a lot of time left, and for Rush to come out with such a statement is indeed HUGE.
Oddly, all the criticisms of Fred are about style over substance. Who would have thought it?
-- digitalhap
at least not during the next 8 years. Fred will make progress and that is key here.
If Rush says that Fred is the only true conservative, I think that says a lot! Most conservative blogs agree.
...while sacrificing principle is not progress. Fred could instead say that he's pessimistic about the chances of these things occurring. But Fred is actually opposed to these things in principle.
Lack of support for HLA/FMA is the reason why Fred is not doing well with social conservatives.
That's just wrong IMO. People know Fred will make progress. They know what he believes. He got the biggest pro-life group endorsement.
Fred is down because of his style. Let's be honest.
and enthusiastically shares his detailed conservative proposals, he will win this. The American people will choose our conservative values over liberal values any day.
Fred was getting most of the so-con support back then. The Arlington Group was warming up to him big time. But his biggest political blunder was to oppose FMA.
It is Thompson's stance on gay marriage that is likely to deny him any unified backing from the organizations that comprise the Arlington Group, the umbrella coalition of almost every major social conservative group in the GOP constellation.
"It was a real possibility," said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation and one of the founders of the Arlington coalition. (Its first meeting, in 2002, took place in the Virginia suburb.)
But Weyrich said that after Thompson told members of the group this summer that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, the conservative leaders became concerned when they started seeing media reports indicating Thompson didn’t support the measure. Thompson came back again to make his pitch to the group this month and confirmed that, because of his federalist views, he would not back the amendment.
I don't mind having it again, but you need to start making counter arguments.
1) An HLA will not pass now.
2) There are serious reasons to believe that an HLA would run into the same problems that prohibition ran into.
3) The only way to stop abortion is to run a society/culture where life is respected. The only way for that to happen is for you society to constantly debate these issues in a respectful and thoughtful way.
4) The only for a society to constantly debate these issues is if the society has the power to regulate it, elsewise, the debate will be too extreme (whether the extreme is correct or not) to hold the center of power.
5) The only way to do that is with a federalist approach.
An HLA is far, far better than judiciall usurpation, but my opinion is that is will not achieve the results you desire. That's my position currently, and I have given it considerable thought. I am open to persuasion, but your arguments are not doing the trick.
Respectfully.
I don't think there is even majority support for any of those things. There are plenty of Republicans, even socially conservative ones that are not anxious to jump into Constitutional amendments to write into the document the whims of the day.
The FMA as written does not fit with the concept of a federalist system. It takes a state issue and creates for it a federal definition. Should we also constitutionalize the age of consent, the child support obligations of parents, the rules for adoption and foster care?
Fred should push a federalism-based approach which would limit any amendment to clarifying that there is no constitutional right to it, that it is not for the judiciary to decide (at least not the federal judiciary), and that it is not constitutionally required for any state to recognize marriages condoned elsewhere. If not that, then the amendment should be written in terms similar to the flag-burning amendment - rather than create the rule, it would simply give Congress the power to create the rule by legislation. That allows Congress to go back and revise the law as needed should times and opinions change.
Personally, I don't support gay marriage. I don't believe it is a constitutional right. And I am concerned that the judiciary will continue to overstep here. But I also don't support a constitutional amendment that would "solve the problem" by creating a federal definition of an institution that has never been federally-regulated.
Social conservatives undermine themselves. Every time you go to Congress to get what you want you validate the same tactic used by liberals to force urban liberal views on everybody through federal legislation. It's not any more okay to do it when you think you have the "right" position than when you have the "wrong" position.
I'm a strong conservative. But until I read further down, I wasn't completely sure just what the FMA and HLA were. Having read further, now I know.
Being concerned about these issues enough to affect your vote is like voting for the Huckster because he says he's for the Fair Tax. Maybe he is, but it ain't gonna happen.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
The ACU just endorsed Romney. While I listen to Rush one hour a day (during my lunch), I don't always take my marching orders from him. Also, I think people may be stretching things a little bit.
Fred Thompson is a likely guy, but would be eaten alive in the General. If he can't make head ways in the Primary, how do you expect him to win the general.
Fred's only hope is a complete collapse of Huckabee in Iowa.
It was ACU President David Keene came out for Romney.
Fred would do fine in the general election campaign; remember, he is competing with folks who are, in some respects, conservatives. It's a different dynamic when the opponent is a liberal.
I still don't think Iowa will mean much this year, though some say a Huckabee win would end Romney's chances. I can buy that to an extent, given the nature of Romney's support, but only if it bleeds over into NH and the media starts writing obituaries.
"remember, he is competing with folks who are, in some respects, conservatives. It's a different dynamic when the opponent is a liberal."
It's my belief that he'd do better than the others, simply because he can articulate the conservative principles that would guide his decision making, and the worst thing that can be said about him for sure is that he's not handsome.
But I could vote for the others, too, even though I liked Tommy Thompson better than I like the Huckster.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
This is not an accolade, because I don't give accolades, but I think Rush was absolutely on the money when he said what he said about Senator Fred Dalton Thompson.
This is not a blessing, because I don't ... Well, okay, yes it is: God bless Rush, God bless Fred, and God bless America!
I also like Guiliani because I think he might have the best shot at winning. I like Fred when I hear him and I think Huckabee is witty and persuasive and I like him too. Still, right now, I like Romney the best because of his strong pro-life positions and his experience and his ability as I see it to articulate his views.
I don't see where anyone needs to "respond" to Rush's statement. He's often right, he's very amusing and intelligent and incisive, but he's often way off the mark as well. He has made silly defenses for Bush's silence and passivity, or "new tone." He defended Anne Coulter's use of an expletive to desribe John Edwards (citing, amazingly enough, the White House's passivity in dealing with the Democrats as part of his defense for her!). He announced right after the Iraq invasion that there would be tons of eating crow on the part of the war's opponents. He announced the day after the 1992 Republican convention that Bush would be reelected. Rush is right sometimes, and wrong quite a bit of the time as well.
I'm not sure he's right about Thompson being the only true conservative. In terms of Life issues, I think the argument could be made that Huckabee is the only true conservative.
Joe, you are obviously entitled to your opinion, but Romney's pro-life positions are brand spanking new. As recently as 2004 he was pro-choice. It is very suspicious that now that he is running for the Presidency that he is pro-life.
Rush's statement was absolutely correct in that Fred was the only conservative on the stage. The only other candidate on the stage that could be argued is conservative is Duncan Hunter.
Huckabee may be entertaining and great to listen to, but he is a pro-life liberal. He is soft on illegal immigration and as his nickname Tax Hike Mike alludes to, he is not a Fiscal Conservative.
"I'm not sure he's right about Thompson being the only true conservative. In terms of Life issues, I think the argument could be made that Huckabee is the only true conservative."
#1) Life is only one facet of conservatism, and you can't be a "true" conservative if that is your only conservative position.
#2) Fred Thompson is the only one that I am aware of in the race with a track record of consistently reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.
#3) The one candidate whose supporters are the most likely to succeed in maintaining Roe V. Wade is Mike Huckabee.
Gauntlet smack audible & on target. I'm going to cache this. Thanks Hooah Mac!
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Some people are hung up on how Fred talks instead of listening to what he says!
Fred is a man of strong conservative principles and morals. He's the genuine article. I notice that Fred supporters don't have to defend him, nor is he having to defend himself, against scandals and flip-flopping positions.
I am very proud of Fred and am proud to support him!
about FMA, HLA and other social conservative issues.
Your emotion obviously blinds you to the implications those actions would have upon our form of government and our Constitution. Quick-fixes in response to the decay of our society is effectively placing a band-aid on a symptom which has all the stench of a dictatorship.
Find and remedy the cause.
So, who has heard which of them have the guts to finally accept Fred's second challenge to a real debate??...What?, are they lazy, lack fire in the belly or just growing a yellow streak??
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
of approval on Fred. That seal of approval reads, "Fred is the True Conservative." Those who support other candidates are fooling themselves if they don't see it.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
I've been waiting for this. Not just because I support Fred, but because it's true. Just yesterday I found myself getting annoyed because I don't think Rush gives Fred enough credit. And now, appearently he has.
Rudy had the star power as the MSM goes ga-ga over him but if Fred can use his movie-star carisma and give Rudy some competition in the arena, he just might come out on top. At least that's what I'm hoping for!
I look forward to hearing the show tonight. Rush 24/7 membership has it's advantages!
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
....unfortunately he's a trainwreck as a candidate. He doesn't inspire, he looks like he doesn't care, and he looks old and tired. I agree with Rush - Thompson is the most consistent, principled conservative in the race, he just doesn't have what it takes to win.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
"Thompson is the most consistent, principled conservative in the race, he just doesn't have what it takes to win."
If consistency, principles, and conservatism aren't what it takes to win, why are we all wasting our time?
Let's just join MoveOn and get it over with.
I suppose your ideal candidate would be maybe, Newt Gingrich?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
As we all know, some of the republican candidates running in the '08 race haven't always been on the side of conservatism, and if elected, and push comes to shove, are they going to stick with their new-found conservatism or revert to their old ideology? I think most reasonable Americans are smart enough to figure out the timing and motivation for these changes.
Fred Thompson was, and is and will always be a "consistent conservative", and his voting record in the senate proves it. Watch him talk and listen, and you will see that his strongly-held, conservative beliefs are ingrained in him as a person.
So glad to see we're not pouring anymore proven ludicrous and subjective spin in degrading the election of the highest office of our land with what amounts to Liberal whining.
Fred inspires me with the temperament a President absolutely requires to make the most difficult decisions ever asked of anyone in the history of the world on a daily basis.
His age is completely appropriate with the wisdom that only some manage to accrue which is also a fundamental requirement for a leader to draw upon when needed. Some will wish they look as good as he does when they reach that age.
Every single facet that has been revealed about this man inherently qualifies him as the only candidate capable of performing the job correctly 24/7.
“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson
Having Rush remarking on Fred's conservative values at the so called debate last evening, brings a breath of fresh air to his campaign.
Now that Rush has seen Fred's conservative qualities, more will follow his lead.
but apparently can find somebody to run a national campaign. I heard Mary Matalin on Meet the Press and she supports him. Where is her influence? He and his campaign appear anemic and uninspired. It's one thing to have conservative principles. But you have to be able to sell them. He's not.
I don't want to have to choose between a turd sandwich or a giant d**che. My choice is Fred, anyone else ("top 5" candidates) falls into the turd sandwich category come the general election. Of course I would pull the lever for a turd sandwich before I would pull the lever for a giant d**che, no question (well, except for huck). Call it what you will, lesser of two evils, etc...change comes in primaries and I think that change needs to be a Federalist shift.
From another post I had: Rush is right, Fred should've walked off the stage. He would've been at the top of Drudge and every commentator and bloggite would have been talking about it for days. Now that's a non-standard campaign.
It is great news for Fred that Rush came forward and said that Fred was the true conservative on the stage was absolutely wonderful!!
FOR FRED, FOR THE FUTURE!
This is probably the best news I've heard since Fred officially announced his candidacy.
IMAO.US
I didn't hear his show today, but the other day, I sent a grand to Thompson. I wasn't going to wait around for Fox or Rush or anyone else to endorse him. I did a lot of soul searching, and made my own decision.
However, I do find this heartening.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
out there in the cold, on that ledge high up above the henhouse, just listen to the audio of Rush's "endorsement" over and over again. LOL - we love ya, just don't stay out there too long! I guess that makes me Fred's 3rd best fan.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
...it's a damn shame that Fred has turned out to be such a dud of a candidate.
Rush may as well go ahead and list Duncan Hunter up there. I think Duncan's a "true conservative", too. But he has about as much chance of winning as Fred does.
Fred's had lukewarm debate appearances and just hasn't lit the fires that many -- probably including himself -- thought he would. And that's disappointing.
But not everybody was made to be a great presidential candidate. Fred's following in some very fine footsteps. I was a big Steve Forbes fan for all of the 1996 primary season and most of the 2000 primary season. But he just didn't inspire support, for whatever reason.
It takes more than a sound ideology to make for an electorally viable candidate. And that's what a lot of ideologues like Limbaugh (and, BTW, I consider myself an ideologue...so don't take that as a slam at El Rushbo) fail to understand. To him, you just pick the guy with the best conservative credentials and that's that.
But that's not that. It's not that simple.
But, then, I really don't think any of the candidates who are in contention for the nomination are actually RINOs. I know a lot of people claim they are. But it's not as if Olympia Snowe is about to capture the GOP's presidential nomination.
I'd be perfectly comfortable with any of the "Top 5", with the only possible exception being Mike Huckabee. I'd be perfectly comfortable with Fred. But he's flopped as a candidate, and everybody knows it.
Don't shoot the messenger -- and don't assume that my acknowledgment of reality is in any way an endorsement of it.
If a republican candidate had been endorsed by the Liberal Party of NY would that make him a RINO?
If a republican candidate raised taxes and wanted to give taxpayer money to illegals would that make him a RINO?
What is your definition of RINO?
As it stands everyone besides Fred was a RINO or is a RINO. That's reality too.
I think you have to remember that the bodies politic of the city of New York and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provide a pretty limited swath for Republicans who wish to hold citywide/statewide office there.
Both of them are chock full of liberals. And, if you want to get elected there, you're simply going to be forced, at some level, to do some triangulation. Or you can just not get elected. It's your choice.
I've listened to both Giuliani and Romney speak, at length. I've read things they've written. And, yes, I've examined their records while in office.
And I'll repeat: I wouldn't be uncomfortable pulling the lever for either one of them. Same goes for Messrs. McCain and Thompson.
I've come to be pretty wary of Gov. Huckabee. But the rest are perfectly acceptable to me. As many have pointed out, Reagan's record in California could lead a reasonable person to believe that he was a RINO. But he wasn't either.
None of these candidates are from the Arlen Specter wing of the party.
have to endorse Cuomo over Pataki for Governor of NY.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Why is this blog post categorized as "Archived"?
Wouldn't "2008" and "Fred Thompson" be more relevant?
Just sayin'
Archived is the category it's in if you don't pick a category.
It appears that this diary just wasn't categorized or tagged at all. And hey, that's fine. It's only us contribtors who get pressured to do that right. Comes with the territory, heh.
the Huckster, as Bob Schieffer lavished praise on him in a Rather moment of Texas blather, Georgie-Boy did the same on ABC as he subbed for Gibson [my wife is Greek-American & likes the lil Hillarious mole] and of course, the adenoidal Brian also said how neat and "spontaneous" the Huckster was.
Shades of Ross Perot in '92, as the RINO-loving Alphabet nets are levitating the Huckster and loathesome arrogant R.Paul into contention.
But then a resident oaf on the Beltway Boys on Brit Hume did the same and I thought I'd swallowed some bad acid!!!
I think Fred is the MAN & I am sticking with him even down here in Rudy-love land---Florida just eats RG up.
also named Fred? For some reason, he doesn't like Thompson. Maybe FT stiffed him on an interview once.
The MSM buzz pushing Huck makes me think he's the one the Dem's think they can beat. I really don't see them beating anybody else, even McCain.
My crystal ball tells me that if SHillary doesn't get the nomination, it'll be Edwards. After all, he's so young and handsome.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
This post has 49 or 50 recommenders. Methinks the candidate's "dudness" has become considerably less dudley of late. There's half-duds, there's full-duds and there's media-spun duds. The latter type of dud are the first to become less dudley as the campaign progresses. I think the media spin just took a decided turn for the better...
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
We are not choosing a "Conservative in Chief". We are choosing a commander in chief. Every person in this race will do the following:
A. Fight for lower taxes and fight out of control spending.
B. Support conservative judges
C. Try to solve Iraq and continue to fight the war on terror.
D. Secure the borders
Sure some say they will be better than others at certain things and that might be the case, but we don't know for sure.
Leadership counts more than anything. I think this gets lost during the "Who will build the biggest border fence, who will stop the most abortions, who will cut the most taxes, who owns the most guns contest".
What counts the most is the ability to lead on these issues, in order to actually accomplish anything towards them.
And when it comes to leadership, there are 3 men in this race who really jump out at me (maybe 4).
Those 3 are John McCain, Rudy, and Mitt Romney. I'd enthusiastically support any of these 3 in the general. But right now, when factoring in experience, it really only leaves John McCain.
He not only had the wisdom to see the problems in Iraq as early as 2003, but he had the courage and the leadership to speak out and fight for the changes that have brought such a turnaround in Iraq.
Everytime I see this -
"He not only had the wisdom to see the problems in Iraq as early as 2003, but he had the courage and the leadership to speak out and fight for the changes that have brought such a turnaround in Iraq."
I am going to dispute it, because it isn't true, it isn't even close to true. The changes he demanded in 2003 and and the changes that were made in 2007 are not even close. Further, The changes we made in 2007 would have been ineffective if not disastrous in 2003.
your expectations on item "D" at the door.
While you're at it, check on McCain's public statements about what he intends to do about illegal immigration (not just border security), and about the people who were concerned about it last summer, when he was pushing the "comprehensive solution."
I'd support those three also, but I'd rather vote for Fred.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
We are not choosing a "Conservative in Chief". We sure didn't last time.
But you know it sounds more like you mean
You are not interested in choosing a "Conservative".
IMAO.US
I wasn't interested in choosing a conservative I wouldn't be a Republican. Everyone in the race is a conservative. Simply being a conservative won't make them a good president nor will it get them elected President. There are more important things, such as leadership. But thanks for completly missing the point I made.
"Everyone in the race is a conservative."
Please expand upon this statement.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I think it is self explanatory but here goes...
Rudy, Fred, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, Ron Paul are all conservatives.
Being "the most conservative" or putting together kickass policy papers is not going to make someone get elected and it alone won't make them a good President.
Put away your little checklist and vote for the man who is ready to lead.
They are all Republicans, but they are not all Conservatives. There is a difference.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I'd be happy with Thompson but Rush can't say he is the only one without liberal/moderate stuff in his past. Thompson's support of McCain-Feingold is enough to prove that point. I think if Thompson's experience in political office was greater than eight years in the Senate we'd have a longer list of Thompson slip-ups.
Not allowing issue advocacy groups to run ads during the final days of an election is an outrageous assault on freedom of speech.
that I read just tonight that Fred voted for an amendment to the act to take care of that problem, but it was defeated.
If that's the worst, so be it.
Just as Mitt has admitted he was wrong on pro-choice, Fred has admitted he was wrong on that bill.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I love Rush, and have for years. Rush is NOT going to Not support the GOP canidate if it's not Thompson. I believe Rush voted for Forbes in 2000 primaries if I remember correctly.
I believe Rudy is the best canidate. He has proven leadership and track record in dealing with Liberals (NYC's legislative body is filled with Pellosis and Durbins). I know he's not strong on social issues, however his commitment to nominating conservative judges to the federal bench is vital to conservative causes. And I think it's pretty clear where he stands on national security and supports tax cuts, and fiscal accountability.
BOTTOM LINE IS THIS PEOPLE: IF IT IS RUDY VS. HILLARY IN NOV.'08, WILL YOU VOTE FOR HIM, OR PACK IT IN LIKE WE DID IN
2006?
I DON'T WANT TO BE THROWING UP ON 1/20/09.
I think Tom Tancredo is more conservative than Romney, Huckabee, Rudy, McCain, and Fred Thompson. I guess that Tancredo isn't in the top 5 though. I'll probably end up supporting Fred Thompson in the long run. BUT any Republican candidate is better than any Democrat.
Craig
That is what the MSM will have you believe, but he is strong on everything and has an immaculate conservative record. I am a Fred supporter and will remain one, but I still think two of our best candidates, Tancredo and Hunter are brining up the rear. Look for both to play a big part in the next administration if it is Republican, especially on security and immigration.
I've not once felt ashamed or bad to be supporting Fred. If McCain-Feingold is the best anyone can do, no problem. He has repeatedly said it was for good intentions, and did not work as he wanted it. I'd rather that than be on videotape 3 5 years ago telling the world I'm pro-choice, and now pro-life. A candidate's positions should not change based on the office they are running for. I've yet to meet a volunteer from a candidate of Rudy or Mitt that don't have to stop and say "well I don't really agree about that, but its not that important" or "I don't think that slip up will cost him too much in the election."
As for Rudy's dedication to judge appointment, I do believe him. However, I'd rather a candidate who will appoint great judges, who actually believes what I believe.
Fred is the perfect man for the job. Let me know when this American Idol season is over so we can vote for the person with the best policies.
As a Fred Thompson supporter I was ecstatic to hear this from Rush. However, there was a bigger message about Fred Thompson that Rush delivered that must be brought into the light and discussed for all to hear.
Rush not only stated Fred Thompson was the only conservative, but called the current "so-called" front runners moderates by name. This is important. Rush basically told the supporters of Gov. Huckabee, Mayor Giuliani, and Gov. Romney, you are supporting candidates that are not conservatives, you are supporting those with liberal tendencies and with liberal history.
Rush also indirectly pointed out that Senator Thompson is the only Reagan Conservative. After saying that only Fred Thompson did not display moderateness and liberalism (therefore Conservatism), Rush said, "I've told you during the course of this one campaign year that one of the things that's bothering me, is I'm a Reagan conservative, and I believe in conservatism."
President Reagan and Reagan Conservatism is the heart of the party. I believe I can fairly state that most members of the GOP believe that Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest leaders our party has ever had. We long for a leader who emulates this great man. We want that type of leadership that makes us proud to be an American.
We want a leader who speaks with an authority of conviction. We want a leader that we know will not flinch when confronting those nations and entities who bare ill will toward us. We want a leader whose very name causes our enemies to tremble. We want a leader that our friends respect and that our allies will trust and defend.
We want a leader who, when he takes the oath of office, will truly mean it when he swears that he will SUPPORT and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION. We want a leader who will appoint Conservative LIONS to the court rather than centrists that will easily win Senatorial confirmation. We want a leader that believes that those first Ten Amendments should be taken as a Holy Writ, and that realizes that these Rights are God Given Rights not given by Government.
We want a leader that believes in True Conservatism; a leader that believes in Empowering the individual. We want a leader that believes in Our Republic and who makes us want to stand and Shout for All to hear, "I am a member of the REPUBLICAN Party."
Rush is right. There is only conservatism and you either are or you are not.
Rush is right. There is only one conservative running, and that conservative is Fred Thompson.
Matt Carden
The Carden Chronicles (http://mcarden.blogspot.com)
except for the times when he is just a big ol dumbass.
I like the guy, he is entertaining, but,
Few things in life are ever as cut and dried as Rush pretends.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Didn't know this was coming, he looks excellent, dark skin, awake and very presidential. Like Jerri's new hair color too.
When the campaign first started I thought he would be religious nut that no one could take seriously.
I only had to watch the debates to see this man has the one skill missing from the Bush administration (ironically the same skill that was crucial for Reagan)--the ability to communicate conservative values to the American people in a calm, deliberate and reasonable manner.
Thompson is conservative, but he is a stiff with absolutely no passion and no sense of leadership in his delivery. He lacks the communication skills necessary to sell moderates and independents on the conservative agenda. Same can be said for Duncan Hunter and Tancredo.
Paul is simply insane.
Romney is the Republican John Kerry-but worse.
McCain is a leader as well, who communicates a conservative agenda well, but I believe what chance he had sank with immigration and the collapse of his campaign.
Finally, Rudy is not conservative on many issues, except foreign policy, fiscal responsibility and civil order. With that said he has made efforts to appease the right. More importantly he too has a nice communication style that can sell a conservative platform to moderates and independents.
Huckabee is a conservative. To suggest otherwise is simply stubborn and contrarian. I doubt we all would agree 100% on the conservative platform--whatever that may be. Similar to the candidates. They will not always agree. But this "he's not a conservative" or "you are a RINO" crap is irritating.
The reason Huckabee is climbing is because conservatives are sold on his message. Iowa was sold on his conservative credentials and his retail politics. NH is starting to respond. SC and FL is responding as well.
Why is Thompson falling? There is no message that he communicates well. He can't sell. If he is such a conservative why can't he sell his conservative ideas to conservatives? Huckabee can and will continue to excel in this ability to sell OUR agenda.
Dave
is because conservatives are sold on his message."
Or maybe it's because he's gotten a ton of free, positive publicity from the MSM and some misguided souls on Fox.
I don't think he's trustworthy on taxes or immigration, and Heaven knows what he'd do about judges and Iraq. Has anybody asked him?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Taxes--the tax threshhold barely rose in a predominantly democratic state (where he remained for 10 years) The taxes he imposed were things we would find acceptable, and when a tax was no longer needed it was repealed.
Immigration--he will cream his democratic opponent on the issue, because although he is softer than his peers on the issue, he is a million times more conservative on the issue than his prospective democratic opponent.
Judges--are you kidding me, it's not even a question. In fact, that is what he will get hammered on by the democrats.
Iraq--he needs to be questioned on it. However, I believe like any of the other republicans, he will fight the war on terror far more aggressively than any other democrat.
Bottom line: the MSM coverage occurred after he started to rise. His polls rose when he placed second at the conference and continued to rise with every debate. The Chuck Norris ad did not hurt either. The positive press has only occurred the last couple of weeks.
Thompson cannot sell our agenda to the American People. No fire! No presence! Certainly no president! He may be able to beat the democrats, but Huck's style and demeanor will beat any democrat.
Fred Thompson's immigration reform plan is far and away the best among the top five candidates. This is so not only because it focuses on an attrition-through-enforcement strategy with regards to illegal immigration, but also because he actually has good ideas on reforming legal immigration.
Thompon calls for abolishing Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Lottery program and for ending extended-family chain migration. If the GOP is to have a fighting chance (demographically speaking) in the future, then the last step is an absolute requirement. Giuliani and Huckabee would probably respond with leftist-style indignation at this proposal (if any debate moderator were open-minded enough to go beyond the standard questions about illegal immigration that is). McCain could claim that the 2007 version of his comprehensive bill that went down in flames would have done the same thing, but the provisions that would have allegedly ended chain migration were weak, and not set to go into effect for nearly a decade! In addition, considering that McCain never saw fit to brag about this part of the bill makes me think that it wasn't important to him, and indeed it wasn't, as that part of the bill was included only because of the efforts of Senator Kyl.
To be fair, it seems that Thompson would rather give the visas saved by ending chain migration and the diversity lottery to other forms of legal immigration instead of reducing numbers overall. If so, then the GOP would still likely be importing its own demographic doom. Ideally, Thompson would call for a reduction in absolute numbers, but as it is, his plan is still vastly superior to what we've heard from Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee.
Thompson's immigration reform plan is the best plan among the top five candidates.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
who wants a true (Reagan) Conservative votes as Rush suggests, we won't ever find out whether Huck would beat a democrat. I tend to believe what Rush believes. Not what Dick Morris believes.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Romney, Rudy and McCain will probably not respond. The Huckster will probably resort to name calling.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---