I Don’t WANT Another Reagan
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (68) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Now that my heresy has your attention, complete with lynching ropes, pitchforks, and stakes to which I might be tied and set alight, consider the times we live in.
This is NOT the America Reagan lived in, and it's not one that can be fixed by him now. AND, it's going to take someone equally as good, but uniquely his own man, to get about the business of fixing this mess. Ronald Reagan was the greatest President in my lifetime, but it's time for a new greatest President for a new time to address NEW problems. The Gipper can never be duplicated, and should not be compared against in these times that trouble our Republic.
The essence of Politics may be compromise, but the essence of being an American is having high hopes and expectations. Today's Political essentials come at my expense; my hopes and expectations are tattered, beaten, and bloodied.
It's time to put a stop to it.
More below the fold...
I have absolutely zero patience with our Political heroes now, one and all. I have had it up to here with the lot of them. All around me Republicans are committing figurative and symbolic suicide, flush with angst, disgust, bitterness, and remorse for having allowed the GOP to lead "true" Conservatives out into the wilderness and leave us there to starve. Saddest of all is that we Conservatives have been, by and large, responsible OURSELVES for this mess we're all in.
No one can argue that the divorce between Republicans and Conservatives is final. It has been by no means amicable, and child support payments and alimony loom large in the foreseeable future, with each morsel of community property in dispute of ownership and an absolute disdain, one for the other, and a firm commitment to make every effort to alienate the affections of the loved ones caught up in the emotions and the passion between the fractured factions. Visitation will be strained, having to look at each other or even be in the same room together at family functions promises to carry the very real threat of concealed weaponry being locked and loaded and at the ready.
Now we find ourselves watching (as if innocent bystanders perched in the cheap seats at Fenway) this poorly assembled field of dreams - all of whom are vying to replace the man who has steadily and purposefully abandoned the last vestiges of Conservative ideals. So, too, are they all willing to take whatever opportune potshot they can muster to distance themselves from him assuming we, the sheeple in the electorate, will accept their insincere promises to do better by us...and all this in spite of the fact that they have themselves given safe haven to the assassins perpetrating the principled slaughter of the Conservative ideology they now insist they will champion AFTER they fool us into voting them in to power.
I have long been done with the Republican party but that has given me little quarter. I still have to vote. I am an American Patriot, and to do otherwise would shame my ancestors and our forefathers, and diminish the value of the sacrifices they have made so that I might come along in my time and make this world (in some small way) better than I found it. Just as they had aspired to do in the time God gave THEM, so too is it expected of me to try also. With "not voting" out of the question, what is one to do but vote for those who insist they espouse at least SOME modicum of the principles and ideals I hold dear? And, having those promises reneged on, what then? Some suggest we disengage from the GOP, or remove everyone from office and start from scratch even if it further silences our voices for a generation to come. Some even suggest an alternate third party, a suggestion I have considered and made myself in the past which only fell on deaf ears. And, while such an idea has merit and "feels good", it would only serve as yet another way to ensure our voices go unheard for a generation.
Making the most of what we have is all I see on the table between now and 2008.
I find in none of the currently declared field of Presidential candidates ANY whom I can trust, let alone believe. They all have the baggage of their principled evacuations and desertions. And, while I accept that it is folly to expect any human being can or WILL hold to ALL on my wish-list of expectations, it is not unreasonable for me to set a standard below which I will not belly-crawl. I have come to that, and my decision is final, whither the storm or the clear-sky sunrise.
Speaking ONLY for myself here, with the release of what "appears" to be a pre-candidacy declaration website, I have decided that I'm with Fred.
He is no Reagan. Neither is he a Bush, or Clinton, or (thank God) Carter. And, so what? What good is there in vetting candidates against previous office-holders other than to flout them with any perceived weakness contrasted against another's strength. Times change, people move around, society ebbs and flows, and America the Republic is always on the move. To be fair, none of the candidates should be compared in the same light separated as they are by the times in which they wanted to be President.
Fred, like ALL Politicians, has his baggage; McCain-Feingold being the favorite pointy stick amongst supporters of "their" guys.
I say, "so what?"
He was BIG on campaign finance reform back in his Senate days, and he obviously signed on to "the best deal available" much like what these buffoons today insist confronts them regarding immigration. McCain-Feingold is bad. Campaign finance reform is needed; far too many good men go bad once power and money and lobby groupies present themselves. The bill seemed acceptable then, we know different now, and he suggests he made a mistake. Benefit of the doubt goes to Fred.
It is said he was pro-choice once. He suggests otherwise now. Whatever he may have believed in his past aside, changing your mind is a freedom God allows us all to enjoy as imperfect creations. A long as he is pro-life now, benefit of the doubt goes to Fred. In fact, given the lengthy list of issues the other candidates continue to stand firm behind, they have eliminated themselves for consideration just for being unwilling to even consider they might be wrong, or that the sense of the "People" differs. As leaders, they seem to forget their jobs of performing the "People's" work is what WE pay THEM to do...not aligning voting blocs to afford them relentless self-aggrandizement.
What I am after is not a robot, but a man of faith, passion, commitment, and HUMILITY. I see these things in Fred and sadly they are severely lacking in the others.
A President is only as good as the people he puts around himself. Beyond that, he is the front guy-the color commentator if you will. A President needs to act and SOUND like a leader every bit as much as he needs to BE a leader.
He needs to know what he wants, get after it with all his energy and resolve, and speak out as articulately and as often as his body can allow. He needs to speak clearly and concisely, in specific terms to a diverse electorate that can ALL get the basic premise of what he is telling us. AND, he needs to be honest.
It may be an oxymoron to call a Politician honest...even a President...but I need to be able to PRETEND they are being honest if I am going to believe in them and believe they have my best interests at heart. Most of all, I need to believe their greatest unsurpassed interest, is in the current and future well-being of the Republic OVER the well-being of their legacy, fame, or power base. I can fairly say none in the current field of dreams passes that litmus test except Fred.
This picture says it all - how I feel now about the current state of affairs, and how mad I hope he IS and STAYS until this mess gets cleaned up. Until then, I'm with Fred.
[Note: I am not employed by or affiliated with Fred's campaign, but God willing, I will be soon - and I'll do it for FREE...Fred? You listening?]
"This is our President, and to betray him now would be both politically rash and, I would argue, immoral."
I agree 100%.
___________
As long as Democrats keep getting elected, conservatives will never get what they want.
I stand beside him until the day he leaves office as long as he commands our Soldiers in active combat. But, speaking of being over-dramatic, I find it odd that you suggest he has stuck by Conservative principles given what you know about all the spending, government growth, and entitlements he has supported and been part of. We all knew his immigration stand since the days he was my Governor-there is no surprise in this immigration mess-the rush to kill the bill is precisely because we know if he sees it he's going to sign it.
If you believe no child left behind and prescription drugs are sticking with Conservative principles, we have a much more fundamental disagreement than who is abandoning whom.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
...core principles for which a traditional conservative stands have been abandoned by GWB. We, however cannot abandon him precisely because of the war on terror.
The fundamental disagreement is with the larger issues not even addressed, but rather, appeased.
Thompson...yeah...Thompson/Gingrich... now there's a combo...
Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
I think this is becoming my mantra: "Bush is not a Conservative and never was".
He is with Conservatives on some issues - Abortion, judges, War, taxes - but we Conservatives assumed he was hard core across the board when he was not.
That said, you can't really say he has abandoned Conservative Core principles when he was never there to begin with. Bush has walked his own path from the beginning.
What happened is Conservatives walked alongside Bush as he traveled away from the path we desired. Since our path was nearly always in our sight, we felt mostly comfortable in the walk.
Now we are walking back to the path we choose to tread and the distance suddenly seems very great between us and he.
As has been said many times, we didn't leave Bush, Bush left us.
No Child Left Behind, Medicare, tactit approval of outrageous spending, Harriet Miers, immigration, rampant cronyism and an overall anti-Federalist position... why offer him our support when he seems to fight the hardest not for conservative principles, but against them?
Are we to mimic the sycophantic Yellow Dog Democrats who would abandon any sense of principle or accountability in the name of gaining power? Loyalty is a two way street; otherwise it becomes blind obedience.
While we should do all we can to support the efforts of our troops and their mission, that's not an excuse for backing anotherwise incompetant President. If the Republican party is to be saved, we need an anti-Bush to try and undo the damage he's done to the Republican party and more importantly the conservative movement in general. Unfortunately, three of the four frontrunners for the Republican nomination appear to be more of the same- "moderates" wearing a conservative costume.
Imperfect as he (and ultimately all candidates) may be, Fred is our best chance in my opinion.
Nathan, your post is also a bit of an overexaggeration. I still like and respect President Bush, but he has not stuck with conservatives to his own expense on very much. The bills that he has pushed hardest for are the ones which are not conservative. The Prescription Drug plan, NCLB, the immigration bill, etc can't be called conservative, and it seems like these have been his real priorities.
He has done some good things for us (like the appointments of Roberts and Alito, putting in JRB, Pryor, and others on the circuit courts, helping prevent the 1994 gun ban from being renewed), but he has presided as a conservative moderate, not a conservative.
Reagan was a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon.
We can pray for another one, but we can't plan on it.
I don't even think we should pray for another Reagan, because the OP is correct in that Reagan was a man for his time. To duplicate Reagan would be to wind up in a worse position as the answers of the past don't necessarily translate to the present.
What we need to look for is someone who has the qualities of Reagan while having the ideas and the policies to address the problems of 2007, 2008, 2009, etc. Reagan faced Communism on the march, a tanking economy, sky-high tax rates (exceeding 50% of income at the top), insane inflation and interest rates. For the most part those issues are done with - we don't suffer the economic woes of 1980. And the terrorist-fundamentalist threat, while akin to Communism, is not the same and needs to be addressed differently. Does anyone think that, for all the greatness of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, a clone of any of them would be an effective man for the job if resurrected and elected today? They, like Reagan, were men of their times, and that is what we need now. A man of our times.
What we need is someone with the Reagan qualities - optimism, resolve, firmness (without stubbornness), some pragmatism, a good and congenial nature, and most of all the skill to talk to America beyond the elite and educated and connect with them. But as the original poster said, we need to have some with those qualities speak with his own voice, with his own policies, with his own solutions to the issues facing us.
In reply to a RS diary yesterday, I suggested that there were "good men" in quality and "great men." President Reagan was a great man. President George W. Bush is a good man qualitatively, as are many of the GOP Field of Ten.
Fred Thompson? I have my hopes, I have my estimates... If you can find a copy of his Tuesday interview with Sean Hannity, please listen to it. He sounded to me like a great man. (Not Ronald Reagan, but only one great man was.)
When I become convinced -- and great men come along more than once in a lifetime -- I'd be at his disposal. For now, it's exciting to test the waters (to borrow an expression).
Does anyone think that, for all the greatness of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, a clone of any of them would be an effective man for the job if resurrected and elected today?
I think they could, given a bit of time to come to grips with the changes that have occured. What is needed is a leader. While their character is a product of their times, great ones adapt to the environment, regardless of the times.
That could be an interesting movie plot line:
'Nation in peril, no good leaders to be found, clone old heroes from DNA (or go back in time, whatever, its a movie, reality doesn't matter) bring them to present, chronicle their fascination with email, Ipods, online porn, etc) and then have them make tough decisions seem simple:
The first GW - "Of course we will try and then execute the traitors - the First Amendment doesn't guarantee the freedom to reveal state secrets, even in a newspaper. I know, I was there when they wrote it."
Teddy (not 'Splash') -"Of course we will bomb them into glass. Why do you question this? They are attacking us and America must be defended."
All of them - "Let me get this straight: You mean we take the property of the hard working American and give it to those who will not work? This insanity will stop!"
Jefferson - "Who says I cannot ask the schools to offer a prayer? Separation of Church and State? That's rubbish!! That is not what I meant at all! Good Grief, has the Nation gone mad?"
Any script writers out there?
All of them - "Let me get this straight: You mean we take the property of the hard working American and give it to those who will not work? This insanity will stop!"
... indeed.
then again, I'm pro death tax.
I do mean the Inheritance/Estate Tax.
I strongly feel that people who inherit all of their money from their parents should be encouraged -as strongly as possible- to get off their tail and get back to work.
To quote Teddy Roosevelt: passing on large sums of money to young men "does not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large."
Or should I quote Adam Smith:
"the most absurd of all suppositions -- that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."
Now, there are arguments about changing the floor (where said tax kicks in), so that someone who earns $30k a year as a farmer may pass on their property worth $2million. That is a good argument, and may be settled by our representatives.
Honestly, I believe that everyone should be given a fair shake. If you don't let the fledglings fly, their wings will never grow strong.
Again, I was told that while serving this country, part of my wage was food stamps. It gives a bit of perspective, doesn't it?
...should have the right of taking most, if not all of my money from my family when I die?
I am tired of the government think they have the right to take my stuff "because it is not fair" if I keep it. I am not a rich man either, but the idea repulses me.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
...coming from someone who at first glance doesn't appear to be a Lefty. The basic idea is that it's both morally and economically wrong for any individual to receive money or other property from his parents. Morally because no one should have advantages not available to anyone else, and economically because it encourages sloth.
I'm entirely sympathetic to your counter, Wubbie, which in essence is that it's none of the government's business (or by extension, society's business) to determine how I dispose of the fruits of my own labors.
Given that the other point of view seems to be held by enough people to give it a real shot of becoming law, I wanted to add another counterargument.
In today's world, you can't create economic prosperity without capital. And the activities that lead to capital formation (entrepreneurship) will not happen if people can't pass their winnings to their heirs. So this is an economic argument against the death tax.
To Teddy Roosevelt's point: it doesn't particularly matter if the lazy scion of a rich father lives a life of sloth. Because if his father was smart, the lazy bum of a son can't dispose of the assets anyway, and they'll be professionally managed. That makes them available to the next generation of entrepreneurs. If the father was stupid (not likely if he got rich), then the money will just pass from the son's weak hands into stronger hands. Same net effect.
..not encouraging my own kids to be lazy. In fact, I have lived that ideal to the great annoyance of my children. When my time comes to pass on, I have no intention of allowing the government to just take it, even if it is given to charity in my will. However, I still want something to be left for my kids, though I still won't have a great deal.
As far as, "Morally because no one should have advantages not available to anyone else", I am all for the "level playing field" and "equal opportunity", but the idea that the government should be the arbiter of equality with wealth redistribution policies is flat out wrong in my world view. It assumes they are entitled to my money because it is there's to begin! I don't buy into that - I am sorry.
I don't have a lot of money, but what I have is mine, and it does not belong to the government, who in there infinite kindness is allowing me to keep some of it.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
I may like the social justice argument, but I'll be just as glad if you put half an ounce of brainpower into investigating charities before you give to them.
>but the idea that the government should be the arbiter of >equality with wealth redistribution policies is flat out wrong >in my world view. It assumes they are entitled to my money >because it is there's to begin! I don't buy into that - I am >sorry.
I may be wrong on this, but I believe inheritance taxes only kick in if somethign isn't going to charity.
... So was Adam Smith. Somehow I like that company better than Hobbes or Machiavelli.
>In today's world, you can't create economic prosperity without >capital.
We're moving away from an industrial II economy, into an economy where ideas matter more than capital. Things evolve. But let's play with your point...
> And the activities that lead to capital formation >(entrepreneurship) will not happen if people can't pass their >winnings to their heirs. So this is an economic argument >against the death tax.
You mean, you would choose not to be wealthy and powerful, if your children couldn't enjoy the same thing??
Entrepeneurship has its own rewards, as does the creation of more GNP (no matter how it is done). Fame, fortune (for yourself), publicity.
Perhaps not being able to give it to your heirs might turn you off -- but most entrepeneurs are -risk takers-. They're willing to gamble.
... Course, it's been a long time since most entrepeneurs voted Republican. I'll be glad when we see another engineer as president, just like Carter or Eisenhower.
No, I'm afraid I did not. I do believe that your children should work for their living, and earn their own place in society.
If you can give them a dash of change that maybe helps them out of a rocky patch, that's one thing. But, believe me, I despise loafers, and people who are taught that they never need work -should not be rewarded-.
I will not see my country turned into a welfare state for rich spoiled brats.
Hopeless, just put me in your will to give me all your assets when you die. I promise you I'll invest them much better and create more jobs than the government.
The government is NOT the answer here. If you don't want your kids to have a lot of money give it to charity.
The government is a bottomless pit with an insatiable appetite for money to blow on inefficient programs.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. The Unknown Politician
I'm proud of a government that works.
There's not an inch of land that's not mapped, and done more efficiently by public money than by private.
The public weather service works better than ACCUWEATHER, a private company.
And wasn't it us that put men on the moon?
Sorry, man, that just won't fly. This government does plenty enough for me.
Yeah, sure, some people can invest money much better than the gov't. But you'll need to at least get to geosynchronous before I give you my money.
At what cost?
Sure government is necessary, but with a much smaller version than exists today. Mapping, weather, and the moon. That's 3 great things the government does at a cost of a billion or two. How efficiently is the rest of our money being put to work?
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
That we need to let scientists run the show ;-)
Here me bias talkin'?
You want me to go on?
We have the world's best military.
Had the world's greatest intelligence Corps.
A workable transporation system (credit the military).
Velcro.
Tang.
Haystack waxes poetically about Fred Thompson, but the verdict is still pending. Mitt is the guy that seems to mix management experience (Civilian and Government) with the "IT" factor in my mind. He already forced the other leaders out in Iowa so lets see how he does in New Hampshire! His organization is superior and he is comfortable in his own skin. He brings the best attributes of Reagan and JFK and will be the shining star in the end. Put Duncan Hunter in with him and you have a dynamic one-two East Coast/West Coast punch that will roll any Donkey ticket.
and of course, if presented in November '08 with a Romney/Hunter ticket I will of course pull "r" with reservation, but glad in the knowledge that I did my part to keep the Dems off of Pennsylvania Ave.
I can't get past Romney's life issues...should Fred not prevail in the primaries, I will just have to get over myself and live with it...
;-)
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Very well done.
___________
As long as Democrats keep getting elected, conservatives will never get what they want.
As long as Democrats keep getting elected, conservatives will never get what they want.
of course, I might say, as long as senators keep getting elected, conservatives will never get what they want.
This amnesty(immigration) bill is not the main reason. It is the straw that broke the camels back for me. It is the most glaring, in your face, example of our washington elected elite won't let the American people get in the way of their own agendas.
There is very little that separates Reps/Dems for me any more as far as lack of character, little responsibility to the people, and self interest corruption.
There are very few people of their word in washington. It is truly sickening.
The elected elite have gone to great lengths to eliminate the American people from the process. Going out of their way to hide pork from the public is a prime example. The election process is so fake and lacking content it isn't nearly enough of a threat to reign these crooks in any more. We need some way of daily, weekly, monthly checks and balances to restore order.
Somehow public service has morphed from public service with daily fiduciary responsibility to the people to say anything, promise anything to get elected then I'll do anything I want, try to stop me.
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
I know it's a pipe-dream, but if it's good enough for POTUS, it ought to be good enough for Congress. Rush often points out that the main priority of a politician is to get re-elected. If we could only take that away, then perhaps we'd have a more honest crowd in DC that isn't so self-serving.
Sadly, the only people that can make this happen are the very ones who would lose out so therefore I don't see it ever happening. What we need is a nation-wide referendum by petition, the way we reign in our local politicians. It's been a while since I read the Consitution, but I don't believe that option is in there.
that's right-Fred...according to this old article at least.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
how "we Conservatives have been, by and large, responsible OURSELVES for this mess we're all in."? You make the assertion but do nothing to support it. I fail to see the fault of conservatives, unless you count electing the dolts who claimed to be such.
we fund them, vote for them, support them....or do none of those things and let bad apples get in office by not doing enough, being involved enough, or not voting at all or whatever...until we are suddenly "shocked" that our Reps would support crazy things we disagree with...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Right haystack- because so many successful actors have tremendous HUMILITY. Because we all know that being a famous Hollywood movie star requires a personality of personal humility and not thinking you are that great. After all, what makes them better than the other 1,000 actors they beat out for a role.
Might want to rethink that one.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
The truly elite actors will be proud to tell you that they do not audition. Parts are written for them or directors/producers beg them because they are the only one who can play a certain role.
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
Thompson was many things before he was an actor...suggesting his acting career defines him more than, say, having been a Senator, or a Lobbyist, or a Lawyer, or any other number of things he has done in his life is like saying we were stupid to elect a baseball team owner President.
I'm happy with looking at the whole picture...and frankly, this President could have done a far better job at communicating had he taken a few acting lessons with the likes of Reagan or Thompson...at least they can believably PRETEND...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
and it shows even in "off the cuff" answers in interviews and such. He can speak in well ordered, logical paragraphs, not just short, sound-bite sentences, the hallmark of the usual politician.
In Vino Veritas
You see passion in Fred Thompson?? The man is lazy. Passion is not the word I've heard used when talking about Thompson. He has no fire in his belly - he's an opportunist. He is being pushed into this. Have you seen his wife?? She looks like his granddaughter. BTW - Senators don't do so well in getting elected to the POTUS. By his own admission, Fred Thompson has done little to prepare himself for this job. Did you see him on Hannity and Colmes - no fire in that belly - a bunch of rambling about what he might do, and, uh, you know I'm a man of the times. Fred Thompson is played out.
I want to see you shoot the way you shout.
- Theodore Roosevelt
the cheap shot about the wife.
well done...now, about YOUR candidate?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
for the most unsubstantiated nonsense in one post that I've seen posted here in a long time. If you just want to insult people, maybe you should check out Kos.
Grow some thicker skin. These are legitimate issues. Why is Fred Thompson running for president? Does he want the job? Has he ran anything? Does he have any executive experience (and acting roles do not count for real world experience)? His wife will be the First Lady - your fooling yourself if you don't think the age difference between Thompson and his wife is not an issue. If Mike Wallace can ask Mitt Romney if he had sex before he was married, the MSM will have a field day with Fred Thompson.
I want to see you shoot the way you shout.
- Theodore Roosevelt
I will take that over a foaming-at-the-mouth, passionate fanatic any day... It takes deliberation, calmness and a measured approach to problems to solve them once and for all, rather than a hurried, ill-thought-out, emotional, half-a**ed attempt at appeasing the pollsters and their followers...
And what does the age of his wife have to do with this? Cheap shots like that don't lead one to take you seriously... And just for what it is worth, I would tend to think that a man who has a wife that is much younger than himself is not lazy...
Because all the rest of the major GOP candidates- Giuliani, McCain, Gingrich, Thompson - have been down the aisle more than once.
Note that the major Dems - Edwards, Obama and Hillary - have not.
Yes, I'm kidding. But bringing up wives is a REAL turnoff for me. People's marriages (except when they run as co-president) are so none-of-our-business.
Since the life issue plays so large for so many here, I am confused that nearly all pretend talks like this are not going on TODAY, ok last Saturday, is this a pro-life or a pro-choice position? (hint it's pro-choice)
HANNITY: Yes, let me ask you this. There are three issues that have come up, because I've examined your record thoroughly now, knowing this interview is coming up. There are three issues come up where people question your conservatism.
One is when you checked a box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where you -- the box said, "Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months." That wasn't your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking the box?
THOMPSON: I don't remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago, and I don't know if I filled it out or my staff, based on what they thought my position was, filled it out.
But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v.
Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states.
When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.
I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And 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...
HANNITY: So states' rights for you?
THOMPSON: Essentially, federalism. It's in the Constitution.
This is not knocking Fred, this is questioning what I see as doublespeak, not on Fred's part so much but on the part of his supporters who posit that he has not said things like this, ever.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I am absolutely pro-life.
I would like to see protection extended at the Federal level for all unborn (and otherwise defenseless: old, unconscious, etc) human life.
That said, I would easily get behind turning the issue back to the states. At the very least, it is complying with the Constitution. At the best, it is a lot easier to effect change at the state level than at the Federal level.
As an experiment, it would be interesting to see the demographics shifts that result from a decision like this.
Protection extended to the defenseless has cost thousands of lives. Lives that could have been saved if not for the pointless objection that headless babies cannot give informed consent, and so must be allowed to die without reasonable disposal of their organs.
...shouldn't it be the parents' choice?
Look, the important thing isn't whether he's personally in favor of state laws regulating or banning abortion, but rather his belief that they should be allowed to do so.
Roe v Wade was a horrible, extra-Constitutional decision with no basis in the text or intent of the Founding Fathers. Likewise, the federal government doesn't have the authority under the Constitution to ban or regulate intrastate abortion issues either. Even if the federal government did have that constitutional authority, it would never happen politically.
Whatever the nuance in his abortion views (it would be very easy for him to pull a Flipper Mitt and say he's now totally against abortion), he was rated pro-life by Right to Life groups, and would almost certainly appoint constructionist judges who (unlike Stevens and Ginsburg) are likely to overturn blatantly activist decisions like Roe v Wade.
To suggest (and I'm not saying you would) that Roe v Wade be overturned on constitutional grounds but a federal abortion ban be passed is a bit hypocritical in my opinion.
Are you replying to me or to the previous comment?
Not hypocritical at all. You could make a strong case either way. However, a Federal right to privacy (and to kill) that supercedes the right to life of the unborn (or the infirm) is not tenable.
I wasn't replying to you, nor was I referring to anything anyone specifically wrote as hypocritical- only the notion that the Constitution should be strictly adhered to only when it suits us.
I'd likely support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, but a federal law? No, the federal government doesn't have the authority under the Constitution as currently written. It's unfortunate perhaps, but the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the right to regulate abortion any more than it protects the vague, undefined "right to privacy" that Roe v Wade was based on.
As a conservative, I want our laws to conform to the Supreme Law of the Land- the US Constitution- even if that means laws I would otherwise be in favor of wouldn't get passed.
I don't know what Fred's current position is, but as I said before, the important thing is a return to Constitutional principles, including the overturning of the horrible decision that is Roe v Wade.
Since Hollowpoint is talking to me, the father of FIVE, who would have had EIGHT, but for reasons that I never understood but accepted after spending a great deal of time asking God why he wanted my/our baby/ies more than I/we did. (OK well that might sound odd but if you've been through a miscarriage I suspect you understand, if not, well then oh well.)
My point is that I have not only mouthed a "pro-life" position, I have lived it.
Seeing as now that two, serve our nation, plus one more who serves that married into the family, with another who just started talking about it after my 21 year old left for boot camp this week, you would think God might have reconsidered and let us have those other three, because truly our nation is in need and it seems like my wife and did right by our children and nation!
Hollowpoint says...
To suggest (and I'm not saying you would) that Roe v Wade be overturned on constitutional grounds but a federal abortion ban be passed is a bit hypocritical in my opinion.
Is this not the definition of a "strawman argument"? Can we have a vote/ruling?
And then can anyone tell me how he was able to construe that fabrication out of what I wrote?
Oh and it is exactly my point about so many of the Fredheads!!!
Oh ignore the man behind the curtain, listen to the wonderful sounds of federalism...
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
but here's one for you that is even more outrageous than your initial provocation (that I wholeheartedly agree with).
For me, GWB usurped RR, as "the man". I know that boggles the mind for many, yet it is so. It's not one thing, and certainly not his use of the bully pulpit mind you.
One day, I will wax eloquently on the subject as it ties in with another lengthy post I have been putting off until I can string a few good days together on the health side, my idealism vs realism theme.
Till then good sir, God bless you Haystack for all your work done in support of the troops ie America.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I specifically stated that I wasn't ascribing the position I called hypocritical to him, how you get a strawman or disingenuousness out of that I can't fathom.
Whoa there cowboy, don't take it personally. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, only making the point that if we're going to support the intent of the Constitution, we need to be consistant about it.
Point is, the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the authority to regulate abortion, with the possible exception of some kind of significant interstate component involved. The 10th Amendment makes that pretty clear.
It's unfortunate that the 10th Amendment has been relegated by the Supreme Court into irrelevance while the "interstate commerce" clause has been expanded to give the federal government almost unlimited authority. I'd like to see that changed, with a return to a constructionist view of the Constitution, under which- among many other rulings- Roe v Wade would be overturned.
Want to make a moral argument for banning abortion? Great- I'd likely agree with you... as long as you did it on a state level. However, it would be hypocritical to support a federal ban not in line with Constitutional principles while trying to overturn Roe v Wade on Constitutional grounds.
But please- if you can make an argument that the Constitution grants the federal government authority for a nationwide ban, be my guest.
strange_guy says-> "This is not knocking Fred, this is questioning what I see as doublespeak, not on Fred's part so much but on the part of his supporters who posit that he has not said things like this."
I support Fred Thompson because I've actually taken the time to study his record and his statements over the years. And I am very impressed with Fred's senate voting record on pro-life issues, and I'm very impressed with his record on wanting Roe overturned. And I'm very impressed with his "federalist" approach to government in general.
Unlike many here, I don't care what Fred Thompson's personal religious views are, or for that matter, Mitt Romney's. All I care about are their PUBLIC positions and voting record. I have no doubt in my mind that if Fred Thompson becomes president, he will nominate judges with a "federalist" approach such as Clarence Thomas. By doing so, Roe would be overturned and the issue would be decided at the state level where it should have been from the start. Fred Thompson believes that the people of each state should legislate issues such as abortion, not the Supreme Court. As a pro-life conservative who strongly opposes abortion, thats the best we can ask for out of our political leaders.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
Maybe you should read it again, clearly you are one of those I referred to.
Thanks for helping make my point!
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I think I detect a new Republican meme. Didn't Frum just write a similar article for National Review?
and I am unaware of such an article. Care to offer a link?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Although that shouldn't come as a shock to the regular posters here on RS.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
a candidate that holds the same timeless principles that Reagan held. The problem is that too many of our elected repubs are cowards when it comes to standing up for those principles against the liberal MSM. They stand for them against libs in elections and win, but then go wobbly between elections.
There is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't expect to have candidates that mirror Reagan's principles and that advocate his policies that worked.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Let's play deficit spending, all!
Just like Reagan!
Now can we please have a serious policy debate on whether deficit spending might help win the "War on Terror" (TM)??
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...I think you're being a bit overly dramatic. So there's been some drama over the immigration bill, and suddenly there's been a "divorce" between conservatives and the Republican Party? I also think your assertion that President Bush has somehow destroyed conservatism, or at least abandoned it, is way overblown. The idea that Bush has "betrayed" conservatives is going way too far. On almost all of the issues, Bush has stuck with conservatives, sometimes at his own political expense. The biggest exception is this immigration compromise. I'm against it too, but I don't think that means Bush should be excommunicated. Is he not supposed to disagree with members of his party over anything?
My suggestion to those who feel betrayed by the President is to step back, count to ten, take a few deep breaths, and think about what they're saying. Yes, this immigration compromise stinks. It is also likely to fail in the Senate, and if not in the Senate then almost certainly in the House. The only major break between Bush and conservatives isn't likely to even actually take place, so let's not go apoplectic over it. Bush is still the President who has kept us safe from terrorists since 9/11, still the President who refuses to lose in Iraq, still the President who has cut taxes and decreased the deficit in a time of war, and still the President who has given us two conservative jurists on the Supreme Court. Let's not forget all of those things and all of the many other things he's done with and for conservatives. This is our President, and to betray him now would be both politically rash and, I would argue, immoral.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me