Why Thompson? We already have strong conservatives
By uncommonsense Posted in Elections — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have a few questions which I would like my fellow Bloggers on RedState to comment on.
Why when we already have a number of strong conservative "lower tier" candidates do we need Fred Thompson to parachute in to gain the Republican nomination? After all, many of these candidates are just as qualified if not more so. Why is Fred the only one who can win and why? Why not just get behind the existing (declared) conservative candidates?
Please make serious arguments and refrain from personal attacks and name calling. I look forward to some interesting discussions.
Gov. Huckabee: I know him best for being an 'anti-obesity' advocate, which doesn't impress me at all. He apparently also has a track record of raising taxes and spending as Governor. Not a good fit for the base right now.
Rep. Hunter: Local to me, heh, I guess that's good. Except that he's pro-tariff, and tax hikers aren't what we need right now.
Run like Reagan!
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
He opposes Roe and Casey and favors a ban after the 8th week, a position I could probably live with. Of course, he's not my first choice, and he's clearly not known by most voters.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
To say that Tancredo is not conservative is just absurd. His lifetime voting record is rated over 97 from the American Conservative Union. Take just about any big issue, and Tancredo has voted conservative on it. He's pro-life. He's pro-tax cut. He's pro-traditional marriage. He's pro-private property rights. He's pro-Second Amendment.
And he's conservative on immigration, and therein lies the rub with many. For daring to be a conservative on immigration, and for advocating for conservative immigration reform, he has upset many in the party who would, I guess, rather he sign off onto Ted Kennedy's latest fraudulent reform.
Its easy for the Left and media to demonize someone, and present them as being outside of the mainstream, but if you consider Tancredo's positions (or Buchanan's for that matter) in isolation, or separate from the man, then they are quite popular and very mainstream with Americans.
He has managed to paint himself as a one trick pony and he's not going to survive that in the POTUS sweeps.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Call it a tariff and the man laps it right up.
Anyway, that's minor. He and his anti-immigrant, ostrich-in-the-sand Team America (first), with their allies Steve Sailer and Pat Buchanan, have no place in the Republican party.
Run like Reagan!
that you were now deciding who gets to be in the Republican Party. I guess I'd better be on my best behavior.
Needless to say, your twaddle about Tancredo has been shot full of holes on multiple occasions.
For Neil, it's not free markets.
It's Free Marxists
Any distortion of an ever consolidating central government and global big business complex is evil protectionism.
That you call me a Marxist because I don't think the state should direct who buys and sells what products to and from what country, though, or because I wish the party would drain the swamps of the 'race realists' and those who ally with Pat Buchanan (who already LEFT the party) is amusing.
Run like Reagan!
Get cracking on it. Now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Though it seemed a reasonable word play to me. Furthermore, a following post on another thread stated quite plainly that I agreed with him on another issue.
Regardless, I am glad to be a longstanding contributing member to RedState, and I hope to maintain that privilege.
Having said that, I would like counter validation that this light censure directed at me is about language used, and not about the content of my arguments.
Regards.
When whacked by a moderator (speaking from personal experience) it's best to grovel and move on.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
No harm, no foul, let it be as if it never happened.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Jon Sandor, since the subject of tariffs may be important to some RedState posters, let's review a May 10, 2006, press release from Sen. Sam Brownback (http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=255386&), a portion of which is copied below:
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today called for the preservation of the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.
"Now is not the time to remove the tariff on imported ethanol," said Brownback. "Our ethanol industry is growing robustly and setting production records each month. The proposal to remove the tariff is based on the false assumption that a shortage of domestic ethanol is causing price increases at the pump. In fact, we are producing more than enough ethanol each day and we have 25 days worth ethanol reserves."
Recently Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), and John Sununu (R-NH) introduced a bill that would permanently lift the tariff. Brownback and a bipartisan group of senators will soon send a letter to President Bush outlining their opposition to removing the tariff.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
that grow corn and sugar
Yes an industry that is already raising everyones cost for food. Does anyone actually add that into the cost we pay for ethanol ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Dropping the sugar tariff is an immediate pathway to starting an alliance with Lula De Silva against Hugo Chavez. It's a foreign policy no brainer. I wish Brownback would stick to staunchly opposing abortion. It's the one issue he really does well on.
"I have nothing but contempt for Representatives who only represent themselves." - H. Roe Bartle
Has actually caused me to revise my opinion of him upward a notch. I disagree that he's not a conservative, Neil - he's a very solid vote on 99% of stuff and a passionate pro-lifer. He's more passionate about immigration, and I think that he lacks the nuance to be a spokesman for the issue without rubbing a lot of people the right way, and also I think he needs to be a little more careful about his associations, but I think he's a legit guy.
If he carries through with his promise to spend 2008 scoring own-goals on his party when there are plenty of Democrats guilty of the same thing, I am going to fight him tooth and nail like I will any other bozo who does the same thing. But I'm not going to knock him for being him anymore. I'd a lot rather have him around than, say, Mike Castle.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Aurelian, Rep. Tancredo's lifetime rating formt he American Conservative Union is "97.8". He has the highest lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of any candidate runnign for president. Duncan Hunter's lifetime rating is "92" and Sam Brownback's rating is "94".
He doesn't however, support rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status and a path to citizenship as Sam Brownback does. He also doesn't believe that twelve million illegal aliens should be given aspirations of citizenship as Fred Thompson said he did in 2006.
In 2005, he tied for the third highest rating from the National Taxpayers Union from among the 435 members of the United States House of Representatives. In 2005, he received a "Taxpayers' Friend Award" from the National Taxpayers Union.
No Republican candidate for the presidency brings as strong a combination of fiscal and social conservatism to the race as Tom Tancredo does.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
You've probably quoted all that to me two or three times before.
And my answer is the same as the last time: I don't care about those distilled numbers. I don't farm out my evaluation of a candidate to some third party with an agenda.
Run like Reagan!
Aurelian, for one to state that Rep. Tancredo is not conservative, yet claim that one's number two choice for the Republican presidential nomination is someone that voted for both the Medicare prescription drug bill and the No Child Left Behind Act is interesting. Further, to state that one of the reasons that Rep. Tancredo is not a conservative is that he supports tariffs, yet claim that one's number two choice for the Republican presidential nomination is someone that opposes ethanol tariff reduction is also interesting.
Neil's number two choice for the Republican presidential nomination, Sam Brownback, voted for both Medicare prescription drug bill and the No Child Left Behind and opposes ethanol tariff reduction.
Of course, ratings from an organization like the American Conservative Union or the National Taxpayers Union are not meaningful. I really don't know why all those presidential candidates attend the CPAC function hosted by the American Conservative Union.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
are really what Thompson brings to the table. There are more conservative candidates I like better, but the Republican party desperately needs to be a party of ideas again. Otherwise, we risk being seen entirely based on our previous policies; the 2006 election shows how bad that could be.
Tancredo would be my first choice - except he keeps getting slapped with the race card even within the party, and he doesn't seem to be a good enough communicator to overcome it.
1. It's the federalism (or should I make a bad pun and say Frederalism, heh)! Fred has shown a commitment to federalism that no other candidate has shown. It's right there in his Senate record, sometimes standing at the losing end of 99-1 votes.
2. It's the fiscal conservatism. After 8 years of 'compassionate conservatism' (aka big government Democratism) this is sorely needed, not just fiscal conservatism wrapped in big government. The whole country is yearning for it. This is why both Rudy and Romney are doing well while Brownback and Huckabee aren't.
3. It's the communication ability. No one doubts Fred's ability to connect with people and get his message out. He also recognizes that the MSM isn't his friend and that he's going to have to go over their heads directly to the American people. And somewhat along these lines he has said that in order to bipartisanship to work you have to get the American people on your side and they can put pressure on your political opponents to forge consensus not the other way around.
4. It's the combination. The combination of positions, character and communication that has a lot of us excited about Fred!
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Plus, we always vote for what we don't have.
Carter got it because he seemed to have good morals while Nixon/Ford seemed to lack in that dept.
Reagan got it because he was optimistic and tough when Carter was dismal and weak.
Bush I got it because Reagan seemed tired and old and Bush had energy running out the wazoo.
Clinton got it because he cared and Bush I seemed isolated and indifferent.
Bush II got it because he seemed to have morals and we were really tired of the Oval Office being the scene of soap operas.
Thompson will get it because Bush II can't string together two cogent sentences, and Fred brings back memories of the Great Communicator.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Bush 1 got it because the people wanted to give Reagan a third term by electing his vice-president.
Thompson is not running against Bush. Bush may be a factor in determining how some voters will view any Republican candidate but the Democratic candidate will be a bigger factor.
Hunter and Tancredo are light years ahead of the rest of the pack.
This could be the year someone gets the nomination that no one expects, like clinton for the dems in 92. No one is happy with the so called top candidates. That drives the Fred frenzy and all the rest of it.
I haven't heard anything negative about Duncan Hunter. I see someone mentioned tariffs, but I doubt that in and of itself is significant to most voters. He is too good on too many other issues such as immigration to reject for that reason. Anyway, Hunter would be my top choice and is also Ann Coulter's.
The problem is that Fred Thompson is the only one that people know. Unfortunately, we can't force every voter to make him or herself equally aware of every candidate running. Hopefully by January, they'll at least vote based on a little more than just name recognition and a famous speech.
My main reason for supporting Thompson right now would be because he has a chance of beating Rudy. As much as I like Hunter, I would rather see Rudy lose the primary than anyone else in particular win it.
Let's look at who's in the race:
Rep. Tancredo: Buchananite loon. Not conservative.
Sen. Brownback: Appears to be a religious rightist that often votes conservative but has 'compassionate conservative'/Bush-ite tendencies, particularly on illegal immigration. Scary to many Republicans after eight years of GWB.
He's my #2 choice at the moment but I'm watching his Senate votes on illegal alien legalization.
Gov. Gilmore: Apparently was a good governor of Virginia, I'd probably be fine about him, but he just hasn't seemed to attract enough supporters online to push him enough to make him a popular candidate, unlike the support FDT got. That may mean something; who knows? Might be a good VP choice to get some visibility.
Rep. Paul: Cut and run loon. Not credible.
Speaker Gingrich: Articulate conservative, but carries negatives with left-leaners about as bad as Sen. Clinton does with right-leaners; will be questioned hard on his character due to the timing of his divorce and alleged reasons for it. Some of it will be based on Democratic lies, but sometimes lies just get repeated often enough.
Tommy Thompson: Did great things with welfare which led to national reform a decade ago; not really known for anything else.
Run like Reagan!