Fred Thompson, Conservatism, And Opposition Conundrums
Or, having cake, eating it, and complaining about trans-fats
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My vacation was awesome, thanks for asking. While I was gone, I found a well kept secret about Fred Thompson that the Media, the Dems, and the quaking-in-fear Repub wannabes have apparently missed:
Fred Thompson is a Zebra-Hating horse bigot!
Or so you would believe, were you to hold him equally accountable as "Sir Trenton" the thoroughbred as the media and their cohorts has tried to do with his role in "Wounded Knee" as Ulysses S. Grant, among the many others in his acting career that are SUPPOSED to indicate what kind of man he would be as our Chief Executive.
The opposition is fast-painting themselves into a corner vis a vis Fred...and the whole of the Republican field for that matter. They all at once warn us no candidate is sufficiently "Conservative" while making us believe "Conservatism" isn't even the answer to our woes AND by telling us the Dems are more "Conservative" in the first place. Consider the lengths some have gone to convince us that he (Fred) is not Conservative enough...or has a Moderate to left-leaning history...or that he is corrupt...or (my personal favorite) that his wife is but a mere arm piece...a trophy wife as it were...
Where are the screams and howls from the progressives about the poor and abused and womanized Mrs. Thompson?
I can't help but ask myself how it is we can have the fine Mrs. Thompson be BOTH an alleged know-nothing looker AND a devious opportunist and co-conspirator all at the same time...you just can't make this stuff up people...
More below the fold...
Now, for the record, I threw my Stetson in with Fred publicly and officially back in June. The beauty of this piece lies in the fact that this isn't even ABOUT Fred...I have plenty of other places to cheerlead for the as-yet-undeclared candidate.
This is about the pathetic-ness of Republicanism, it's opponents, and those who pretend to be one, the other, or both (some all at the same time).
Reference an interesting piece over at a User Blog at Townhall in which "Jay" asks the question:
"Conservative or Republican?"
and consider the "meat" of his essay:
Calling oneself a Republican does not equate with being Conservative. When the microscope is put to the politicians life, the details will shine through. Conservative principles are not something you can jump in and out of to suit the situation or the need. Either you believe that government should be small or you don't. Either you believe that taxes are bad, or you don't. Either you believe that the family is the ultimate institution, requiring the greatest protection, or you don't. It is precisely this that got the Republican party in trouble in the last election, and it will get them in trouble in the next if they do not right the ship and return the their foundation.
I don't believe people put Democrats into office in the last election because America has shifted the the left. I don't think the socialist ideas that pervade the left reflect the beliefs of America. I do believe that a conservative America did not like being conned and deceived, sold a bill of good that went counter to everything they believed. It was not about anti-war sentiment. It was about betrayal.
Jay asks a basic yet fundamental question. The media has gone out of its way to equate Republican with Conservative since the run-up to '06. Meanwhile, taking the other flank, the Dems took care to vilify Republicans at every turn, and made sure to remind us that DeLay was a Republican, Foley a Conservative, and so on ad nauseum.
The strategy clearly worked then. At the polls, people either turned against the party, or just drove right PAST the polling place and headed for McDonald's (amounting to the same thing).
Through the recent Iraq debates, the Immigration fiasco, the earmark and ethics tomfoolery, and this most recent Senate Slumber Party on the DoD budget, clearly we are watching party "Benedict Arnolds" trip all over themselves to find the right sound bites to call their own. So too, have many waffled between being Republican or being Conservative (depending on the poll and the issue) to the point that they can't even keep up any more with which lie they are supposed to be speaking about (for or against). Why then, given that BOTH Republicans AND Conservatives are evil, is the media so concerned with whether our GOP primary contestants are Conservative enough? The mind reels.
By and large, given the sanctity of free expression, the media and the Dems are unabashedly big pro-choicers AND pro-choice lobbyists...why is it bad then if Fred, or Rudy, or anyone ELSE on the right were to be one, the other, or both? Oh, that's right-they need to tell us we have no true Conservative available, so why not just pick the next best thing...Hillary. Right?
Clearly concerned with the "little guy" and protecting us from eeevil Republicans/Conservatives and their ties to eeevil Corporations, can anyone explain how Mitt or Rudy, both of whom have pretty extensive records of using the Governments THEY ran to intervene and meddle in and help "manage" the details of their Citizen's lives, would be BAD on a larger scale as President? Remember now, ALL of the Dem hopefuls are going to grow Government, Socialize medicine, and deepen the class divide by singling out the eeevil rich to make sure it all gets paid for. How can we be asked to be against our GOP candidates who AREN'T Conservative enough for us, while simultaneously being told we're better off with hardcore Liberals who are supposedly more Conservative than our own?
As huge supporters of this foolish Fairness business, guaranteeing bigger government and ensuring we all pay for subsidized sustenance of otherwise FAILED Liberal talk radio enterprises, why is it bad if a Republican supports it? After all, implicitly, 47 Republican/Conservative members of the People's House voted FOR re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine when they voted "Aye" for the "College Cost Reduction Act of 2007" which buries deep in its bowels the path to serving up "fairness" all around. Not a PEEP from the media about these 47 "Republicans."
Hmmm...
Oh, and all those peeps out there that begged for Campaign finance reform, and got it via the always entertaining "bipartisanship" we all strive for...yeah-those guys...if you're a Dem McCain-Feingold is good...if you're a Republican/Conservative McCain-Feingold is BAD...which is it guys and gals? Clearly the Dems are enjoying tremendous fund-raising advantage right now...so why all the fuss? So WHAT if the announced McCain and the unannounced Thompson liked it, supported it, spoke favorably of it, or anything ELSE for that matter? Corruption in Politics has been defeated, once and for all...RIGHT?
Consider this, from Katie Favazza's debut column over at Townhall:
Things within the Republican Party are not perfect. They never have been and they never will be. In our current defeatist culture,however, it is more important than ever to support those Republicans fighting for conservatives around the country, including President Bush. In a recent column titled "Conservatives Shouldn’t Abandon Bush," popular radio host Mike Gallagher said that “liberals are emboldened by Republican-fueled criticism” and reminded readers that the Left has enough "hatred and contempt" without the assistance of frustrated conservatives.
Despite the Democrats' and the mainstream media’s best efforts to convince us otherwise, conservatism is thriving within the hearts and minds of the American people—and it will be the source of 2008 Republican successes.
Say what you will about Gallagher, and say what you will about WHY Republicans may be abandoning Bush (Conservatives too, for that matter)...two facts remain:
1 - Frustration with the President or with Congress, amongst Independent Conservatives such as myself, comes from the angst and contempt we have for "them" having lost faith in the merits and prospects an uncompromising commitment to Conservative Principles holds for the American Nation and her people.
2 - Bringing Conservatism BACK into the fore with the American body politic is going to come, NOT from our professional political heroes, but from "we the People" and relying on anyone other than ourselves to make that happen is but a fool's errand.
Whomever you consider your fave Prez candidate, consider who is or is NOT a true conservative versus being a true Republican, and make your pick. The media and the Libs have already convinced far too many of you that the Dems care more about your Conservative ideals than today's GOP field of dreams. Many of the rest of you are satisfied to teach them ALL a lesson by helping make SURE the Dems win in '08. The fight for the left to entrench itself for a generation is almost won.
Either way, Conservatism lives or dies in the people...NOT on the Hill.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Ladies and Gentleman: Behold the sundry frontrunners! — Comments (36) »
Fred Thompson, Conservatism, And Opposition Conundrums 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Hillary must pray every night that Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee. He is the only candidate with even less accomplishments then she has. Unless of course you count in his pro abortion lobbying work and campaign finance reform which will only motivate conservatives to go fishing come election day. An empty suit with truck loads of baggage tends to be the ideal straw man opponent under any circumstances.
someone else's bandwidth. You are a one trick pony and you've worn your trick out. Why don't you walk off into the sunset - or into the desert at noon if you live near me - hand in hand with Rob Johnson.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Take a hint from the legions of conservatives on this site that support Thompson. We've seen all the incredibly lame criticisms that one-hit-wonders like yourself throw around incessantly, and frankly, it just solidifies him even more in my eyes. The more trivialities that you dredge up, the more convinced I am that he's qualified and doesn't have anything for us to worry about. So far, the insignificant minutia that has been publicized by the MSM and the RomBots just tells me that you are desperate for material.
So, go away and come back when you have something interesting to talk about. You're boring us.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Is first, that he missed the sentence: "this is NOT about Fred", and second, that he only furthers the claim made frequently 'round these parts, that an interestingly LARGE amount of negative energy is being expended on an undeclared candidate that so many libs and pro fill-in-the-blank GOP candidates appear to feel so threatened by that they need to trash him, his kids, his wife, and anything ELSE they can find to compensate for what MUST be some modicum of inferiority in their own heroes...
heh
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).
Despite the arguably premature endorsements Fred's had from a lot of folks on this site, I think RedState has the potential to be an important forum throughout the primary.
And you're right, Chad. If the only way to defend FDT is to attack his detractors, then his nomination would be a gift to the Dems. FDT needs to show that he can stand on his own merits and that he's willing to stand behind his own political record rather than deny it. If he's unable or unwilling to defend himself and speak candidly about both his career as a lobbyist and the evolution of his political stances on issues such as abortion and campaign finance, then there's no reason for Republicans to defend him either. I'm not going to stick my neck out and risk the election for someone who's campaign fumbles around the way his has.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
had a great vacation. Which I suspect means that you ventured somewhere outside the Peoples' Republic of Austin, got to see some freedom and liberty being exercised, and the term "United States" being used affectionately.
More later, after I digest some of your novel-length insert here. Clearly you had some time for reflecting and thinking!
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I DID venture south to San Antone...the reflection came MORE from the 5 year old grandson and fishing and talking in 5 year old terms about growing up to be a soldier and fighting for America...ALL with no words from me.
And in remembering that the REAL fight we face is for our kids...not our political vanity.
I anxiously await your further thoughts...ps-he's still here, and wants to go back to the "tank" for a few more casts...
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).
What ever you can say about them, the important thing to remember is...
THEY AREN'T ME!!!
Woof. And woof again.
True, they are not you.
But they WANT to be you. Does that count for nothing then?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
If they wanna be Franz, let 'em make that trip to the vet. Then we'll know they're serious.
And, FWIW, even after the trip to the vet, Franz has bigger balls than anybody currently in Washington.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
when they stop hitting the Grecian Formula and start painting their nails black...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
"By and large, given the sanctity of free expression, the media and the Dems are unabashedly big pro-choicers AND pro-choice lobbyists...why is it bad then if Fred, or Rudy, or anyone ELSE on the right were to be one, the other, or both?"
I think the issue is less what he believes and more if he is attempting to represent himself as something he is not.
Also, its convenient to blame the media for this story, but is it not likely that it was fed to the media by one of the other candidates?
I think the abortion lobbyist story was definitely fed by a rival's opponent-research team.
To me the biggest issue is not that Thompson wasn't a movement pro-lifer. His pro-choice views have been widely known since his time running for and serving in the Senate. To me the story is his continued Clintonesque (or maybe trial-lawyer-esque) denial of his past positions. First he denies lobbying, then he can't remember checking that box, then he demands billing records, then he is spinning his previous statements and trying to redefine the meaning of the word "is."
Speaking of definitions, I think the term "conservatism" is ill-defined. Lots of people hearken back to Berry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," which would be a fine definition except that Goldwater was more tolerant of "libertarian" social policies then most "social conservatives" would be comfortable with today. Goldwater was pro-choice, for example. So, it would be fair to call Rudy a "Goldwater conservative." For that matter, Thompson credits Goldwater as the catalyst of his conservatism, which is probably why he had no problem with the idea that an abortion "decision must be made by the woman" when he ran for Senate. I think he would have a better chance at winning the nomination if he would just run as himself instead of trying to play the role of the conservative savior of the GOP.
In my opinion, the best social conservative in the field is Huck. But I don't mind voting for a Goldwater conservative either.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
"The media has gone out of its way to equate Republican with Conservative since the run-up to '06"
That's awfully recent. Especially on a conservative website named after a Republican meme.
Maybe what changed was that the way people said it started feeling perjorative, whereas it used to feel complimentary.
calling Fred Thompson's wife a trophy wife on FNC Sunday and thought how cavalier of him to just throw that out and thank god he was called on his nastiness.
especially for the Dems/press/Commie Party.
I agree on so many fronts, so I provide a general "Here here!" And "Amen!" and "Atta boy!".
I've gotten so jaded with the press that in recent months I just automatically tune them out. I especially reject any and all things they have to say about Republicans, Conservatives, all GOP candidates, whether declared or Fred™.
The content is absolute drivel, and I don't care to parse it. They cut us every way they can, and have no care or inner conflict when their various ways of cutting Conservatives contradict each other.
Nevertheless, I think I ignore them *somewhat* at our peril. Your warning is well-done. The examples are endless, and you've regaled us with a few. And the big problem is not the smart people being swayed, but the large, large population of Sheeple in America (including a disheartening number who call themselves Republicans or even Conservative) who swallow the nightly news, unfiltered by common sense or even a modicum of skepticism.
Now the part I'm MOST interested in is "where from here"? I will disagree with you on one point. True, it is the grassroots, the citizenry, who must (and CAN) rise to the occasion.
But I would say that we DO need heroes of national scope. Rush Limbaugh is without doubt one. There must be a candidate who resonates, and by that I mean that his message parallels the beat of the Conservative heart. We hear him and say "Me too" ["Dittos"].
In contrast to the message of the CS (think Bull Durham, umpire, game ejection) media, I say we have SEVERAL good candidates who are PLENTY Conservative, and who can and do articulate it well. Even our LEAST conservative candidates are refreshingly MILES to the right of any top Dem candidate. I think the GOP field -- in stark contrast with the bozos the Dems are trotting out there -- fairly DRIPS with gravitas, with intelligence, with bona-fide inspiration, and with a superior vision for America's future.
I believe that a guy out front of the parade who preaches our message UNAPOLOGETICALLY and aptly, will rally the base (who as you stated did not move left in 06, but rather sat on their hands). And more, I think alot of people in the mushy middle would respond to Conservative principles if articulated clearly.
I'm very much with Fred -- but I would in a HEARTBEAT support Hunter or Huckabee and love doing it, should one of them rise in favor. My thoughts toward Romney and Giuliani are positive and hopeful as well.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
As bad as it usually is, it seems to have become even worse once the presidential election cycle got under way. I can't think of anything they've dredged up on any of the contenders in the past 6 months that has had any merit.
I'm not as pessimistic about the size of the "sheeple" (argh... I hate that word) population, though. Some of this bad stuff might be swaying or disillusioning some primary voters now, but everybody will fall into line once we have a nominee selected. In 18 months, it'll be down to Dem vs Republican and it won't be too hard for conservatives to decide who to pull the lever for. If we have a decent candidate, they can cut through the noise generated by the MSM and win the independents as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Man, when did this thing start becoming a 2-year affair?
it'll be down to Dem vs Republican and it won't be too hard for conservatives to decide who to pull the lever for.
Well, IF our candidate is conservative, articulate and magnetic. But we have SEVERAL of those guys, and I'm very hopeful. And that's the thing, we have to make sure Conservative voters are (1) excited about our guy, and (2) fully aware of how devastating to America 4 years of the Democrat would be.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Well put!
I'm also optimistic about our current field of candidates, and their ability to keep the White House in '08. Heck, I'd still be happy if Newt jumped in and shook things up a bit. I think the polls showing GOP dissatisfaction may be somewhat driven by disgust with politicians in general. And there's every reason for Republicans to be disgusted with politicians in general.
I think as long as the Dems pick Hillary or Obama, then we'll win almost by default because Americans are smart enough to avoid handing the White House over to a cartoon character calling for surrender in a time of war. Hillary and Obama are sensationalist and make for entertaining TV, but the majority of people won't vote for them while the country's at war. Maybe if we were back in the 90s but not now.
If the Dems pick Richardson, however, we'll have a real fight on our hands. He's the real deal; not a cartoon, an empty personality, or a walking ego.
Centrists/independents didn't turn left in '06, but part of why we lost was that they did turn against perceived GOP lobbying, corruption, earmarking, and over-spending. I think it is critical that voters not have that impression of the GOP Presidential nominee next year.
I agree that Republicans need to be excited and fully behind the nominee, but I think we'll need to be prepared to do more than just rush the ball that last half yard across the goal line like we've been doing with Bush. We really need broad support, trans-regional support like Reagan had winning 44 states. Ultimately, in addition to winning the election, we need to send as strong a signal as possible to Al Qaeda and Iran that despite the Dems and MSM, Americans all across the country are committed to winning the war.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
He would give us fits. Fortunately, the lefty screech machine led by the nutroots will not allow a centrist (or *perceived* centrist) anywhere near the nomination. Haha!
Your last paragraph is classic -- the election will send a message to the terrorists. A Dem win means America goes the way of Rome, and sooner than late. A Rep narrow win sends a mushy message to the terrorists, and will not deter them.
And a RedState landslide signs their death warrant, and they know it already.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Fred Thompson is a southern conservative and is a refreshing addition to the race. One day, before I succumb to old age, he may actually announce his candidacy. Perhaps the greatest baggage Guiliani brings to the table is his liberal record, so running as a Republican does not make you a conservative. Can you see the Democrat probable nominee resisting her socialistic tendencies to reform health care into oblivion, or just model it after the failed policies of the Canadians? Do you see the Democrats expecting self-reliance and personal freedom,and supporting the 2nd amendment in any form? Can you see the Democrat candidate, if elected, considering, or even supporting the Fair Tax system at all, ever? That would give economic power and decision making back to the people. For Democrats, that is a cardinal sin. You concentrate power in government "servants" and not in the republic. Can you see a Democrat President nominate anyone other than a far left flaming liberal, so they can "make" good law and do social engineering ad libitum? Okay, the initial nominee of George Bush was not the best, but that is no reason to throw out the entire Republican field. The race on the surface of it is very simple; Do we want a conservative in the White House, or do we want a flaming liberal socialist? Do we hope to move forward in some fashion, or are we satisfied with more lessons on oral sex in the Oral Office of the White House? IF we move to the left in a sharp turn, we return to an era that was not that good. And if we do, I have met the enemy, and he is us. (with apologies to Pogo).