Running On The Revolution
The 1994 Revolution that is
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In a piece over at the Washington Post blog it's being said that the Fred Thompson campaign will be taking on a new theme - "A return to the Revolution:"
The newest GOP hopeful will emphasize his roots in the so-called Republican Revolution in 1994, when the party swept to power and took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades.
Thompson was in the class of 1994 that handed the Clintons a major defeat with a message of small government. His aides will also emphasize that the same year Thompson was calling for taking power away from the federal government and shifting it to states, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was endorsing New York's Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was moving left in his unsuccessful first foray into politics, when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate. "It's only a fair question to ask every candidate in the race what were you fighting for in 1994," said Todd Harris, Thompson's communications director. "This nomination will be won by the candidate who best articulates those conservative principles."
What intrigues me most about this latest snippet from the Thompson camp is the use of the term Revolution...and a suggestion there is a need to return to such ways of thinking about fixing our Government. Not armed insurrection-style revolution mind you, but a revolution in the thinking of the voter, the extent to which they decide to take back Government, and the energy levels needed to keep after it until it is accomplished.
More below the fold...
To their respective credit, Romney is stumping on the need for change, and non-candidate Gingrich is campaigning for America's future based on it. Giuliani seems more content with running on his leadership on 9/11 and his accomplishments as Mayor of a really big city, but he implies change with his 12 Commitments pledge, and because they are (collectively) a revolutionary change from the crap we see coming out of Washington DC lately, he gets a pass...change is certainly in his intentions.
Having long ago resigned from the GOP (while having stayed in their ballot box given the alternatives) I am first in line to offer my services. In fact, my little tirade a while back lends itself now to this new line of thinking-so whichever of them clears to November '08 that will hold fast to the modern-day Revolution we need to retake OUR country will be seeing me standing right beside them.
The '06 elections were about, ultimately, whether "Republicans" were evil and corrupt, and whether "Democrats" were either of two possibilities: less so, or the true white dove of America's future. We have, of course, seen these past 10 months that they were NEITHER of these. It is certainly better to know now than the day AFTER the '08 "reset" of the political playing field.
Moving in to and through the primaries, we have been given a second chance; determine what we want for our future, and pick the ones most likely to make that happen. The Democrats have busied themselves (on our dime) with renaming Post Offices, politicizing Fallen Heroes, issuing countless "senses of themselves", and legislating official "spankings" of so-called bad guys like MoveOn and Rush Limbaugh (soon).
Most of the rest of us would like to focus on collapsing bridges and breached levees, sub-par academic achievements of our children, problematic health care coverage for the very young and the very old, how to keep our country from being destroyed from within and without by terrorists and lunatics, and just who the heck is here and why they aren't being held accountable to the same laws WE are...while we pay to feed, clothe, care for, and educate them.
I could give a flip about whether some kook fringe PAC gets newspaper discounts, but I DO care about whether we are keeping a tight handle on how many unborn babies we kill, and whether anyone can say the word "GOD" in other than hushed tones and behind closed doors.
A Revolution is just what this country needs-a shake-up of epic proportions where we discard terms like Republican and Democrat, and Liberal and Conservative, and start talking about more important terms like American Patriot and National Pride. A heaping helping of personal responsibility, self-reliance, liberty, and freedom wouldn't hurt either.
Fred? Mitt? Rudy? Anyone?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Clinton's Calculated Cackle — Comments (11) »
Running On The Revolution 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
So that's one part I'm not worried about. If a bunch of truthers want to start picking up guns and charge us, shouting about the NAU, if I weren't in California I'd love to take up arms for my country and try some target practice.
It's all moot though since I'm in California and the Second Amendment doesn't apply to states...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
This made me LMAO. "Fred? Mitt? Rudy? " Like these establishment pro big government candidates are going to shake things up. If it were 20 years ago and people heard these guys they would think they are Democrats.
These candidates and those that blindly support them believing they are conservative (which they clearly are not) will be responsible for handing over the election to Hillary.
Since the Republican party did not do their job Hillary will take office and mandate "force" 46 million Americans to start paying for health care they could not afford in the first place.
The poor and middle class will be forced to take a stand and there is revolution.
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 about our candidates come up with new, vibrant ideas, instead of re-treading old ones? Why must we conservatives always look back instead of forward?
The '94 Revolution was great. But its not 1994 anymore.
The Revolution that kicked off this country happened in 1776, but the Constitution that began the effective articulation and accepted rules of this noble endeavor did not take effect until 1789... about 13 years after the Revolution.
True, it's not 1994 anymore, but that doesn't mean that the ideals that drove our revolution back then aren't as valid or as needed now.
In fact, it is 13 years after 1994....
-- digitalhap
We stand on the shoulders of giants. The wisdom of the past sums up more than the smartest man alive today. Yes, even Newt.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
there would be a whole lot of little people on whose shoulders we stand, and we'd still be able to see further than if they weren't there at all.
Could the election of 2008 be the start of getting our country back? I am fed up with what's been happening in the last 12 yrs. The Fed's (Dem's in control) are trying their darnest to get more money out of our pockets and trying to tell us what we can and can't do. I don't like the gov't telling me when and what to do. If the Dem's win then you ain't seen nothing yet. The Pelosi and Reid party needs to end and end quick. The do nothing congress needs a house cleaning.
Bring'em on Fred...bring'em on!!!!
Don't get me wrong - I'm not implying that Rudy Giuliani can't defeat Hillary Clinton. But Rudy, McCain, or Romney cannot run a credible campaign in the direction that Fred wants to take the country.
Fred Thompson is one thing the others are not - a federalist. And Thompson has been away from Washington long enough to be considered an "outsider". The themes Thompson has been addressing so far sound very similar to those of Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh back in 1993-1994.
By the way, in the latest Iowa and New Hamphire polls, Mitt Romney is losing support. As the Thompson campaing starts to spend money in those states, the polls will continue to trend his way. I fully anticipate Fred Thompson or Giuliani to be the nominee of the republican party. Its just a matter of which guy does the best in the next few debates.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I think that's a bit hyperbolic. I think he'd be *best* at it, but I don't think he's the *only* one, and I'm so far in favor of Fred over the rest it's ridiculous.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
for serving as a welcome counterpoint to the cultlike Fred worship that drives me so batty. I still can't foresee myself voting for him in the primaries, but if by some miracle I do, you can claim most of the credit ;)
Cultlike ? Has this site has come down to that? Anyone who posts a positive statement about a particular candidate is labeled a cultist ? I've been reading many of the regulars on this site for months extolling the virtues of Rudy Giuliani, and why he is the strongest candidate. Does that make all of you Giuliani supporters cultists ? No, it does not. Nor should it make those who support Thompson or even Ron Paul cultists.
I post here and offer my opinions based on the knowledge and wisdom I have gained from the many years I have been involved in the political process. And with respect to this thread, and the issue of the 1994 revolution, the fact remains, there is only one mainstream republican candidate who can run a credible campaign using the 1994 agenda as a model. I posted the reasons in a previous post - whether you agree with my analysis, or even read it, I really don't care - as I don't get paid to provide you this information - I do it pro bono.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
and the analysis still stands. Guiliani, like Arnold once upon a time, only looks conservative because of how far gone the kooks and nuts around him are. He's solidly in the 1950's anti-communist Democrat mold. McCain has been so intent on being the maverick he can't do it either. Romney... Well, maybe. But I rate him at a 20% chance, which is why before Fred entered the race I would have backed him.
I will grant there are some second (third?) tier candidates on the Republican side who could run on a continuation of the 1994 platform, but that's part of the problem: they are second and third tier. And no, having seen more comments from Huckabee, he ain't one of them. He's more like a Ross Perot.
First of all - in general terms - the 94 republican revolution was about cutting the size of the federal government, lowering taxes, and even eliminating some federal departments. Basically, it was a rejection of business as usual in DC.
Neil, you suggest that others of the current field could be equally as effective as Thompson in carrying that message ? Well, ya, if you were referring to Duncan Hunter of Tom Tancredo - as they have been consistent on those ideas for over a decade.
But if you were implying that Rudy, Mitt or John McCain could carry the same message you would be mistaken.
In 1994 Rudy Giuliani OPPOSED much of the republican agenda. Those of us who were there know this... and if we do, how long do you think it would take the Clinton campaign to use that information against Giuliani, and make him look like a two faced hypocrite ? Not long, heh ? Thats not to say Giuliani can't win, but he can't win trying to run as the reincarnation of Newt Gingrich.
That leads us to Mitt Romney - you know - the same Mitt Romney who in 1994 ran as a pro choice establishment republican in Massachusetts. The same Mitt Romney who claimed he didn't support much of the Reagan economic agenda. Lets be real - Romney has no credibility as a government reformer and would be picked apart by his opponents if he tried to run such a campaign.
John McCain ? You mean the same John McCain who opposed much of the Bush tax cuts ? The same John McCain who supports open borders ? The same Johm McCain who lead the gang of 14 ? The same John McCain who hangs out with Ted Kennedy while insulting the base of the republican party ? Yea, ole John...thats the ticket. LOL
Thats not to say that these candidates won't TRY to run as the second coming of Newt - but the fact is - none of them would be credible, with the exception of Fred Thompson. And even in Thompson's case, there are issues he might have some problems with when carrying the water as a "reformer".
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I in fact said I think Fred would be best at it. But Only Rudy was wrong when AFC used to say it, and Only Fred is wrong now that you say it.
This field is too strong to make such generalizations.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I just gave you specifics why none of the majors other than Thompson can run as a 1994 type reformer, yet you suggest that it is a generalization ? Fine and dandy...but now let me ask you which candidate other than Thompson CAN run a credible campaign running on the 1994 Newt model. This should be interesting...LOL
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I only wish it were as simple as electing the right President. You all know that so I won't elaborate, but we will need a huge "Revolution" in Congress as well if we really want to see significant changes.
Now that Newt has officially ended the possibility of a campaign, Thompson is free to claim the mantle of the 1994 Revolution and become the candidate that most appeals to Newt fans. My concern with Thompson is whether he will be able to articulate convincingly and forcefully that he is able and willing to bring on such changes.
So far my concerns have not been alleviated by his performances. I just wish he had the ability to articulate policy and principle combined that makes Newt such a good communicator.
If Thompson is not the nominee then we have to work harder to get change in Congress and win over the larger population with conservative ideas. I am excited about Newt's new American Solutions program.
we're talking at the school board, town council, county commissioner, and state legislature as well...if not MORESO...than Pennsylvania Ave.
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).
we will be having one of the armed inssurection kind sometime in the near future. People are angry, angrier than I've seen them in a long time... certainly angrier than in the '60s. It's simmering anger that's been on the back burner for a few decades and more dangerous in its way than the 60s ever were.
http://hillbillypolitics.com