The Makings of a Real Conservative
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (77) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Rush does not endorse in primaries. I can't say I blame him. But he does know a conservative when he sees one and he's already said that Thompson is the only conservative in the race without well
There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson.
Today, Rush was singing Fred's praises again. But, as Rush did, let me point out that it is not so much what Fred said — though to be sure it was staggering in its conservative awesomeness — but the way Charlie Rose reacted.
You can watch the whole clip below the fold, but here is the relevant part from the transcript:
Rose asks, "You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today?"
Thompson's response:
t means things that are consistent with God's design for man, is consistent with human nature, it's consistent with the lessons of history, the lessons of ages. They found form in the Constitution I think and what our founding fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to error and sometimes do terrible things. That too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing.
And Rose is just stunned. Stunned. No gay marriage. No abortion. No gun rights. None of that in that statement. Thompson explains that those are issues to which you apply your principles. Go to kerrhome's diary for the rest and go below the fold for my take and the video.
Read on . . .
You know, I admit Fred hasn't done well on the stump, but let's not fool around on the issue of what he believes. He has been consistent.
Fred pimping, however, is not my point. Charlie Rose's response is my point. Rose was just befuddled by Fred. And isn't that interesting. You see, liberals in general are befuddled by principle. They were confounded by Reagan. They are confounded by Bush. And they are confounded by a man like Fred Thompson.
Conservatives see the world in the form of principles by which we lead our lives. Thompson, to his credit, when he first ran put out a list of principles -- not policy statements or action items or anything else -- principles by which he would govern. Liberals can't do that. They have no principles any more. The only principle they have is the accumulation of power. That's it. That's the only principle. Sadly, too many Republicans lately have adopted that principle. They go wobbly.
Liberals hate hypocrites because hypocrites set standards and fail to meet them. Hypocrisy is the only sin to liberals because the existence of hypocrisy means there are principles and standards from which one might deviate.
And Charlie Rose shows that off. To him, principles are gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc. To a principled conservative, those are issues -- sometimes, when principle is applied to them, a conservative comes out with majority opinion and sometimes not. A liberal sees issues as principles because positions on issues can shift. Hopefully for the liberal, they always shift left. Principles do not shift. Sometimes they are balanced. Sometimes they are prioritized, but they do not shift. And liberals cannot abide that because a fixed principle yields hypocrisy when one crosses the line. So liberals talk of issues as principles and shift them further and further left so no one must risk being a hypocrite. Liberals can win on issues, but they can't win on principles because the "if it feels good do it and let the government pay for it" principle is abhorrent to the rugged individualist streak that runs through the majority of Americans.
Says Thompson on that point:
Principles are what guide you in coming to positions with regard to issues. You know the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God and not from man. The founders talked about you know life, liberty and the importance of that. And that everything is based on those basic principles. And I take those principles and you know for example I come to a pro-life conclusion there. And when we had issues you know for 8 years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion related activities and things of that nature you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no properly.
The only guide for a liberal these days, and a lot of Republicans, is the gallup poll and the scent of money. Seeing a candidate stick up for first things is quite refreshing.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hillary enlists the aid of fake Ministers to sell campaign to SC blacks. — Comments (5) »
The Makings of a Real Conservative 77 Comments (0 topical, 77 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
it was priceless and hysterical and a little sad and depressing...don't you think?
janet ney
www.californiaforthompson.com
and that says a lot. You have captured the situation perfectly, and in the process provided a wonderful picture of what differentiates the conservative and liberal mind.
Bravo!
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
This kind of substanative answer, fellow Republicans, is why I support Fred Thompson.
That wasn't a substantive answer Thompson said. It was a feel good sound bite. What would he do to back it up with specific examples that he could be held to?
Like this mortgage crisis issue that Bush allegedly is going to tell businesses that they have to extend preferable rates for five more years tomorrow.
How about Thompson coming out and saying that lenders need to deal with this on their own? That those who bought more house than they could afford need to go back to renting or move to a more affordable one and not expect a lender to ignore a contract that the buyer signed WITHOUT A GUN TO THEIR HEAD and agreed to the terms ahead of time? If it's in a lender's best interest to keep a person in a house by working with them instead of foreclosing, that's THEIR DECISION, not the government's job to tell them how to run their business.
I'm sick and tired of politicians who are conservative by name only, yet in practice act like a socialist central planner.
For how he will act in almost all situations. The substantive answer was that he will be guided by his principles. The fact that he had to explain what principles are (and that you, apparently don't understand what they are either) is truly sad...
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
So how do I know his guiding principals won't lead him to want to help out someone who bought a no money down, no-doc ARM that they had no way of affording when the mortgage reset -- as a current example?
Sad that I don't trust a politician? Yeah, OK. Sorry, I'd rather have definite positions on actual issues that they can be held accountable to if they decide to flip-flop later on as an example of how they'd apply their principals to different situations.
Or at least a position that he won't meddle in free markets when things get a little tough, because we all (should) know in the end the market will correct itself and everyone will be better off in the long run.
Sorry, I'm in a bit of a panic about what Bush is going to come up with about this situation tomorrow. I'm fearing the worse. I'm tired of getting burned by "conservative" politicians.
It's not sad that you don't trust a politician, it's sad that you don't understand that principles are the core of what someone believes.
If you want Fred's substantive positions, you can go to his website. He has some very detailed plans there, which might satisfy your desire for specificity.
The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy
Sleepy Eyed Whiners of the Deep
Seeing that you don't believe in principals, it makes sense you don't grasp the economic concept of "moral hazard".
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
He answered the question exactly as it was asked. Rose didn't ask him for "specific examples he could be held to". He asked "You constantly say in this campaign that you are a conservative. What does that mean today?" That's not a request for "specific examples." Fred answered it perfectly.
If you have a burr in your butt about mortgage defaults, why don't you post on that thread instead of threadjacking this one?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
thanks.
I hate thread hijackers.
Fred wasnt asked about the mortgate problem, was he? Thanks for playing.
Hijacking a thread? I used it as an example. I was just saying there was not substance to that reply that everyone is so excited about. Bush said the same sort of fluff things and he turned out to be far from a conservative. The mortgage thing is just the latest example that's fresh on my mind. I just don't want to be betrayed again.
Just what part of "lots of people losing their homes is bad for the economy" do you not understand? If a recession can be avoided by inconveniencing a few lenders for a few years is that really a great mortal conservative sin?
The problem is, it indicates to all investors across the board that the government is in the high risk bail-out business. While I don't want to see anyone lose their homes, I also don't want our federal system to be propping up corporations that make bad decisions. As a Boston Liberal, do you?
-
NARF
Welcome to RedState, Boston Liberal - actually, you're probably a whole lot harder to pick out in these parts than I - suburban Boston Conservative - but I thought I'd ask.
Couple of pointers, seeing as you're new here. First, you're advancing a threadjack that was, well, pretty much dead. That's frowned upon. Big time.
Next: honey, vinegar, important to know the difference. If you want to converse you might, as a new visitor from the other side of the Grand Chasm, want to try the sweeter approach. Then again, if you wish to just troll do us all a favor and let us know and people with the proper decoder ring can get your banning over with sooner rather than later. Thanks in advance.
Your point, being such as it is, is rhetorical. So let me answer with another - just what part of "darn near every time the government tries to inject themselves into the economy they make the problem far, far worse" are you not understanding?
Have a day.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'm not trying to troll. I live in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston so I don't know if I've ever run into you. I doubt you'd ever come here.
This isn't my first post to the site. We're obviously not always, or even often going to agree. I'm here to learn and to teach. I want to learn about the conservative mind and what makes it tick. There are things you (as a group) profess to motivate you all that I'm not quite sure are actually the driving forces in your lives. I think instead blind adherence to tradition, whether it still serves a usefull purpose or not is the more likely motivation, but I won't learn anything if I only assume instead of keeping an open mind.
I don't agree the government usually makes things worse. I think staying out of the economy usually makes things worse. With completely and totally unregulated markets you get a system that spirals out of control and works for very few. Republicans USED to genuinely be for small government. Nowadays they seem to just be against economic decisions that are bad for them personally but good for the country as a whole. There's a difference between the two.
On another note, how do I keep track of replies to my post? The www.redstate.com/tracker section doesn't seem to work when I click on "My Recent Posts".
on the subject of motivations. I would say there is some validity to wanting to preserve tradition, it seems to me the left wing mind usually goes to far in the other direction, wanting to jettison all old things in favor of the new. Except of course for entrenched liberal social policies, then they become positively reactionary.
The main difference I see with most of the left (at least the far left) and everyone else is that public policy is not, to them a matter of right and wrong, or what works and what does not work. To most of them it is a matter of good vs evil.
Since they cannot envision that anyone could ever have valid reasons for disagreement, and since everyone "knows" that they have pure motivations, therefore anyone who disagrees with them must be evil. Thus, republicans, the religious right, Bush, capitalism, they are all evil.
And if evil, then they can be opposed by any means, lies, fraud, intimidation, it's all good.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I agree that liberals are to blame for the scorched earth tone of modern politics. Ideology is a substitute for religion and a liberal's ideology is his religion. Liberal ideologues have all the fervor of a religious convert. Pragmatic issues like the environment become dogmatic. I live in Boston and I am the enemy. My conservative convictions and affiliations cost me job and social opportunities and possibly jeopordize my career. There is no diversity here. No tolerance. It's Orwellian in its doublespeak.
This isn't my first post to the site.
Member for: 6 hours 27 min
So what was your old user ID before you got banned?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"I want to learn about the conservative mind and what makes it tick."
Conservatism is not about blind obedience to tradition. Conservatism, is about natural rights, practicality, realism, and common sense. The traditions in this country are based upon the natural rights that Locke spoke, and shaped by practicality, realism, and common sense.
"I don't agree the government usually makes things worse. I think staying out of the economy usually makes things worse."
Why, not?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
...and while I'm currently a Romney guy, Fred is for sure the ONLY true, principled, consistent conservative in the race. He really is a throwback to the 1994 class of conservatives. I like him a lot, but at this point it doesn't look like he has what it takes. If he turns it around and starts getting momentum, I'll jump on!
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I'm with Romney, but don't bash Fred. My only real criticism is that a nomination has to be earned. I hate the sense of entitlement that permeates on this board on behalf of Fred.
Liberals have some principles, but they are misguided and they often intertwine principle and policy. Sadly, some Republicans do the same.
I hope that he can stage a comeback.
It's going to take a couple of great debates and possibly grabbing some of Romney's people if Romney blows his speech on Thursday to start catching up.
Oz
"the lessons of history, the lessons of ages". When was the last time we heard anything like that from a candidate ?
Liberals don't have principles, they have moods, emotions. They need and search for causes like a bum looking for cigarette butts in the gutter. Emoting about the poor on another man's dime is not principle, it's a cop out for the morally under privileged.
The past is the forge upon which the present is formed. To ignore the lessons handed to us is to guaranty both ignorance and error. Thompson's reminder seems to be a lone nugget in an otherwise barren field, for me he just made a major and positive impression.
Thanks for the post Erick.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
You said a mouthful here: "Liberals hate hypocrites because hypocrites set standards and fail to meet them. Hypocrisy is the only sin to liberals because the existence of hypocrisy means there are principles and standards from which one might deviate."
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
It's true that liberal politicians and candidates have been lousy at talking about them for quite a while, but they're there.
After hanging out here for a year, I've realized that liberal principles aren't even that much different than conservative ones. The biggest difference is in the priorities we assign to them.
The central principle of liberalism is empathy. After that, freedom, fairness, interdependence, equality.
Freedom being that if you are not a member of a protected class, you have to give up your opportunities to those who, you must not practice your religion and you can't talk about how undeserving individuals are getting certain things?
Fairness being that, since all protected classes are inherently inferior, they must receive their opportunities by government fiats that steal those opportunities from others?
Equality being that, well... I guess the above already describes pretty accurately how Liberals view Equality...
Though Interdependence I do get from them. Certain people can only get by if what they receive is taken by those who work for their rewards...
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
"if you are not a member of a protected class, you have to give up your opportunities to those who"
Are you talking about affirmative action? That stems from the principle of fairness.
"you must not practice your religion"
I've never met a liberal that felt that way, unless the practice involves harming someone.
"can't talk about how undeserving individuals are getting certain things"
I'm not sure what you mean by "certain things". Liberals have a history of standing up for First Amendment rights.
"Fairness being that, since all protected classes are inherently inferior, they must receive their opportunities by government fiats that steal those opportunities from others?"
The belief that a class of people is inferior would violate the principle of equality.
..."fairness" and "equality" is that conservatives by and large believe in equality of opportunity, while liberals believe in using government either to guarantee equality of outcome, or in using government to guarantee positive outcomes to one class of people, while denying them to another, in the name of making up for past injustice and lack of opportunity suffered by the former.
"Equality" and "fairness," in other words, have very different meanings to conservatives and to liberals.
"I'm not sure what you mean by "certain things". Liberals have a history of standing up for First Amendment rights."
Only when the speech is convenient, or when it advocates leftist goals. Perhaps, you have forgotten about, speech codes.
"Are you talking about affirmative action? That stems from the principle of fairness."
Yet, it often results in anything but fairness
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
"Only when the speech is convenient, or when it advocates leftist goals."
Would you consider the ACLU liberal? They've defended the speech of groups that almost everyone dislikes.
"Yet, it often results in anything but fairness"
Like Jeff said, liberals and conservatives have different ideas of fairness. I think Jeff overstates it a little. I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome - but I think a little rigging of outcome is necessary if we're going to create real equality of opportunity in our society in the long run. I don't support the idea of an institution accepting unqualified candidates because they're in some specific group, but I can live with bumping up the number of candidates from a specific group that are chosen from a pool of qualified candidates.
Where was the ACLU when the kids in Cali passed out flyers talking about how homoseuality is immoral?
Where is the ACLU when any Conservative needs them? Where is the ACLU when Christians get attacked for speeking about their religion?
Where was the ACLU when the Ten Commandments were removed from the courthouse?
The ACLU only protects Liberal speech.
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Think about what that would have done to groups the ACLU more often supports...
This was one of those rare cases that they just had no chance on whatsoever.
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
"Would you consider the ACLU liberal? They've defended the speech of groups that almost everyone dislikes."
No, the ACLU is in general left of liberalism, but you must remember the ACLU is not very centralized. The ACLU has over 50 regional affiliates. It is at the affiliate level that the ACLU makes decisions about, which cases to take. There are a handful of ACLU affiliates that have a few libertarian members, and occasionally these libertarian members are able to get the ACLU to take a case that makes leftists frown. Ultimately the ACLU rushes to the defense of leftists, and on rare occasions helps non-leftists. A true civil-libertarian organization dedicated to the first amendment would be much more balanced in the cases it selects.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I assume you are a liberal. I find it interesting that you name five "principles" and four are somewhat related to the concept of equality "empathy", "fairness", "interdependence", and "equality" itself and only one ”principle” is associated with liberty - "freedom".
Liberty and material Equality cannot co-exist. As long as freedom prevails, the natural order of life will create inequities. Yet, liberals will hammer away at our rule of law, undermine our liberties, and vanquish our history and traditions to build a false utopian vision of a purely equal society.
I guess therein lies the great ideological battles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Forces of freedom and the forces that feel compelled to create a more "fair" and “equal” society because life in a state of nature is not fair or equal.
Conservatives do not fight this eternal truth, but protect and preserve a civil society based on the rule of law and recognize only recognize two forms of equality – equality under the rule of law and our collective equality in the eyes of God. Conservatives protect liberties and free will and trust that man will be charitable in his free will.
Liberals/Leftist/Marxist an/Socialists have spent nearly two centuries devising plans and plots and have used government to compel a level society. They have failed. Conservatives look to past and can see this. Modern liberals cannot. Conservatives rely on the collective wisdom of the ages. Liberals rely on the conceit and dreams of modern ivory tower academics.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
The gun rights issue is a perfect example of this. Do gun owners have a collective or individual right?
Its pretty black and white what our founding fathers intended through both the Constitution and laws in place at the time (and following afterward). Yet liberals some how seem to enjoy twisting reality into some method for government to control people "for the common good."
bleh.
You stated much more clearly what I wanted to say myself...
I was working on another reply to g=his post but shall leave off having read yours.
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
I agree, generally, that liberals prioritize equality over liberty (liberty is part of what I meant by "freedom"). But it's a really close call, and there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
1. Equality doesn't necessarily mean "material equality". You added that in.
2. Prioritizing equality over liberty doesn't mean that liberty isn't also vitally important. It just means that when the two conflict, equality trumps liberty. I've heard a lot of liberals say that for conservatives, security trumps liberty. If that is true, then it's true to the same extent as equality trumps liberty for liberals.
3. Marxism and liberalism are two different species. I see the similarity you're drawing, but Marxism is way more extreme than liberalism in its prioritization of equality over liberty, and its concept of equality is way more expansive. Liberalism is much closer to conservatism than it is to Marxism.
4. The tension between liberty and equality is a natural one, as you said, and that tension is part of the essence of American democracy. The natural order doesn't result in equality -- but it doesn't result in liberty either. It takes government to create both. The blessings of liberty, in other words, require securing.
5. Government arose naturally, and it evolved naturally into the sort of democracy we have here in the U.S. -- who's to say that government itself isn't part of the natural order?
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
I think we all know liberalism is about how you feel something but in the real world your feelings are costing me a lot of money in taxes. I suggest you all empathize with society with your own money and I will decide with mine where to give it.
Freedom means never having to have a liberal take your money before you get your paycheck
Fairness means liberals and Bush get to spend my money on people who couldn't afford the house they bought?
interdependence, yeah I think liberals forgot about independence you know relying on one's self.
equality, liberals want equality for everyone but a conservative or Republican or the religious right which means they don't want equality at all.
I find none of the principles you mention to be anywhere in the liberal lexicon but keep trying maybe one day you all will wake up and be conservative with real principles.
Go Fred you rock!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
liberty, equality, fraternity!
To the tumbrells with them!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Empathy is not a real emotion. It's deliberate and synthetic application of cognition. There are people for whom it's "easier" than others, just as there are people who can learn foreign languages with greater facility than others.
...that's always bugged me: the idea that empathizing with someone somehow implies excusing them from being responsible for their actions.
it technically is "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another" according to dictionary.com
So empathy isn't a feeling, but it is dependent upon the feelings of others and inspires those feelings in oneself - or at least it inspires the feelings one imagines others to have in oneself...so it produces an entirely fictional set of feelings which are then claimed to be the same as someone else's...
forgive me, but as a guiding principle, I find this to be lacking...
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
...as you would have them do unto you"
How do I know how I would have others do unto me? By imagining myself in their situation.
Being the underpinning of the golden rule isn't too shabby of a pedigree as far as principles go.
You know how you want others to treat you not by imagining yourself in their shoes, but simply by being aware of yourself and your desires. For example, you know that you don't want other people to hit you, not because you imagine what it would feel like to them if they hit you, but because you imagine what it would feel like to you if they hit you. Thus from examining your own desires and preferences the Golden Rule instructs you not to hit others because you don't want to be hit. This is far from empathy since at no time have you had to wonder whether the other person wanted to be hit, or imagine their feelings at all.
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
Masochists exist.
Other people occasionally feel they deserve to be hit and want it to be done already.
Fights.
Lots of reasons people might want to be hit. Even sexual ones...
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
But that just supports my point, which was that empathy is useful when the other person's situation is different than yours.
Thompson is still my #2 candidate behind Romney and is gaining fast. In fact right now they're almost at parity in my own internal equilibrium and I'll know tomorrow whether or not they've changed positions.
FWIW I hope Romney gives a speech rather like the one Kennedy gave in 1960. Everyone so far has been saying that "it won't be, it shouldn't be" but frankly what JFK said in that speech is how I feel about Romney's religion and I hope he doesn't stray too far: there are in my view a lot of parallels between that time and now.
In the meantime Fred impressed me in that interview and it makes me wish for the roundtable format I talked about in your thread about a Republican do-over and then a complete abandonment of the asinine CNN/YouTube "debate" charade format. The country needs much more of the serious discussion in this interview and a lot less of the self-promotion and gimmickry of the CNN/YouTube baloney.
Thanks.
And I have one more suggestion: that "pimping" become a word that gets put back in its place and only very rarely used.
Here's what I think is a good use of YouTube. Watch the speech. I hope Romney does as well tomorrow. It might not make much difference, but the principles JFK talks about are the ones I believe in.
How little has really changed. It's still the same ideas, the same problems, the same prejudices, the same kinds of serious threats to our liberty.
If anything I hope Romney out-JFKs JFK.
Good luck, Mitt. I'm rooting for you.
Spare us your liberal sophistry on the principle of "equality" and such. Liberals are primarily governed by emotion and intentions. There is a picture on my office wall that says "Those who preserve their integrity remain unshaken by the storms of daily life. They do not stir like leaves on a tree, or follow the herd where it runs. In their mind remains the ideal attitude and conduct of living. This is not something given to them by others, it is their roots. It is a strength that exists deep within them." This is how many conservatives view the world. There exists a principled set of rights and wrongs, dos and don'ts. All humans have failings from time to time, but conservatives strive for the ideal, even if it is often unattainable. We prefer not to exchange principles for "diversity" or "group identity", or "equality". We prefer that the principles endure.
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
Because, you know, we have a "Reply to This" link at the bottom of every comment, so that you can make sure that you actually direct your response at the person you're responding to.
Feel free to actually look around and use it next time.
Guess he is jealous of Huck's poll numbers. Huckabee is a good communicator, and good at mixing religion and politics
Fred shows off his breadth and depth of political wisdom. That was very, very insightful.
Yes, I'm a FredHead. More so today than yesterday.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Freedom also means freedom from an oppressive government - which ours has become.
Fred is right, the federal government should not be funding abortions and thousands of other bloated programs, grants, etc.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
it's a weapon. That is, when it's not a vote buying scam.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Anyone with a remote understanding of the context in which this nation was created fully grasps the beauty of Fred's response. Whether one was on the side of Hamilton or Jefferson, one understood both men knew the Constitution would be the framework of principles to govern a new and unique republic, that their integrity would force them to live with the final product.
Because liberals don't have that kind of integrity around principals they turn the Constitution into a living document for a world where the end justifies the means, might makes right and your decisions come first with reasoning determined later (a.k.a backwards thinking, literally). It's why they're prone to totalitarianism and so many things that contradict the founding of the Republic.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Like all good parents they are more interested in doing what's right and raising independent and moral children. They live by principle.
Liberals and moderates want to be cool parents and put up with the kids living in the basement and smoking weed. They live by feeling.
To me that's the difference between true conservatives and liberals. Results vs Intentions.
So how many conservative children would dare to take up a different faith, or no faith at all, in comparison to the one they were raised in by their parents? Is it not rather an interest in appearing to be as respectable as everyone else who goes to church every Sunday?
As for liberals and moderates who raise children who smoke weed and live in their parents basements, the children of liberals are far more likely to earn the incomes necessary to move out of their homes at an earlier age.
To me the real difference between conservatives and liberals is "talking the talk" vs. "walking the walk."
Oh, so in order for me to grow up as independent thinkers I must decide that the God who bought me is false? Maybe it is because some of us grow up knowing that God is true and real, and don't just use Him for "looking respectable" which is about the only liberal use for religion.
Not that all conservatives are Christians or even believe in God, but pretty much all of us believe in some form of absolute truth, which is one of the major ideas that separates us from liberals.
As for liberals and moderates who raise children who smoke weed and live in their parents basements, the children of liberals are far more likely to earn the incomes necessary to move out of their homes at an earlier age.
To me the real difference between conservatives and liberals is "talking the talk" vs. "walking the walk."
You have got to be joking. About the only liberals I know are brainwashed academians who never had to face the real world, politicians, and ignorant people.
Liberal children were Far more likely to spend their early 20s smoking pot in Mom's basement than earning incomes and those who Do go to college tend to stick close to home and get Mom and Dad to pay for it rather than getting the money themselves.
Conservative children who don't go to college right away tend to get trades (carpentry, auto mechanics, plumbing, the Army) and leave the house.
Oh, and how many Conservatives do you know that believe the way you appear to? Most of us accept God into our lives in one form or other. It has nothing to do with "looking respectable".
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
kind of commentary I come to RedState to read. Thanks, Erick.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Fred delivered himself of things that can't be said too often. But John Q wants happy-talk, not talk of limitation, self-denial, duty, humbleness. It's hard to sell Winter to people brought up to expect every day to be Spring. But Winter has its own somber beauty.
Come to think of it, Conservatism is un-American. In the Cold War we engaged in a bidding war with Communism about who could deliver the most washing machines and TVs to the people. Capitalism will make you sooo happy. We won and we lost our soul.
Disclaimer: I'm not sold on any of them, but strongly dislike some of them.
You make conservatism sound like a dose of bad tasting medicine like cod liver oil or that pink medical stuff I can't remember the name of, and no I'm not talking about Pepto Bismol.
The worst advocates for conservatism are conservatives themselves. There ARE some good points to conservatism you know. Why don't you talk about them instead? Its not selling someone a bill of goods to do so. Yet you point out the material build up in the US during the cold war as a bad thing. Do you want to go back to washing your clothes using those things that looked like cheese graters? Want to disassemble the internet and the convenience it brings?
What I'm trying to say is that conservatism isn't LIMITED to limitation, self-denial, duty, humbleness and the like. Heck I as a liberal practice such things and thats why I'm not in debt. Yet the way you say it thats all its made up of. Well surprise surprise when you make something sound and appear horrible you have trouble attracting the masses to it.
"You have no heart. If you're in your 30s and not a Conservative, you have no brain..."
"Hillary is a blonde. But what she's got is a testicle lockbox."
-Rush Limbaugh
"Principles are what guide you in coming to positions with regard to issues." Very substantive sentence for the sentient! Another reason why I support Fred. For those who think this wasn't substantive, remember issues are not principles.
It is time for a true conservative (Fiscal) guided by high moral standards to lead this country and bring about some common sense approaches to the issues at hand. It is also time for us to Sh*t or get off the pot on some specific issues or they will become too powerful (border security, illegals, etc). I think that a person like Fred Thompson is the best candidate for the tasks at hand.
Stranded in a blue section of a red state.
This is my favorite FDT quote from this exchange...
...principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to the issues. - Fred Thompson
You see... there's just no way to predict the issues that will come up over the next 4-8 years... While you hear candidates say, "let's not talk abou the past, let's talk about the future," as a hiring manager, I can tell you that the ONLY way to predict how a potential employee will behave in a situation is to look at how they've behaved in the past. It's ALL we have to go by.
We're hiring a president, for goodness sakes!
With all the subtle posturing and spin of all the candidates on nearly every issue, the one candidate that stands above the political gobbelty-gook is Fred. This is the thing that has always made Fred attractive to me.
I also think that why Rush is doing all he can to nudge people in that direction.
Poor old Charlie, he spends to much time inside the beltway to understand. You are right, it was a priceless moment. Describes the media perfectly.