It’s About the Future

Archive for the ‘republican’ Category

why I’ll vote for Thompson

Posted by Citizen on October 6, 2007

I’ll get the easy shot out of the way first: I’ll vote for Thompson because he is NOT McCain, Romney, or Giuliani. That’s the easy part, but it’s not the real reason I’ll vote for Thompson.

J. Peter Mulhern has admirably framed the topic and lays out the best analysis I’ve read yet. I recommend you read the whole thing so you can see what I’m leaving out. This pull quote explains why I’ll vote Thompson:

Fred Thompson is quite different from the other candidates. The conventional critiques of his candidacy all say much more about his strengths than his weaknesses.
Dick Morris complains that he is too lazy to prepare well-scripted answers to questions about local issues. In Florida, for example he deflected a question about the Terri Schiavo case saying he wasn’t familiar with the details but in general he preferred local answers to local questions. To a question about oil drilling in the Everglades he said that he wasn’t aware of major oil resources there but that we couldn’t be in the business of putting energy resources off limits.
Each of these answers was perfectly reasonable and part of a package that is likely to have broad appeal. Neither shows a lazy candidate. They both show a mature and sensible candidate who isn’t willing to pander. Thompson, unlike all the others, has important themes to project and can’t be bothered to pick up a few supporters here and there by promising to serve the interests of those few at the expense of the many.
This isn’t politics as usual in 21st Century America, but it is likely to sell. When it does, it will make a mockery of Dick Morris’s entire career, which was grounded on the idea that pandering conquers all.
What about Thompson’s experience? He never ran anything. Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts and a successful business executive. Rudy was Mayor of New York. Shouldn’t those qualifications trump a lawyer who is also an actor and used to be a senator? They would if we were hiring a manager in chief, but we aren’t.
We have gotten so used to speaking of the President of the United States “running the country” that most of us no longer notice how unrealistic and unAmerican that expression is. The whole point of the American Revolution was to establish a country without anyone to run it. We don’t want or need a president who is inclined to run things. We need a President who leads and inspires. Fred, with his non-managerial background, is the only candidate of either party who seems to get this.
Much ink has been wasted making the obvious point that Thompson is not an “outsider.” After a long career in Washington as a staffer and Senator, as a lawyer and a lobbyist Fred Thompson is as well connected as any “insider” here. But for his entire career Thompson has stood outside the bipartisan consensus that, when it comes to government activity, more is better. His commitment to governmental modesty is most often expressed as concern for the principle of federalism. That commitment put him on the short end of some very lopsided votes as a Senator…

Thompson’s commitment to governmental modesty makes him the only serious candidate for president who isn’t part of the bipartisan Party of Government. He is the only candidate qualified to build on the success of Ronald Reagan and the only candidate who can counter the Democrat drive for more socialism, particularly as it applies to health care.
Reagan turned America away from the socialist morass of the 1930’s and reconnected us with our deepest political traditions. He reminded us that we don’t want a government, let alone a President, to run the country. Unfortunately, his successors never understood this essential pillar of Reagan’s success. When George W. Bush perpetrated the atrocious statement that “when somebody hurts government has got to move,” the Republican break with Reagan was complete.
Fred Thompson isn’t Ronald Reagan. But he can restore the Republican Party to Reagan’s default settings. He can make the GOP once again the party of the American Revolution and distinguish it sharply from the party of the French, Russian, Chinese, and Cuban Revolutions.
Does Thompson have the rhetorical skills to be the leader we need? Let’s put him to the same test both Romney and Giuliani just flunked. Does Thompson understand that our problem with terrorism is now primarily an Iranian problem? Can he face that problem and discuss it in terms most Americans will understand?
Thompson’s reaction to General Petraeus’ recent testimony before Congress suggests that he can. Before Petraeus said a word everyone knew that our efforts in Iraq have become vastly more successful under his command. Everyone understood that Al Qaeda and Iran’s proxies will probably be humiliated in Iraq unless they can adjust to the tactics we are now using with such success. The $64,000 question was this: What is Iran doing to forestall humiliation in Iraq and what will we do to stop them?
General Petraeus dropped some very interesting hints on this subject and Thompson zeroed in on them. His statement on the subject was simple and direct: “Gen. Petraeus’ report also leaves me even more concerned about Iran’s role in Iraq. Iran is headed down a dangerous path, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must understand that.”
Thompson reinforced this barely veiled threat with his reaction to a controversy over Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero while he is in New York to address the UN. He said “I wouldn’t let him in the country.” He went on to say , according to the Dallas Morning News, that “the Iranian regime was a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly.”
At last a candidate who understands that Iran is at war with us and who is willing to speak as though we are at war with Iran. It’s a bonus that he speaks in clear declarative sentences and that everything in his manner and appearance demands that you take him seriously.
When Thompson speaks the chattering class often sputters that he is too laid back, even soporific. People who have never seen him speak themselves often adopt this critique and endlessly repeat the same clichés on various conservative websites – “lackluster,” “underwhelming,” “tired,” “old,” “no fire in the belly.” Conservatives are hungry for a Hillary slayer and many of them fear that a thoughtful, deliberate senior statesman can’t possibly play that role. They are wrong.
Watch a Thompson speech that was widely panned as dull. Just because Fred talks slowly doesn’t mean he’s stupid, or uninspiring. Notice that he is saying important things and saying them well. How many politicians can talk about Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind in terms which indicate that he has both read and understood it?
Consider that Fred’s calm, sensible demeanor permits him to say things that would terrify many ordinary voters coming from someone who seemed less steady. Thompson can say radical things and nobody turns a hair. If any other candidate talked about overhauling social security and the tax code while we fight a global war of which Iraq and Afghanistan are mere outcroppings, a substantial part of the electorate would faint dead away. Try to wrap your mind around the reality that coming off like an old coot having a conversation as he whittles next to the pot-bellied stove down at the country store is an excellent way to attract most American voters.
… The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade.
After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: “Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom.” Thompson replied “you just summed up my whole speech.”
No other candidate could have carried off that quip because no other candidate is capable of delivering a convincing speech focused on those powerful themes.

This is my point too. Fred is the right guy at the right time for the right reasons. The proof? Watch the midget minded bm.org patsies get shrieking louder and louder as the election nears. Every inconceivable smear by every lying leftist out there will sound a cacophony of shrill groans, allied closely with warnings from ubl, akman, and the rest of their terrified cohorts.

My point? The one that the muslim/democrat defeat America first coalition fears most is the one I’ll vote for. Join up, America is worthy of preservation for a few more centuries, know what I mean?

Posted in conservatism, GOP, politics, republican | Leave a Comment »

Rudy is NOT a Republican

Posted by Citizen on October 6, 2007

It is not true that Giuliani is the only candidate who can defeat Clinton. Heaven knows that Clinton would be a unmitigated disaster for America. Giuliani runs a close second. Rather than bore you with my own prose, I propose the following excerpt to explain my position against Giuliani’s positions:

What about America’s Mayor? After the McCain campaign went on life support, conventional wisdom converted from the belief that Republicans would anoint McCain because it was “his turn” to a new and equally irrational faith. The catechism goes something like this: Republicans are probably doomed in 2008. Their only chance lies in swallowing hard and nominating Rudy Giuliani who can, supposedly, compete with Hillary for votes in left-leaning states like New Jersey , New York, Pennsylvania and California.
This argument is a hardy perennial of conventional commentary, and it is utterly inane. You can’t win by appealing to people who won’t vote for you under any imaginable circumstances at the cost of alienating your core supporters. Trading a perfectly good cow for a handful of beans only makes sense in fairy tales.
The Democrat Party was once the dominant political force in American life. It lost that position for two reasons. First, because the electorate discovered that Democrats, beholden as they are to leftist, anti-American supporters, can’t be trusted to defend the country. Second, because voters also discovered that Democrats lacked the strength and the wisdom to defend our culture against all sorts of bizarre social experiment.
Democrats have worked very hard to draw the camouflage nets over their irresponsible attitude toward national defense. Republicans have been extremely timid about exposing it. The point of distinction between Republicans and Democrats which works most strongly in the GOP’s favor is that Republicans fight back when vandals try to deface fundamental social institutions and Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the vandals. Nominating Rudy Giuliani would neutralize this advantage.
With Rudy on the ballot millions of “values voters” would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism’s promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.
Giuliani’s supporters like to complain about the petulance of “single issue” voters who would ignore their man’s many sterling qualities and help elect Hillary merely because they have some serious disagreements with the former Mayor. This complaint is a waste of time and energy. A Giulliani nomination would hurt Republican prospects. This is as predictable as the tide and just as impervious to argument. If Giuliani’s supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and, as a result, Hillary wins, they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others.
Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it’s natural leader. If, at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society’s defenders and against the vandals.
Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn’t understand that Roe is a travesty, which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons, Republicans can’t choose him as their nominee.
But isn’t Rudy so tough on terrorism that voters will flock to him? No, he isn’t. Giuliani has given no indication on the campaign trail that he has an especially clear understanding of our strategic situation. Nor has he given any indication that he will be particularly forceful in dealing with our enemies. Once again, the acid test is what he has to say about dealing with Iran. Rudy flunks that test even more dramatically than Romney does. At least Romney is talking about the subject, however ineptly.
When Giuliani talks about the “War on Terror” he says we need to “stay on offense,” which presupposes that we have been on offense. We haven’t. We have been trying to fight a limited proxy war in Iraq and avoid taking the fight directly to the enemy’s center of gravity. That isn’t offense. It isn’t smart either but that’s another subject for another time.
When Rudy mentions Iran at all he gives no hint that he understands that, one way or another, the road to victory leads through Tehran. He says, as does George W. Bush, that Iran can’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Like the President, he never says how we are going to stop Iran from getting them.
Giuliani has very little foreign policy experience and he seems to be in thrall to the same establishment groupthink on the subject that has largely paralyzed the Bush administration. Giuliani was level-headed on September 11. That doesn’t make him a latter-day Patton, or LeMay.

While I can’t equal Mr. Mulhern’s great prose, I can comment that Giuliani is a wolf in a republican toga. Here’s what you get when the toga is misplaced:

  When a National Rifle Association member opposed a ban on assault rifles in 1994, Mr. Giuliani really got annoyed.

“Now the reason why the N.R.A. has lost all credibility is statements like that,” he said. “By definition these are attack weapons. They are used for offense. It really is absolutely astounding that the N.R.A. continues to have influence in areas in which they make no sense at all.”

In 1994, Mr. Giuliani applauded President Bill Clinton for banning assault rifles and urged Congress to enact physical and written tests and stringent background checks for prospective handgun owners. He also saluted the Clinton health care plan as “doing some pretty good things” and boasted that New York offered “universal health care,” not least for illegal immigrants.

“Isn’t it better they get some humane treatment for themselves?” Mr. Giuliani told a caller.

This is the real deal here, the condescension of Clinton bared beneath the roman repubican toga. [easy there big boy, that’s not a misspelling] Giuliani is on the same side as Clinton regarding my guns, abortions, and illegal aliens. To make matters worse, he’s essentially on the same page with Clinton regarding terrorists. Neither one has proffered a policy concept that assures me that the problem will be dealt with correctly FOR AMERICA in the next presidential cycle. Both Clinton and Giuliani are willing to offer the same lies about what they really think to get elected. What’s Republican about that? Yup, I just painted them with the same brush for this very simple reason: I don’t trust either one of them, and I don’t believe either one of them, and I won’t vote for either one of them.

Neither will millions of other right-thinking Americans. We want a real Republican and more, we want a real Conservative too. Believe it..,


Posted in elections, GOP, politics, republican | Leave a Comment »

trent trust-me lott

Posted by Citizen on June 8, 2007

Like a roman senator in a purple toga Trent Trust-me Lott promises what he cannot deliver and demands respect for it. I don’t think there is a more crooked conglomeration of one hundred individuals than the U.S. senate. Lott and McCain schmoozing with Reid and Kennedy make the perfect picture of perfidy, the Quislings of the Republican party, the overbearing overclass attempting to cram legislation they have not read down the throats of American citizens who have. They are shocked that Americans do not want tens of thousands of hard core criminals and terrorists handed a rape-America-for-free card. What’s so difficult to understand about “NO WAY Jose”? Yeah Lott, you got one thing right, you’re from the government and WE DO NOT TRUST YOU. Filthy conglomeration indeed.

So, not believing me about Trust-me from the government? Read the transcript on this Hugh Hewitt page:


Then read this stunner from the Seattle Examiner, of all places!


Remember this: The Government is the Overclass

Posted in GOP, politics, republican, scandals | Leave a Comment »

something about Rudy

Posted by Citizen on June 1, 2007

There is a ton of palaver on the radio from self proclaimed conservatives who don’t really seem all that conservative to me. Try to follow me on this.

Rudy is running as a Republican for the party presidential nomination. Talkers like Hewitt, Miller, and Hannity are all saying ‘Rudy is my guy’, or words to that effect. At least two of those guys think they are conservatives. But I’ve got questions about that.

He is divorced. And he likes abortions. My question is this: if he is able to blow off two of the catholic church’s biggest no-no’s, then how conservative is that? Conservative means at least abiding by the original set of rules, not modifying them willy-nilly, right?

To get a little further down this road, Rudy wants to steal my guns by violating my second amendment constitutional rights, he wants to steal my money to pay for abortions, and he wants to give his blessings to same-sex relationships, something coincidently also forbidden by church doctrine. What’s my question?

What’s conservative about that? Which plank of the republican party says republicans stand for repudiating my constitutional rights, my human rights, and my moral rights? How is Rudy conserving the republican party platform? The short answer?

He isn’t. He is not a republican. He is a wolf in a republican toga. The really disgusting thing is that three smart guys have never even considered this, much less noticed their own decidedly un-conservative cheering for Giuliani. Not that he is all bad. He says the right words about killing the cold blooded killers ‘over there’.

So what? That does not make him a republican. There are lots of democrat talkers with the same line. That certainly does not make him a conservative.

If Hannity, Miller, & Hewitt think Rudy’s gonna get my vote, and the vote of other actual conservatives, I am very disappointed with them.

That’s what I would say if I could email them without giving up my first born, or get through on the blab line. Rudy’s not a republican, by his own words, and those three talkers aren’t conservative if they think Rudy is a republican. He fits the democrat party platform to a tee, he should be running on his side rather than stinking up ours.

The whole point is, if Rudy can not be trusted to play by the church playbook, or the party platform play book, how on earth can ANYONE trust him with the constitution/bill of rights playbook?

Not me and not my family. I bet there are millions of silent ‘amens’ from the silent majority come election day. Ya think?

I found this great map:


This is how an actual conservative polls. Does anybody seriously think that Guiliani can produce this result? No way, it’s not gonna happen.

Posted in conservatives, elections, GOP, government, politics, republican | 1 Comment »