Fred Thompson’s Brilliant Strategy
In his comment to my post on last night’s GOP debate, HardHobbit faulted Fred Thompson for remaining “the outsider, keeping quiet and cashing in on apathy and dissatisfaction.” And while I frequently agree with this prolific commenter, this time, I beg to differ. He does raise a valid criticism of the former Tennessee Senator, but I believe Thompson has been executing a brilliant strategy.
First, by staying out of the fray (for now), he has been generating a huge amount of buzz — and free publicity. While the ten announced GOP candidates had to share the stage last night, Thompson will be speaking today to a party gathering in Orange County, just “75 miles south of the Reagan Library. C-Span and CNN will cover the event live.” John Fund (of the Wall Street Journal thinks Thompson could draw “as many viewers as” the debate. As the solo speaker in that forum, he’ll get the chance to get his message across in a format more conducive to a positive presentation. (And without a left-leaning moderator to interrupt him when he’s trying to make his points.)
Over at Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett agrees, noting that Thompson has
proven that he can get his commanding mug on TV and his soothing voice on the radio without even having a campaign committee. I’ve said it before – for someone with his level of fame and who generates the public interest that he does, living off the land as an undeclared candidate is a smart and eminently doable thing.
Not only that. While last night’s debate was held at the Reagan Library, many (but not all) Reagan Republicans (and other GOP conservatives) are not satisfied with the current candidates. Had Thompson been in the race from the get-go, he might have been subject to a more thorough vetting. Now, conservatives are casting about for someone to assume the mantle of the Gipper, a man with a conservative record and mediagenic presence. Thompson fits the bill.
Instead of having to pander to the party’s base (as some of this year’s candidates appear to be doing), Thompson strategy seems to be — to have the base come to him.
As Frank Cagle (via Instapundit) puts its, “Fred Thompson threw away the script when he ran for the Senate; he may do it again trying for the White House” Cagle’s right. Thompson has thrown away the script. And his strategy appears to be working. Even though he hasn’t announced, he polls well above all but two of announced candidates, even leading among others Mitt Romney (who has raised the most money of the GOP hopefuls).
While my man Rudy has shown the leadership skills essential to serving as the nation’s Chief Executive, last night he not show the political skills necessary to winning the job. So far, with his brilliant stealth campaign*, Fred Thompson is showing those skills that his likely rival has (recently) been lacking. If the latter can convince us he has those leadership skills, he could well eclipse the more accomplished New Yorker. That is, unless the former Mayor develops a political strategy designed to winning the GOP nomination.
It’s too bad we can’t combine the two (throwing in John McCain’s military know-how and resolve for good measure) — for together, they have what it takes to winning the White House — and governing effectively.
* Via Instapundit
100 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
There is something dishonest about someone who isn’t willing to dive in and debate (and due to politics alone, not in some contrivance of principles and an overlong election cycle). I agree this may be a brilliant political strategy, but to decide to enter a race after all others have been willing to take their respective positions and state their ideals and beliefs only to then select the territory that is selling well with those following the campaigns (while arriving fashionably late dressed in a knight’s uniform and riding a white horse) smells of tea leaves and a little b.s. His brilliance is thus due to the public flaw of a short attention span and not the brilliance of his own ideas and ability and willingness to express them. I cannot simply replace passion with calculation. (And I disagree that Thompson is mediagenic. I find him completely dull.) Besides, just as every car on the road is a used car, there might be some initial excitement when and if he announces, but that will soon wear off when he’s struggling for cash after others have built their war chests and trying to build organizations in all states after campaigners and activists have committed to other candidates. He’ll be just another used car except without mechanics and an effective classified advertisement.
I don’t like Bill Clinton. Although I never liked him, I admired his tenacity to achieve the one goal he nurtured through his twisted and corrupt life: to become President of the United States. Sure, we laugh at his obsession, his fake tears and lower-lip biting, his overdone speeches, and his poll-driven policies down to the colors of his ties. But during his campaigning (which never ceased), he conveyed that he really wanted to be the President. It worked. He was a terrible President, but I liked that he recognized his need to earn the confidence of and votes from Americans. G.H.W. Bush implied earning votes was beneath his dignity. Bob Dole thought the Presidency was owed him. Clinton beat both because he never took votes for granted.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 4, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - May 4, 2007
for christ sakes.. the election is more than a year away… i absolutely detest that the campaign is already on going.
is the new standard in this country that the campaign for the next election begins the day after an election?
give me a break.
i’m glad fred thompson and newt gingrinch aren’t official… there is no precedent for a two year president election campaign.
get a grip
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 7:02 pm - May 4, 2007
I find the perpetual campaign annoying, and if it were possible to limit the election season to, say, three weeks, I’d be happy as hell.
That aside, what really counts is where a candidate stands on issues that matter, and does he have the competence to govern effectively? People can snipe about whatever, but at the end of the day, those are the two things that really matter.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 7:10 pm - May 4, 2007
For the latest on Fred!
bookmark http://www.fredthompsonnews.com
Comment by Fred Thompson — May 4, 2007 @ 7:40 pm - May 4, 2007
Left Wing Media (LA Times) Stoops to New Low to Smear Fred Thompson.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 9:02 pm - May 4, 2007
You mean, like they do in France? In most (if not all) European countries, election campaigns and media coverage thereof are subject to very stringent restrictions… but wouldn’t that be a violation of free speech on a par with McCain-Feingold?
I detest the “perpetual campaign” as much as anyone, but it’s not exactly a new phenomenon. It’s just gotten incrementally worse over the past 20-ish years. I wouldn’t mind seeing the Constitution amended to extend Presidential terms to 6 years, which might give us a small breather between Presidential campaigns.
Comment by vaara — May 4, 2007 @ 10:05 pm - May 4, 2007
Uh-huh. And what’s the difference in how much I can contribute to him than to say Romney or Rudy G. right now?
Jesus man, your posts are almost always negative like the libs.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 5, 2007 @ 12:41 am - May 5, 2007
I was thinking about my #3 response, and it really cuts to the heart of the Rudy/Hillary dilemma. Rudy and Hillary are very close in their stands on important issues, and mostly opposite of where I stand on those issues. But Rudy is actually competent enough to force his beliefs to become public policy, and I don’t think Hillary has that level of competence. Which is why, even though I don’t see myself voting for Hillary (unless McCain is the nominee), I really don’t see her as a threat, and I don’t see Rudy as a compelling alternative.
The appeal of Fred Thompson is that he says the right things. So does Romney. but when Thompson says them, you really believe him. I’m not sold on Thompson, but so far he doesn’t make me throw up as much as Rudy or McCain… yet.
And maybe Fred Thompson and Tommy Thompson could run as the Thompson Twins and lock up the 80′s nostalgia vote. (Although, Michael Steele or JC Watts would make a more tactical veep pick.)
Comment by V the K — May 5, 2007 @ 10:28 am - May 5, 2007
I agree with V the K about campaigns running too long. The breaking point for me would be if the primaries spill over into the year before the election (I can see that happening in 2012 or 2016).
In my opinion, Giuliani sucked at the debate. He’s the candidate I’m hanging my hopes on, but now I don’t know… Another bone of conention is he’s also starting to flip-flop on civil unions. Say it ain’t so Rudy!
Comment by Jimbo — May 5, 2007 @ 10:47 am - May 5, 2007
You’re going to hate me for this… hell, I hate me for this! But I still think this election is hypocrite Gore’s to lose.
Comment by sonicfrog — May 5, 2007 @ 4:23 pm - May 5, 2007
I agree with you, Sonic Frog. Mainly because the American electorate has never been more screamin’ apesh!t Rosie-O’Donnell nuts than it is right now.
Comment by V the K — May 5, 2007 @ 6:55 pm - May 5, 2007
#9:
Rudy would have a hostile Congress to deal with unless you believe in the GOP tooth fairy. In contrast, Hillary would have a Congress controlled by leaders in synch with her. That said I don’t really want her as President. I’m tired of Clintons and Bushes. Time to move on. I would however love to see Hillary on the SCOTUS.
Comment by Ian S — May 5, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - May 5, 2007
What’s Fred Thompson’s views on gay rights? Is he for or against them?>
Comment by Elais — May 5, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - May 5, 2007
I expect the Republicans to remain in the minority for a while. They have shown absolutely no recognition of why they were beaten in 2006… much less any sign of correcting it.
However, it does not take a congressional majority to gum up the works, and a dedicated opposition to Hillary would serve the country better than grudging compliance with Rudy. Hilldog supported every Democrat filibuster of every Bush appointment and policy. She will not have one fat leg to stand on when Republicans return the favor.
Comment by V the K — May 5, 2007 @ 8:56 pm - May 5, 2007
From Fox News Sunday 3-11-07:
So he has the same position as Bush, Kerry, Edwards and many others. Of course to the GayLeftBorg, that means he’s a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe. However, if he had a “D” after his name, he’d be the best thing since Astro-glide.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 5, 2007 @ 10:10 pm - May 5, 2007
The same as Bush, Kerry, Edwards etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 5, 2007 @ 10:11 pm - May 5, 2007
From Fox News Sunday 3-11-07:
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 5, 2007 @ 10:12 pm - May 5, 2007
So naturally, since he lacks a “D” after his name, he’s a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 5, 2007 @ 10:13 pm - May 5, 2007
Re Freddy Thompson: only a true homohater would use the code words “special rights” when talking about equal rights for gay people.
Comment by Ian S — May 5, 2007 @ 10:59 pm - May 5, 2007
Nice of you to show up, Ian; you must be dancing, now that your allies are proclaiming the obvious.
And I love how he calls on your party’s class-warfare rhetoric as well, saying exactly the same thing as Democrat leaders about American blacks.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2007 @ 11:05 pm - May 5, 2007
#15:
True, but there’s a very good chance that the Dems will pick up sufficient seats in the Senate to have an effective filibuster-proof majority (with a couple of moderate Repubs). And even if they don’t, perhaps they should adopt the GOP playbook and eliminate the filibuster altogether. It was always my belief that the Dems should have called the Republicks’ bluff on the “nuclear option” and got rid of the filibuster for judicial appointees. From there, it would be easy to eliminate it entirely.
The GOP is on a downward spiral. By the time they jettison Bush and his disastrous mess in Iraq, the GOP “brand” will be radioactive. This is good. The GOP as an entity needs to go the way of the Whigs. Think Carthage.
Comment by Ian S — May 5, 2007 @ 11:16 pm - May 5, 2007
Gee, NDT, the article shows that Zawahiri opposes the Dems’ bill because it:
Bush has always been al Qaeda’s bff since he did exactly what they wanted him to and more. For example, bin Laden expected Bush to attack Afghanistan, a Muslim country, and get bogged down in a quagmire – or “historic trap” – just like the Russians. Little did he realize that Bush would also get us bogged down in a second Muslim country,Iraql. After, of course, we eliminated the hated – by al Qaeda – Saddam Hussein. No wonder al Qaeda opposes any restrictions on Bush and his follies.
Comment by Ian S — May 6, 2007 @ 12:35 am - May 6, 2007
I love your delusions, Ian.
Zawahri doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of killing 200,000 – 300,000 Americans in Iraq. He and his fellow al-Qaeda dimbulbs are reeling over the fact that they’ve lost, by most estimates, upwards of 50,000 of their own at the cost of just over 3,000 American troops — or about 17 of his for every one of ours.
But he’s missing the days when it was the inverse — where two of his insurgents in a tiny boat could kill seventeen men on a US destroyer, or 19 with no loss at Khobar Towers, or hundreds of people with no loss in the East African embassy bombings. That’s why he manipulates Democrats like yourself. He knows his best key to victory is to bait people like yourself, Pelosi, and Reid, all of whom want the US mission in Iraq to fail because they believe it will cement their grip on political power — and he does so by providing a convenient rationale for your sabotage, your belief that he will kill “200,000 – 300,000″ of our troops if we don’t run screaming away.
Meanwhile, Ian, I can show you what will undo your lovely fantasies for 2008; the release of the Democrat Party’s immigration strategy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 6, 2007 @ 2:00 am - May 6, 2007
How many billions in pork will that cost us? How many corpses of our soldiers will they step on to get there?
And the McGoverncrats will return to their post-Vietnam glory. Got it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 6, 2007 @ 2:41 am - May 6, 2007
Commenter from England
I have just watched Thompson on Breitbart TV and I have to say I felt a kind of connection to a politician I haven’t felt since Reagan.
I really hope that Mr Thompson will announce and run, because to me he strikes that wonderful American tone – firm, frank and fair minded; these are qualities that I have always thought the White House occupant should display.
He has a very comforting, avuncular manner; it’s a little like sitting down to watch a great cowboy movie on a wet saturday afternoon, (and I intend that to be a great compliment, I’m not being ironic) he feels familiar and strong – he strikes me as a leader and not just a politician.
I know that American citizens have particular issues that they want to see a candidate support, but I hope that the US can find a (hopefully) Republican next President who will be President of the whole country, not just of the people who voted for him.
Mr Thompson strikes me as just such a man.
Comment by Chris Allen — May 6, 2007 @ 6:35 am - May 6, 2007
So, Ian reveals what he really desires; one leftist party ruling with unchecked power. Because that worked so well in Cuba and Venezuela.
I, on the other hand, hope the GOP does recognize its problems and returns to the basic ideals of limited government, spending restraint, respect for individual rights, and strong national security.
Because if we don’t have at least one political party who believes in those things, we will not survive as a free country. And George Soros’s Democrats sure as heck don’t believe in any of those things. As socialists, they can’t.
Comment by V the K — May 6, 2007 @ 8:37 am - May 6, 2007
#25:
under George Bush? No, although I want to see the metaphorical destruction of today’s GOP, I certainly don’t want one-party rule by anyone. Rather, let’s have a multi-party system. Let another party rise from the GOP ashes. Let’s have Greens and Libertarians with real chances of significant electoral victories. And yes, we can even have a Creationist party. And an Authoritarian Conservative Party just for NDT.
Comment by Ian S — May 6, 2007 @ 9:18 am - May 6, 2007
I can’t help thinking that the last time we had the kind of liberal Democrat hegemony in the USA that Ian longs for was the mid-to-late 1970′s… a period few would regard as a Golden Age.
If he thinks fighting the Iraq war is unpopular, wait ’til he sees how unpopular losing it is.
The domestic and global policies of the Democrats can be summed up thusly: “Taxation and Capitulation.”
Comment by V the K — May 6, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - May 6, 2007
Have you seen this?
“Major Garrett is now a reporter for the Fox cable news channel. In 1994 he was a political reporter for the Washington Times . He came down and followed Fred on a tour of East Tennessee. After a hard day of campaigning we were sitting on the front porch and I asked him what he thought.
He described an incident from that afternoon. They stopped at a convenience store in Sevier County. They left the red truck in the parking lot; there was no one else there. They got soft drinks and Fred spent some time talking to the store clerk. When they came outside, cars and trucks were pulling into the parking lot and people were gathered around the truck. Fred pulled the tail gate down, got up and gave a short speech, and everyone hooted and hollered.
Garrett said he had covered political campaigns all over the country that summer and the usual problem for politicians was trying to find a crowd and jump in front of it. He was amazed that Fred could conjure one up in an empty parking lot in rural Sevier County.”
Whole thing here:
http://www.metropulse.com/articles/2007/17_18/coverstory.html
Comment by rightwingprof — May 6, 2007 @ 2:03 pm - May 6, 2007
#23:
Obviously if the Dems have their way and we leave Iraq. That’s why he doesn’t want us to leave.
Comment by Ian S — May 6, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - May 6, 2007
So we surrender and al-Qaeda gets 2-300,000 Iraqis instead. Great idea.
AQ gets another entire country for their base of operations and the libs prove that bin Laden was right when he said that America doesn’t have the guts to fight. Oh yeah. The libs own defeat and will suffer the political wrath of the American people. Then somebody will, naturally, have to clean up the liberal fcuk up.
Are the libs on the dole of the Iraqi Mass Grave Diggers Union?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 6, 2007 @ 3:55 pm - May 6, 2007
Yeah, TGC, Iraq will become a bloodbath that will make Cambodia look like a Sunday picnic, U.S. credibility in the Middle East will be destroyed, and Al Qaeda and every other terrorist will not only get a victory and a new base of operations… but on the other hand, Bush will denied a foreign policy success and Democrats will get to gloat. And isn’t that really the important thing?
/sarc
Comment by V the K — May 6, 2007 @ 4:51 pm - May 6, 2007
It is, V the K.
If you ask Democrats like Ian, they honestly don’t know that millions of people were tortured, murdered, and sent to “reeducation camps” after the Democrats forced our withdrawal from Vietnam.
That’s because Dems either actively deny or simply aren’t taught it — for two reasons.
One, it would destroy their theory that people would be “fine” if we left.
Two, it would destroy their theory that terrorist groups only kill people because and when we’re there.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 6, 2007 @ 5:10 pm - May 6, 2007
Guys I’ve said for a while the liberals and Democrats get away with the mis information because of our totally abysmal education system. I see no hope for improvement either.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 6, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - May 6, 2007
Even if Iraq is a civil war, aren’t we contemplating separating warring factions in Darfur to stop the killing? Are Muslims and Arabs not worth saving in Iraq. Especially since we get our economies life blood, oil, from the region.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 6, 2007 @ 5:50 pm - May 6, 2007
The Darfurians are better off now.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 6, 2007 @ 6:46 pm - May 6, 2007
What some call dishonest, I call smart politics. Look, I am as far from the right as they get, but you must applaud FT. Why get dirty, when you can play clean for free. Good post.
Comment by Ralph — May 6, 2007 @ 11:20 pm - May 6, 2007
I was reading this moving account of the decency of the Iraqi people and thinking what a tragedy it is that people like Ian and Pelosi and Reid are willing to throw these people to the dogs. (And you should all be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourselves, but I don’t think you’re capable.)
Then, an oddity occurred to me. The same people who lecture us constantly not to be bigoted against Muslims are practicing precisely that same brand of bigotry when they tell us to write off the Iraqi people because they are a bunch of savages unworthy of having American blood spilt to help them. When in fact, most of them are very decent people, and the terrorist savages who commit the violence are a minority. But if we leave, the savages will be the ones in power and the decent people will be the ones suffering.
It is disgusting that the Democrats and so many of their shills on this forum are on the side of the savages. You are a disgusting, depraved, and indecent group of people.
Comment by V the K — May 7, 2007 @ 9:22 am - May 7, 2007
“You are a disgusting, depraved, and indecent group of people.”
And those are just their good points.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2007 @ 9:56 am - May 7, 2007
“That’s because Dems either actively deny or simply aren’t taught it — for two reasons.”
You forgot the most important one: They would have to admit that they were wrong about Vietnam. I’m still waiting for one liberal of my generation to admit that he has blood on his hands–well, one who is still a liberal.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 7, 2007 @ 11:45 am - May 7, 2007
Freddy Thompson, the Second Coming of St. Ronnie? Er, not so much. Time to bring on Newtie! Frankly, the GOP crop of candidates is pretty pathetic. Not that it much matters with Bush’s disastrous foreign policy albatross tied tightly around their collective necks.
Comment by Ian S — May 7, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - May 7, 2007
Of course, what Ian ignores is that the only thing the Democrat candidates have going for them is that they’re anti-Bush.
Otherwise, they all support higher taxes, pandering to terrorist organizations, slashing defense, preventing troops from being deployed, blocking enforcement of immigration laws, and massive expansions of Federal spending, not on projects that benefit all Americans or on businesses that provide jobs, but on welfare checks for their supporters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2007 @ 1:09 pm - May 7, 2007
#42 – Also ND30, Limey seems to forget that while the WaPo isn’t all that impressed with Fred Thompson, he is conveniently overlooking the fact that this same paper reported that the Dhimmicrats’ momentum is stalling and endangering any sort of Congressional achievement in this session.
And for someone who loves polls so much, he’d better read that part of the story that shows 73% of those surveyed think Congress has done “not too much” or “nothing at all” since the Pelosicrats were sworn in with that much-vaunted “mandate” they keep babbling about.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2007 @ 3:07 pm - May 7, 2007
Ian, for someone of your persuasion to reference Robert Novak as a putative source to declare F’Thompson “to be no Reagan” would be like me using TeddieKennedy as a reference on sobriety, defensive driving or how to use CPR on a drowning victim.
Honest, Ian, you have to get up a lot earlier in the southwest to attempt to hoodwink any reader/commenter at GP.
F’Thompson may indeed run –to the sigh of many disaffected, marginally Republican but vocal conservatives who frequent after-hours Libertarian-Hemp-Should-B-Legal bars. But for most GOPers, he’s a yawn even with his downhome, shucks I’m one of you act.
What F’Thompson fails to appreciate –like many of his wanna be supporters– is that in order to be Prez, you need to get a nomination 1st… and to get the GOP nomination, you need to run. “Run” means grab the best & brightest campaign staffers, finance people, media savvy and experienced consultants, build strong, dependable grass root staff in key states and then… work at it. 18 hrs a day. Nonstop. Work. What F’Thompson’s time on the pre-pre-pre campaign trial proves is that, despite what some contend, he ain’t no campaign strategist or svengali. The kind of people he needs –needs desperately– are already in other campaigns. Unless Arnie cuts some serious skilled staff free from CA, F’Thompson ain’t getting to the party. Hollywood is full of actors who think they can be Prez… just ask your own Warren Beatty –”Yeah, I think I could be President. A good President. You know, what’s the job take?”
F’Thompson, as he proved in his term in the US Senate and his acting career, is adverse to hard work. What the RR simpatico element aren’t saying is that it took RR a hell of a lot of time, a lot of skilled staff, and a ton of money to make it into the GOP nomination circle. And seevral tries… and he got beat by Jerry Ford and nearly beat by Geo Bush.
Like Newt, I fear that F’Thompson wants a coronation. The political landscape is littered with people who wanted to be Prez but didn’t do the work needed to win. And in Hollywood, the litter is stacked 3-4 high.
Sorry, but this year the conservatives who brought us Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay and the never-ending incompetence of the conservatives in Congress aren’t calling the shots. Moderation is the watchword. The center is being reclaimed.
F’Thompson would have had a chance to lead the GOP in 2000… not now. To pine for his entry as the White Knight on a charger is the stuff of fantasy. The strength of how strongly one believes that fantasy is inversely proportional to one’s understanding of fundamental campaigning.
You know what you find when you scratch a F’Thompson supporter? An old, moss-covered Ross Perot volunteer… sans the energy. There’s a lesson for them in all that and they still don’t get it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 7, 2007 @ 3:08 pm - May 7, 2007
Yeah, Michigan-Matt. Screw the conservatives! Let’s embrace “good” moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chafee (oops, he’s gone) and Mike DeWine (oops, he’s gone) and Mark Foley (oops, did it again).
Cheese Louise, between Ian wanting to take us back to the Carter Era and you and HH longing for Gerald Ford…
If the choice comes down between a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, socially liberal, regulate-the-economy-to-fight manbearpig, pro-amnesty Democrat (Hilldog/The Breck Girl/B.O.) or a a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, socially liberal, regulate-the-economy-to-fight manbearpig, pro-amnesty Republican (Giuliani/McCain)… then, seriously, why should a conservative voter even bother to show up? Just because we like the letter ‘R’ more than the letter ‘D?’
Oh, I forgot, you don’t need conservatives to win. So, just keep bashing away.
Comment by V the K — May 7, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - May 7, 2007
The magic of Reagan was that he had a few strong beliefs: America is good, communism is bad, free markets are good, a strong national defense is good. He had clarity. And these core beliefs guided his policies.
Now, obviously, Hilldog/B.O./Edwards believe the exact opposite of Reagan so we’ll let those things go. But none of the Republicans running or “not running” seem to have Reagan’s clarity when it comes to First Things. They all seem to be ego-driven, rather than motivated by ideas about what is best for the country. And that’s why none of them is a compelling alternative to Hilldog/Breck Girl/B.O.
Comment by V the K — May 7, 2007 @ 4:15 pm - May 7, 2007
V, you would think that the GOP candidates would have taken a page out of the recent election victory of Sarkozy’s in France. Here’s a link to a conservative French blogger who basically states that Sarkozy won because he ran on a conservative agenda.
He said he was proud to be conservative, he loved France, he was tired of Western guilt, he said people had to work instead of being assisted and that he didn’t intend to be the friend of Muslim riot leaders as Madame Royal was.
O/T, I think conservativism has turned a big corner in geopolitics today. Remember, Sarkozy won during a time when most politicians, journalists and intellectuals were repeating the lefty talking points that being conservative meant being fascist, that France should be ashamed of its history, that the West was the oppressors (the Americans being at the head of this oppression of the poors, of course), or that young Muslims who were burning cars and schools in suburbs were simply expressing their suffering of being victims of discrimination.
We need such a candidate now in the GOP. Before it is too late.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - May 7, 2007
I get the idea Matt has bought into what the lefties say is the Conservative agenda rather than what it actually is. But either way, I don’t see how Republicans win if they tell the 50% or more of their constituency to FOAD.
I don’t see anyone who is running (or not running) who really seems to be proceeding from first principles. I don’t see any sign that the Republican party has learned anything from 2006.
And I think the initials of the main person responsible for the current state of the GOP are G.W.B.
Comment by V the K — May 7, 2007 @ 8:46 pm - May 7, 2007
VdaK, I know… I know.
Unlike you, I think at the end of the day, the R and D do make a difference –but then, I’m not your garden variety Libertarian who would let the devil have power just to teach the Christians a lesson or two, coerce them to repent and force them to return to the Libertarian Garden of Eden… where taxes are zero, the military is supreme, God is in the Courthouse, the RW&B is tatooed on our collective ass and the non-WASPs know their proper place. Oh, and hemp is legal… as is prostitution —at least that’s one legacy the conservative Congress didn’t saddle us with.
No, I’m not interested in returning to Jerry Ford days. I’m also not interested in returning to RR days or using him as the model for the perfect GOPer. RR finally won (after trying for a long, long time) because he had the support of blue collar Dems fed up with DC as usual, fed up with a weakened, crippled American presence abroad, fed up with hellish economic conditions and RR had the benefit of a moderate GOP Veep appearing to be seasoned in the ways of DC & the world.
In short, RR knew he needed to reach out, moderate his standard 1960-1970′s message to win. Did voters worry about his trigger finger on the nukes? Yeah, like they do today about Iran or North Korea. Was he rightly perceived as a war monger? Clarity items like a 600 ship Navy, massive military spending and the adaptation of technological innovations to military use kind of gave him that image. Was it fair? No; Nancy was the war monger… just ask the staff. I’m kidding.
The thing that misty-eyed RR Libertarians seem to miss is that the GOP stood for a lot of the same things BEFORE the conservatives began raping Congressional power. The thing RR Libertarians forget is that ole Ronnie wasn’t a big “wear Jesus on your sleeve” guy. Lower taxes, strong natl defense, local decision making, freedom of opportunity, traditions-centered family values and constructionist judges are GOP values… not just necessarily conservative values. Pound the gays for sport? No. Force rape victims to bear a pregnancy to term? No. Death penalty for all violent felons? No. Return public prayer to the schools? No. Use the military for nation building? No. Burn down the UN? No.
I’d like this election to be about the future, V. Not about reliving the fading glories of conservatives in America. That horse has run its race; time it put it away even if it is still wet.
F’Thompson ain’t no RR but Rudy isn’t bad; you might find the 20% you don’t agree with to be beyond the pale for you and unacceptable… but as a moderate GOPer, I think his candidacy is more about the GOP and America’s future than about its misty-eyed past. Frankly, I prefer Mitt Romney.
You say the GOP pack right now looks like ego-driven men… guess what, it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. If you ever get within ear shot of these men and work with them, it is ALL ABOUT their ego. The dance is to keep it in check, never show it, never condemn the voters’ lack of dilligence and smile. But it is all about ego and that includes why their vision for America is right.
I think the conservative voter has a place in the GOP and, if they are a part of the GOP, helping to pick the next nominee… but the conservative place sure as heck shouldn’t be at the head of the table. We need a GOPer at the head table, not a vain glorious Hollywood slacker toying with his former Party because he likes the attention.
Picking a nominee ought to be the business of the Party… not special interests outside the Party pressing purity tests. Right or wrong on rape/incest; right or wrong on Uzis for deer hunters; right or wrong about starting a Nativist jihad on anyone who doesn’t match the WASP profile… those aren’t GOP values. We need to return to a Party of Opportunity that pre-dated RR. We need to return to a more tolerant, welcoming, BigTent Party that pre-dated RR.
And we need that in order to win… it’s what a Party ought to be ALL about. Not ideas and purity tests for the sake of culling out the non-believers… it’s about winning, V. First, last; unabashedly and unapologetic. Winning… because the R and D after a name matter… even if the name is Snowe, Specter, DeWine, Alexander, or Giuliani.
Ideas matter, sure. As tools to convey a message; manage a govt. But they aren’t there to employ purity tests which divide us.
In the end it’s about winning. It has to be; the R and D do make a difference… except to those mossy covered Perot and Nader and JohnAnderson and GeoWallace supporters of old.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 7, 2007 @ 9:17 pm - May 7, 2007
Unfortunately, I disagree with about 80% of Rudy’s positions. I find it interesting that you would rather caricature those who disagree with you then address them constructively. Nobody is talking about Uzi’s for deer hunters (not that I have any problem with that). But I am concerned about guns being confiscated from law abiding people, as is happening right now in Chicago. And that is something Rudy is quite comfortable with.
You say it’s all about winning. From a party standpoint, that’s all right. But I think winning is meaningless unless you have worthwhile ideas to advance. And the ideas Giuliani and McCain would advance are, frankly, not appealing. If the GOP is just going to advance the same kind of big government, socialish agenda as the Democrats, then it really doesn’t much matter who’s in power.
Comment by V the K — May 7, 2007 @ 9:37 pm - May 7, 2007
And for a supposedly self-aware and insightful commenter to argue that Giuliani’s or McCain’s (and neatly ignoring Romney’s or Hagel’s or T’Thompson’s vision for America and the GOP) vision is parallel to that of the Democrats is to willfully engage in a flight of sheer fancy.
It isn’t a neat reduction to ideas vs winning, guy. Ideas are a mechanism to convey a message… they aren’t the end… they are the means. For true conservative believers tho, they are THE end… the purpose… the point of it all. For them, I think, it’s better to be a true follower of the conservative creed –and the more extreme the better sometimes– and lose a race, a Chamber, a Nation’s future than compromise and win. Isn’t that the point of the ghoulish vindictive streak of some armchair conservatives in the last election offering: “Well, the GOP Congress is corrupt. They let us down. No wall. No FMA. No reduction in spending. Let ‘em rot in the wilderness for a few years.” Sound familiar?
The truth is, V, I recall a time when being a GOPer didn’t translate into purity tests on issues… we often rail here against Democrats for being anti-war, anti-military neo-isolationists and how they seemingly march in lockstep to the Masters down on the Plantation (BigLabor, BigGovt, the ACLU, vicitms USA, etc)… and yet purity tests with a touch of vindictiveness and exclusion is what many conservatives seek for today’s GOP. Sorry, it ain’t selling anymore.
Roll up the shirt sleeve. Come into the Party and work for those Holy of Holies ideas or take a number and wait outside until the labor to pick a nominee is complete. It’s Party time and that doesn’t mean Miller Lite.
F’Thompson and all the conservatives who whine about the GOP not being pure enuff, true enuff, conservative enuff… have missed the point that the Party has to move toward the center to win the WH in 2008 and they have to return to the real GOP values to take back the Senate. Moderation, V; moderation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 7, 2007 @ 11:37 pm - May 7, 2007
There is no purity test, Matt. That’s just another slogan people throw out when they don’t want to admit that they’re trying to smear lipstick on a pig. And what are these “true GOP values” you keep talking about? That’s just another slogan unless you define it.
On abortion, on Global Warming, on illegal immigration, on gun control, Giuliani is in lock-step with Hilldog, B.O., and Breck Girl. McCain, less so on abortion, but he favors strong government regulation of political speech. These are not minor, unimportant, peripheral issues.
On fighting the War on Terror, there is some daylight between the GOP candidates and most of the Democrat field, but Hillary’s position on the war isn’t too far to the left of Joe Lieberman’s. And he’s acceptable.
On fiscal policy, there may be some daylight in Giuliani’s position, but he hasn’t talked about it much. And McCain sided with Hilldog and the rest of the Democrats in opposing Bush’s tax cuts.
As for judges, Giuliani appointed mainly liberal judges as mayor of NYC, and McCain gave us the Gang of 14. Nuff said.
Where is this huge difference in vision and policy you claim there is between Democrats and Republicans, because I’m not seeing it. Except for the war, I don’t see a big difference in values. You claim 80% of agreement on issues should be enough. I don’t see anyone coming anywhere near that in the current field of viable candidates.
Purity test my ass.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 6:11 am - May 8, 2007
Now, guys like Tom Coburn and Jon Kyl… those are guys I can agree with 80% of the time. But, I guess, they aren’t “moderate” enough.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 8:03 am - May 8, 2007
V writes: “Purity test my ass.” Frankly, I’d rather not, even if this is a gay politics blog. (Is he smiling?)
But I beg to differ that folks from the farRight fringe aren’t playing purity test politics on the GOP now… despite your protests.
The NRA isn’t playing purity test politics veiled behind alleged “threats” to the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment? I’m a gun owner. I’m a hunter. I’m a conservationist. I’m a backwoods hiker. I am not afraid of reasonable restrictions on access to guns, CCW permits or outlawing hollow points etc. I don’t go for cities litigating against gun manufacturers… but reasonable limits, no problem. Everyone gets a gun? Hell no.
The Pro-Life Lobby isn’t playing purity test politics on the question of repealing Roe v Wade or the single issue fitness of federal judicial appointments? Should US foreign policy factor in whether or not countries are pro-life? Should US aid be driven by exporting pro-life policies to 3rd world countries? Do we need a pro-life amendment to the Constitution? Purity tests on pro-life stances? Oh yeah, you betch ya.
And the anti-immigration crowd isn’t playing fast and loose on purity test politics about getting tough on illegals, slowing immigration and alien worker access to US, building walls rather than bridges? Purity test centered on “cracking down on them illegals”? Yeah, you betch ya.
The point is, V, that single issue, special interest groups outside the GOP are trying hard to direct the choice of who will be the nominee based on their group’s sense of the “right” agenda. No problem with that in my book unless it rises to the purity test level –and part of that is about the notion “If you don’t support this, we are walking.” Most of the pressure on purity test politics is coming from the farRight fringe… just like it’s coming from the FarLeft fringe for the Democrats. It’s what Giuliani is speaking about when he talks about the notion of not making the 20% an enemy of the 80%. I know, I know… you don’t agree with Rudy on 80-85-90-95-99% of his positions… fair enough. You don’t see a difference between R or D… ok, go join the Libertarians. Or the militia.
Conservatives used to be about intelligent tax policy, prudent fiscal issues, spending constraints, downsizing govt, moving decisions and govt services to the local level, using tax policy to spur economic progress and investment –not drive it away. The social conservatives brought a whole other flavor to the game and fringe issues like bashing the French or smashing the UN –those aren’t issues that unite us with the critical mass of voters needed to win.
I used to be amazed by the passionate social conservatism that Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority brought into the Party… but the edge in all that is an intolerance of compromise or moderation. I think social conservatives STILL think that politics is like religion –it’s all about unchanging truths, inviolate principles, dogma. It ain’t; it’s politics. It isn’t Sunday School. The purity test politics we’re seeing now stems from that impulse to see things in the black/white perspective of religion.
And as far as “smearing lipstick on a pig”, were you speaking about all those conservatives who tolerated excessive corruption and profligate spending by Congress over the last 12 years? I think you might want to reconsider tossing around that lipstick tube, V.
And remember, the thread was about F’Thompson as the savior of the conservatives not happy with the current pack of wanna be candidates. It begins with the supposition that the Purity Test folks haven’t found the pure enuff, true enuff candidate yet.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 8, 2007 @ 9:27 am - May 8, 2007
BTW, we agree on Dr Coburn… and probaly others. But let’s stay away from picking our presidential nominee from either chamber… it’s not the best proving grounds.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 8, 2007 @ 9:31 am - May 8, 2007
Look, I have never defended the corruption in the GOP, but I think it’s a bum rap to blame it exclusively on conservatives. I don’t think of Ted Stevens as a conservative, and certainly not Arlen Specter… but those guys were some of the biggest porkers out there. Mark Foley was a member of Christie Todd Whitman’s “It’s my party, too” liberal-mod Republicans, and he did as much damage as anyone. The entire Republican apparatus in Ohio was rotten with corruption, and the governor and both Republican senators from that state were girly-men moderates of the first order.
Now, Rudy likes to characterize pro-lifers as people who want to throw pregnant women in jail, and yet, we’re supposed to believe he’s going to respect any kind of pro-life position? No, it’s not that Rudy doesn’t support the strict anti-abortion position, he doesn’t even support moderate pro-life stances. He is on record defending taxpayer-funded abortion, partial-birth abortion, and financially supporting groups who even oppose parental notification.
Similarly, Rudy even opposes enforcement of existing immigration law, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the “right” for New York City to blow off enforcement of Federal Immigration law. So much for law and order.
I respect Rudy’s accomplishments in NYC. I think that’s what makes him more compelling than Romney, who accomplished very little in Massachusetts. (Never mind the fierce bigotry of people like HH and Ted B who hate Romney because of his religion, which also happens to be mine.) But Rudy’s accomplishments work to his disadvantage because it shows he can get things done, and his record shows that a large number of the things he’d like to get done run counter to issues that are important to me.
I understand what drives Rudy supporters. He may not have a very appealing agenda, but he can beat Hilldog. I think the same reasoning led to the coronation of George W. Bush and John Kerry. McCain supporters, I don’t get at all.
I think maybe it’s been so long since the Carter Era that Americans have truly forgotten how bad Democrat governance can be. Maybe a term of Hilldog/B.O. will remind them of that, and then we can get a nice Bobby Jindal or Mark Sanford Republican elected to clean up the debris.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 10:31 am - May 8, 2007
By the way, interesting side-note to the story about the Jihadis who were planning to attack Fort Dix. According to the Newark Star-Ledger, “Some of the would-be attackers have been living illegally in the United States, while others are illegal immigrants, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
So much for enforcement of immigration laws being strictly a racist endeavor.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 11:00 am - May 8, 2007
It begins with the supposition that the Purity Test folks haven’t found the pure enuff, true enuff candidate yet.
The CORE is going to purify themselves right out of the possibility of ever winning a national election by focusing on issues like abortion. What a stupid issue to get hung up on. This is the equivalent to gun control for Democrats. Why do you think Reagan never really touched the issue. Show me ONE modern president who won the election based souley on that specific issue. Even GWB campaigned on the idea that he would have no litmus test on the issue concerning appointing judges. The sticky wickett here is that he clearly does have a litmus test against it when selecting judges, so now it will be much harder for the next guy with an R. in front of his or her name to make the same pledge and still be believable.
Abortion, criminalization of flag burning, and the Federal Marriage Amendment are the same in my book. They are restrictive in nature; telling us what we can’t do – forcing government restrictions down our throats that only affects a small portion of the population (about 1 mil est abortions – and declining – for a country of 300 + mil). If you don’t want to abort a feutus, or burn a flag, or get married to another guy…. well, then, DON’T. The Republican party has become the party of prohibition, telling us what we can’t do – can’t have abortions, can’t burn a flag, can’t marry the one you love if you’re both of the same gender, can’t expect any privacy of our web surfing history, can’t expect to be a viable presidential candidate if we’re not Christian, etc, etc…..
Reagan was so refreshing because he spoke of the possibilities of what we could do. Why do you think he granted amnesty to the illegal immigrants in the 80′s. He recognized that it was the best, most humane way for those people to have a chance at the American Dream, even though they had broken the law to get here. He gave them second chance. Isn’t the opportunity for a second chance one of the things that makes America so great as a nation? And what of Reagans successors? Now they only seem to pursue policies that restrict individual freedoms and the dream of having a better life, all the while spending our tax dollars like… well, Democrats, and deflecting from their obvious corruptions by saying “well, the other party will be worse”. Under this group of party leaders, Democrat have morphed from simply the party of opposition into something that is inherrently evil (read Tom Delay’s new book for proof).
My advise to the party. Stop focusing on these stupid issues, neither of which will contribute a thing to the lost goal of making government more efficient. But I know they won’t, ’cause they’re stuck on stupid!
Comment by sonicfrog — May 8, 2007 @ 1:06 pm - May 8, 2007
Well, so are laws against Drive-By shootings, but you don’t hear Giuliani simpering “I hate drive-by shootings, but I think if someone wants to fire into a crowd of people with an Uzi, that’s his choice.”
Abortion and border security aren’t issues because the party wants them to be, in fact, the party would rather just say “me too” on the Democrat positions and be done with it. But these issues do matter to a large number of people, and if the party does play “me too” to the Democrats, many of those people will be turned off.
And since the GOP has jettisoned fiscal responsibility and limited government as core values, there isn’t much left to differentiate them from Democrats.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 1:27 pm - May 8, 2007
So much for enforcement of immigration laws being strictly a racist endeavor.
And surprise, surprise….guess what Pelosi supports in her own district?
OK, let’s see….the Democrat Party completely opposes enforcing immigration laws…..which enable terrorists to come into our country and stay here indefinitely…..they oppose any form of wiretapping or observation….which enables terrorists to plan their activities undisturbed….and they oppose any sort of heightened law enforcement suspicion or checking….which allows terrorists to carry out their activities with impunity.
Are the dots connected yet?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - May 8, 2007
What I think the GOP hasn’t figured out is their stance as the “National Security” party is undercut by their stance as the “Open Borders and Amnesty” party. You can’t have national security if you don’t have border security.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 2:04 pm - May 8, 2007
It would also appear that a lot of “moderates” have their own litmus tests on abortion and immigration.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - May 8, 2007
Me:
Abortion, criminalization of flag burning, and the Federal Marriage Amendment are the same in my book. They are restrictive in nature; telling us what we can’t do
V:
Well, so are laws against Drive-By shootings, but you don’t hear Giuliani simpering “I hate drive-by shootings, but I think if someone wants to fire into a crowd of people with an Uzi, that’s his choice.”
V, that’s a silly comparison and you know it. While it can be agrued abortion is murder (depending on “beliefs” of when the fetus is human vs potentialy human), flag burning or gay marriage… come on. They don’t even compair.
Why should Republicans be concerned with me marrying the Sonic-Mate, or me burning a US flag that I own. Don’t get me wrong, I think burning the flag a STUPID thing to do, but as long as the thing is mine, and I’m neither desroying someone elses property or putting lives at risk, then why should something so trivial end up as an ammendment to the Constitution. Look at those amendments. Most are either altering electoral / succession procedures, granting the right to vote, or expressing that the government CAN NOT do this or that (the exceptions to those are prohibition, which was repealed, and income tax, which should be). So in the same list of wise and sacred laws which gives us free speach, right to bear arms, gives us freedom of religion, bans slavery, you want to add “can’t burn a lfag”, or “can’t marry the person you love”?
Where are these rants coming from? Did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed or what!!!!
Comment by sonicfrog — May 8, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - May 8, 2007
I don’t agree with the FMA either, but I think it’s an example of the party’s wrong-headed pandering. If they had gone with a Judicial Restraint Amendment (JRA) that said that things like defining marriage, abortion laws, tax policy, interpreting environmental regulations, and setting election rules were matters for state legislatures and voters to decide… not judges, they would have satisfied (most) social conservatives and federalists. They also would have set up the Democrats as champions of the activist judiciary for opposing the JRA.
Similarly, you don’t have to oppose government funding of embryonic stem cell research on pro-life grounds, you can oppose it on “private industry, not the federal government should fund this research” grounds.
So, it’s not a matter of Republicans simply being craven, they’re also just plain dumb.
Comment by V the K — May 8, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - May 8, 2007
#63 – Actually Sonicfrog, the decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989) by the Supreme Court stated that burning a flag is constitutionally protected free speech under the First Amendment.
Even with the GOP in control of both Houses from 1994-2006, we could still never pass a flag-burning amendment for ratification to the states. It was never a very high priority except for the most conservative Congressmen there.
Frankly, I’d rather see Congress pass a line-item veto amendment and have the states ratify it. Let’s get rid of the pork and put the Grand Dragon Rep. Byrd (D-WV) out of business.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 8, 2007 @ 5:13 pm - May 8, 2007
#56 “(Never mind the fierce bigotry of people like HH and Ted B who hate Romney because of his religion, which also happens to be mine.)”
V the K is either playing the victim or baiting me. For the record, I have never, ever stated anything remotely resembling bigotry against Romney’s Mormonism or Mormonism generally. I don’t hate any Mormon including Romney and V the K. I urge V the K to provide a link to the bigoted statement(s) I’ve made to which he is alluding. He will not find them because they don’t exist. I don’t recall that I’ve ever discussed Romney’s candidacy (let alone his religion) here at GP or elsewhere.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 8, 2007 @ 5:36 pm - May 8, 2007
Come now HH. I know I’ve seen you make hateful comments against V the K before.
V the K, you said “McCain supporters, I don’t get at all.” Dude – McCain has been a huge hero in terms of standing by our guys in Iraq.
That doesn’t justify McCain-Feingold etc. I still can’t vote for him. I’m only noting a fact.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 9, 2007 @ 2:20 pm - May 9, 2007
#67 ILC, read what V the K wrote carefully. I’ve never written anything bigoted against any religion here or elsewhere and I don’t care who is or is not a Mormon.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 9, 2007 @ 7:54 pm - May 9, 2007
Ted B has slammed Mormons explicitly. HH consistently demonstrates a sneering attitude toward religious perspectives generally, but in his defense, he probably doesn’t realize he comes across that way.
Comment by V the K — May 10, 2007 @ 7:46 am - May 10, 2007
V, with all respect, you didn’t write in #56 that HH sneered at religious perspectives… you wrote he hated Romney because Romney is a Mormon.
I don’t think I’ve ever read something like that –even under the loosest test you provided of “generally”– from HardHobbit.
Last week, on Michigan’s campus, a group of bitter, uninformed conservative agitators were protesting a panel discussion on “Relevancy of Religion in Modern Politics” because it featured 2 out of 5 panelists who were muslim. One sign read “Send ‘em all back” and I asked as we walked in what the signholder meant. She said “Send them back to towel-head land. We don’t want them.” Both muslim panelists are US-born citizens, as were their parents. When I pointed that out, the signholder said “Send their parents back, too”.
Civility is served when passionate people simply say “Sorry, I was wrong.”
HH deserves that; civility demands it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 10, 2007 @ 11:02 am - May 10, 2007
I’ll admit that HH never explicitly stated that he was bigoted against Romney because of his religion. If it was unfair of me to infer that because of the general disrespect that I feel he shows toward religious perspectives on this forum, then I apologize for that.
Now, is it any less unfair to call people “racist” because they support border security? Or, does civility not demand that?
Comment by V the K — May 10, 2007 @ 11:58 am - May 10, 2007
It’s funny how conservatives who don’t hold to Matt’s views are often “bitter, uninformed agitators” and users of mythical words like “towel-head land” (which I have never heard from a conservative in my life) and I gather “racist” too, in Matt’s word-pictures.
It’s also funny how he just interjected all that stuff – a propos of nothing, as it were – in the HH / V the K / Mormon / Romney discussion.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - May 10, 2007
ILC, you certainly entitled to your opinion but don’t be disingenuous about advancing it —-here in A2 Michigan, 20 miles from the Free World’s greatest concentration of Arabs outside of the Middle East, racist phrases are common in the conservative community… and on campus, unfortunately, we have some of the most vocal YR conservative racists operating in the light of day. Frankly, they give conservativism and GOP politics a bad name. But as we all know from this week, you can be a bigot in America and even be Rev Sharpton all at the same time.
Maybe it’s because the University’s leadership is ultra-liberal and they feel compelled to push back harder. Maybe it’s because the liberal passion is met with equal passion from the young conservatives. Maybe it’s just youthful excess.
But excess is not an uncommon virtue for conservative students here in A2. The protester I spoke with may not have even been a U student… since most students are out on recess. But her hate was palatable… and her logic AWOL. She did not enter the auditorium to listen to the panelists and that’s why I thought she was there more to bait than to think.
Now back to my comment about disingenuous. How about not playing that little rhetorical game of acting like you jumped on a soapbox to address the crowd –“It’s funny…” etc. If you can’t act appropriately and address comments directly, refrain. This isn’t a street corner and you aren’t some brownshirted thug trying to whip up the crowd into a stoning, are you? Be honest in your dialogue.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2007 @ 9:22 am - May 11, 2007
Thanks, Matt. I appreciate your demand for civility and willingly admit it’s one I haven’t always lived up to. Whether I deserve it is open to question, but I appreciate that you think I do.
V the K chooses his words interestingly:
“…HH never explicitly stated…”
and
“…If it was unfair of me to infer…”
I have neither explicitly nor implicitly stated that I’m bigoted against Romney because of his religion. I haven’t discussed Mormonism except that I suspect V the K engages in behavior of which the LDS church would certainly not approve.
If it was unfair for V the K to infer that I hate Romney because of his religion? How is lying about someone else not unfair?
Once more for the record (and for the paranoid): I don’t hate Romney. (I rather like him, by the way.) I don’t hate V the K. (I rather dislike him.) I don’t hate religion. I don’t hate those who follow a religion nor do I dismiss them because they do. In fact, I, infidel that I am, have defended religion several times here at GP. I do know that one of the Ten Commandments says something about bearing false witness and while I take strong exception to the idea that morality is necessarily religious in origin and in practice, I see no reason why my pointing out someone’s hypocrisy is out-of-line, particularly when one’s lack of faith is used against him. If you’re going to openly discuss your faith in a public forum, then be prepared to have your behavior compared to the precepts your faith preaches.
I also think it’s interesting that ILC simply calls someone a liar when he reads an anecdote he doesn’t like, rather like those who called me a liar when I referred to those I’ve met who don’t think a rape-induced pregnancy should be aborted. An anecdote can’t be proven. He knows this and thus seizes the opportunity to undercut another’s argument by simply calling him a liar (but of course not in a straightforward manner — he uses phrases like ‘mythical words’ and ‘word-pictures’ as if Matt is fabricating his anecdote wholecloth). It’s a very simple, blunt, and rather idiotic rhetorical device because he confesses that he himself is a liar, knowing what he insists isn’t true cannot be disproven. This form of lying is a bit like, oh let’s see…logging onto a forum under several different screen names, for example.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 11, 2007 @ 12:09 pm - May 11, 2007
HardHobbit – You don’t read very carefully, do you?
You would seem to be a man of double standards, since I often see you admonishing others to read carefully.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 1:38 pm - May 11, 2007
For clarity: That would be reference to your claim that I said Matt was a liar. I did not.
The rest of your rant is loopy, unless I just don’t get it. I recommend you take a breath.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - May 11, 2007
Final addendum for absolute clarity – since that would now seem desirable with HardHobbit:
- I **HAVE NOT** called Matt a liar.
- I **HAVE** said that HardHobbit **APPEARS** to me as a man of double standards, in light of his recent content.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 1:47 pm - May 11, 2007
I don’t dislike anyone, but I do take a certain satisfaction in the type of people who dislike me.
Anyway, some people need to cowboy up. Much worse has been said about me than vague implications of dishonesty, and I’ve never whined about it.
Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - May 11, 2007
V, I had an earlier reply for you but the filter gods ate it. I hope that HH had the opportunity to read your comments above.
On the issue of border security and racism, I would agree that the intent to protect our borders, improve (or even just start) tracking aliens in our country, enforce sanctions against illegal immigrants and those who employ them, etc doesn’t make someone a racist.
But with due respect, I don’t think I was contending that point in a much earlier comment that I have been unable to locate here. I think I was contending that people who link illegal immigration, increased social/infrastructure burdens on public institutions, taxpayer funded expenditures for those socials service needs, AND (or with) the need to crack down on border security by building a wall across the SW USA are racist. In fact, I think I shared my experience about a captain in the Minuteman effort ==the friend who has about 30-45 volunteers from the San Xavier du Bac area of AZ… I’d been to their nighttime encampments and can tell you they are unabashedly racist and Nativists and they use your colorful phrase of “Mexico’s bitch” too… along with a whole lot of others. They remind me of the anti-welfare conservatives in the 1990’s who argued for massive reform… and were often surprised to learn that the majority of welfare recipients were female and white and rural in Michigan (contrary to their presumption the targets of reform were black, Detroit welfare mothers breeding out the dependents for the extra bucks each month.
There are a whole lot of things wrong with America’s border security. The threats from abroad and within are serious and we aren’t serious –voters, state govts, the feds—about fixing the problems. When higher ed organizations can virtually issue visas without restriction –we’ve got a problem. When aliens are here and we don’t track them, monitor them and kick them out at the end of their visa, it’s a problem. When illegals operating in our country can number 11-13 million –that’s a problem. When local govts and some church groups can establish sanctuary programs that are contrary to federal law, that’s a huge problem (yes, Giuliani gets big demerits for that).
It’s the use of the border security issues to attack labor migration into the US –coupled with the usual rants about taxpayer funded health care for them, school overcrowding caused by them (and not incompetent school administrators), illegals taking jobs from decent American kids, etc—is where the racism becomes apparent. Just like it did often in the debate about welfare reform in Michigan in the 1990s. (Which was a good thing once we moved the discussion from kicking the poor away from the public trough to the addictive disabling nature of welfare on self-esteem, work ethic, families)
Border security needs to be addressed seriously. Not just adopted as one more tool for people who hate Mexicans to underscore how bad they are… which is how I also peg the effort of some to highlight each illegal alien’s driving accident as an indictment of all illegal immigrants… cryin out loud, we tolerate 17+k deaths each year from drunks who aren’t illegal and even more from idiots who drive repeatedly drunk, suspended, and without insurance. Let’s get heated about those real menaces to society… not whether an illegal has a permit to drive.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2007 @ 4:44 pm - May 11, 2007
HH, thanks for the comment –I didn’t see it before re-re-re-reposting my comments.
ILC, I think you WERE playing the game of implying I lied without having the balls to write it. “It’s funny how…” right. Like I said, the rhetorical trick of stepping up on a soapbox and addressing the crowd to raise suspicion and conjecture about others is easily pegged. I saw it time and again in the long. lonely debates in Michigan against the state FMA… and it was usually engaged against me by conservatives who forgot their Sunday School lessons.
The point I was making about the angry, bitter hateful protester was conservatives need to revisit the respectful civility leaders like RR and even W has for those who disagree… and practice, in a small way, the core democratic value of respect for others. It doesn’t mean everyones opinion is equal… just that the predicate for respect ought to be there. Isn’t that one of things that pisses us off about the GayLeftBorg trying to revoke our GayCard whenever we fail to play a victim with them????
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - May 11, 2007
#80 – Well Matt – You think wrong.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - May 11, 2007
Matt said: “…I was contending that people who link illegal immigration, increased social/infrastructure burdens on public institutions, taxpayer funded expenditures for those socials service needs, AND (or with) the need to crack down on border security by building a wall across the SW USA are racist.”
If I parse that by its straightforward meaning – Well – Let’s approach it another way. Let me make the following statements:
a) Illegal immigration leads to social/infrastructure burdens on public institutions, paid for by taxpayers.
b) Border security would inevitably address 2 issues together: security in terms of preventing terrorist infiltration, and security in terms of preventing immigration that is illegal. I don’t know all the mechanics, but I’m guessing that effective measures on one could not help but improve the other at least slightly.
c) Point (b) doesn’t bother me, since I’m willing to see both types of border security addressed.
There. I linked them. Am I a racist now, Matt, in your view?
Asking because I really want to know. (Will tell me something I need to know about you.)
Matt said: “I’d been to [Minuteman] nighttime encampments and can tell you they are unabashedly racist and Nativists…”
Considering that the “racist” accusation seems to be popping up in your discourse or vicinity, and that it’s a tactic people use to shut down conversation that they emotionally don’t like, I’ll take that with salt.
(No HH – and now, No Matt – That is NOT calling Matt a liar. There are at least 3 other valid possibilities, short of that. Put your thinking caps on and see if you can come up with 1. Rather than flying off the handle.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 6:19 pm - May 11, 2007
Matt, you’re welcome.
There are several rhetorical eunuchs here at GP — all hints and implication of falsehood in an effort to discredit another participant, with the added advantage of a later denial when called on it. (“I’ve never heard a conservative ever say that, so what you claim cannot be true”, “It’s funny that whenever the subject of ____ comes up…” in order to imply some pattern of falsehood, “I never called him a liar” [meaning he never literally used the term 'liar'], etc.)
As I wrote, anecdotes cannot be proven or disproven, so to imply a person with an anecdote is lying is itself a lie, both in form and in content: It’s not honest enough to directly accuse and all based upon an assumption, which is itself dishonest. But apparently that’s much too subtle for even its practitioners to understand (“The rest of your rant is loopy or I just don’t get it” or “Get a grip — you’re not making sense” or something of that sort; it’s all put-downs of the same kind born of an insecurity that absolutely cannot allow another participant to be right, whatever the moral cost). Only those with balls have the strength to own up to their weaknesses and can agree with another or allow another to make an honest point without any threat to their own identities.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 11, 2007 @ 10:08 pm - May 11, 2007
“There are several rhetorical eunuchs here at GP — all hints and implication of falsehood in an effort to discredit another participant…”
HH, perfect! You called it. Described yourself perfectly.
Oh, and by the way – your other comments about what you IMAGINE I said? Still way off. You’re clearly not even arguing with me anymore.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 11:03 pm - May 11, 2007
Now Matt – Don’t be distracted by the #83-84 sideshow. Back to #79-#82.
I’ve “link[ed] illegal immigration, increased social/infrastructure burdens on public institutions, taxpayer funded expenditures for those socials service needs, AND (or with) the need to crack down on border security…” as you put it. And by the way, I think a wall or fence of some sort is necessary. So am I now a racist, to you? Want to call me that?
I gave you a very straight answer to your question. Your implied question – implied, because you chose to state it poorly in the form of an accusation – was whether I consider you a liar or not. I gave you a very straight, yes/no answer to that. (Which was that I don’t.) In return you owe me a very straight, yes/no answer to my question.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 11:15 pm - May 11, 2007
(for clarity: I mean “straight” here just in the sense of “definite; not to be mistaken”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 11, 2007 @ 11:49 pm - May 11, 2007
ILC: The answer sounded pretty gay to me. j/k
Comment by Vince P — May 12, 2007 @ 12:46 am - May 12, 2007
Vince, LOL
Again just for the record: I never thought Matt a liar. Lies take intent, as people here rightly say to the BUSH LIED! nutcases. What I suspected and still suspect, is that Matt is simply emotional (or not wholly rational) on the general subject of immigration.
Trust me – when ever I catch someone in a lie, they drip blood from all orifices, several of which are new.
Fevered “rhetorical eunuchs” (ha ha) put words into other people’s mouths, telling a person his beliefs and conclusions rather than asking. So HardHobbit – YOU DA BOMB, BABY!! ROCK ON!!
More than enough on that. Matt, I’ll still check Saturday for what I’ve asked you…#82-#85
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 2:01 am - May 12, 2007
Matt, what more can you expect from someone who corrects spelling for kicks? Just a heads up re. with whom you converse.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 12, 2007 @ 1:09 pm - May 12, 2007
HH………wow. You do need to wake up to yourself.
Your hate is strong enough now, that not only do you imagine I care about ordinary spelling errors – which I don’t – you even credit me with positive acts. Not knowing when it works out to a compliment.
Anyone reading this in the future – Look at his example. The commenter was out to help GP.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 2:12 pm - May 12, 2007
Let the hate flow through you. … You want this dont you?… Take it AND STRIKE HIM DOWN then your journey to the dark side will be complete!
Comment by Vince P — May 12, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - May 12, 2007
LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - May 12, 2007
Speaking of hate.. check out this example of criminal journalism by CNN
At this blog entry are a few videos all related to the Death Cult in the Palestinian Terror-tory that has a children’s show feature a Mickey Mouse clone that calls for jihad against Jews.
It turns out that CNN ran a story about where it seems that CNN thinks it is somehow impossible to translate Arabic into English and leaves it bsically as a matter of opinion if a little girl on teh show said “I’m going to annihilate the Jews” .. or… “The Jews killed my family”.
Apparently , it takes very rare linguistic skills to figure this out.
So then Glenn Beck was going to pick up the story for his CNN Headline News show.
at the last minute CNN basically tells him the translation from Arabic to English that MEMRI did is seriously flawed according to CNN’s Arab Desk, so Beck decides not to run the story out of caution.
Then the truth comes out.. the MEMRI translation was perfectly fine and someone inside CNN is spreading lies to keep news from being broadcast.
So watch all the videos..
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/05/cnn_spins_heino.html
Comment by Vince P — May 12, 2007 @ 2:48 pm - May 12, 2007
Look Matt, if you really believe your opponents are arguing in good faith, then there’s no reason to inject racism into the discussion unless you are trying to discredit them through guilt by association.
Comment by V the K — May 12, 2007 @ 3:49 pm - May 12, 2007
Or to just shut down conversation.
So Matt, once again:
- I believe that “border security” inherently links and includes both protecting us from illegal immigration – which can be shown to burden our social services, certainly not in all cases, but in too many cases – and protecting us from terrorist infiltration.
- I believe border fencing is acceptable in principle and should be done IF it will help.
In your worldview: am I now “racist”?
For certain reasons I need to know. And I took care to clearly answer your question (that was implied in your earlier accusation against me).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - May 12, 2007
ILC, no implication… no need to attempt an answer; frankly, you’re a cypher to me when you offer “or close down the conversation” by calling someone a racist… what a crock.
I wasn’t the one trying to rally the mob into a stoning of a heretic, bubba… you were playing that rhetorical game with the “Funny how…” toy. No world view needed… you don’t even need “word pictures” to figure that one out.
Here’s the rub: I think border security (especially defined as building the “true enuff, pure enuff” symbolic wall) when linked with stemming the “tide” of illegal immigrants rises from a racist impulse seated deep within a vocal Nativist segment in our country.
They take our jobs, they don’t pay taxes, they drive down wages, they crowd our schools, they overwhelm our emergency rooms, they kill us on the roads with their bad driving, they don’t even learn our language! They don’t assimilate. They carry Mexican flags at immigration rallies.
Nawh, no racism in all that; just stating the facts. Sorry.
Look, ILC, racism IS a card that gets played waaay too often in America. However, like with calling someone a nappy headed ho, sometimes it fits. Just because it doesn’t fit in 40 other instances, doesn’t mean it ain’t got the grooves here. If we were intent on making a border security wall truly work to stem terrorist infiltration and illegal immigration, why all the focus just on the American SW? Right, that’s just because that’s where the largest number of illegal immigrants enter the US. Why we need to adopt tactics last used by Russians in East Berlin, hawkish Israeli politicians, failing Roman emperors, or 5th C BC Chinese isloationists trying to protect their culture is beyond reason to me.
I’ll remember that when I next review the points of entry used by the 9-11 terrorists.
I’ve offered here that much more needs to be done on illegal immigration, tracking ALL aliens (except the ones that visit Joe6Pack in his fishing boat on a remote pond in Mississippi), punishing employers, pressing fed AGs to enforce the laws, etc. But building a symbolic wall to “keep those people out” who are making us Mexico’s bitch is inherently racist.
I can debate with a racist as well as I can debate with a bigot or an atheist. I’m not concerned about changing their minds… I’m focused on the minds of those listening to the racist, bigot, homophobe, atheist, etc.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 15, 2007 @ 11:27 am - May 15, 2007
Matt – thank you for at least showing up.
Let the record show, however, that I asked you a logical question based on your own comments… and you could not bring yourself to give me a straight answer, instead repeating at least one of your gratuitous personal attacks.
You also reiterated, “I think border security… when linked with stemming the “tide” of illegal immigrants rises from a racist impulse…”
Since I believe in border security, and since I do link it to stemming the tide of ILLEGAL immigrants as well as preventing terrorist infiltration, I have no choice but to now consider that you have called me a racist – albeit indirectly or in a way lacking balls.
You said “if we were intent on making a border security wall truly work to stem terrorist infiltration and illegal immigration, why all the focus just on the American SW?”
But you answered the question: “…because that’s where the largest number of illegal immigrants enter the US.”
You said, “Why we need to adopt tactics last used by Russians in East Berlin…?”
Total red herring, that. I should not have to explain the following to any patriot Matt, but the Russians in East Berlin were totalitarians trying to keep their own people IN. (Not democrats trying to keep enemies and other illegals OUT.) 100% different situation.
In conclusion – Matt, you do sling about the term “racist” in order to shut down conversation. And it does make you weird (or “funny” as I put it earlier), and a bad guy when you do it. It is the type of behavior I expect from the site leftists.
Bye now.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - May 15, 2007
Matt, I have one in moderation (that will appear above this) – stay tuned.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 15, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - May 15, 2007
ILC or Calarato… I think Tancredo got it exactly real last night in the South Carolina GOP contenders debate when he linked HIS SanDiego wall with a dramatic plummet in criminal activity –’cause as we all now know, illegal immigrants are just criminals looking to rape the white women and prey on the property of WASPs.
Gheez, the spirit of bigoted Southern males of 1840 has found a new voice in a different century. Instead of black slaves, we’re just replacing them with brown skinned illegal aliens.
With “leaders” like that, I think the wall people should hang their heads in collective shame.
And ILC or Calarato, when you write: “Matt – thank you for at least showing up.” Cheap shots are easiest from the cheap seats… I have a life and a family and those are my priorities –not jumping thru the artifical hoops of a blog commenter. You really need to get a life, bub.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 16, 2007 @ 8:48 am - May 16, 2007
During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson won his free trade credentials with his votes to extend the president’s fast-track trade promotion authority and to approve permanent trading relations with China. One right-wing critic in a widely circulated internet column called Thompson a “neocon globalist” for his immigration, free trade, and foreign policy positions.
Social conservatives are also likely to question Thompson’s “liberal” voting record on immigration. Although Thompson has recently written and spoken out about the need for strong border control, while in the Senate he voted to increase visas for skilled foreign workers and to increase permits for unskilled foreign farm workers. Overall, Americans for Better Immigration, an anti-immigration lobbying group, gives Thompson a career grade of C for his mixed voting record. Thompson will likely come under withering criticism from anti-immigrant candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who mixes his social conservatism with a heavy dose of nationalism and anti-corporate populism.
Comment by Jim Robinson — June 7, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - June 7, 2007