Two men. Three first names.

paul-huck-julie-mitt-fred-75.jpgFrom what I can tell, Fred Thompson was the consensus winner of the South Carolina Fox/GOP debate Thursday evening and, for his candidacy, not a moment too soon.

Having seen what Fred can do rhetorically back in April, 2007, having investigated his positions as his candidacy “unfolded” in the “testing the waters” period, I expected three things to happen:

  1. Fred would emerge as the leading conservative as he opened the gates of his thinking in his inimitable fashion, that is, incisive analysis and good-natured wit. This was the first major candidate that would run against government since Ronald Reagan. He would unite the right.
  2. Fred would have to fight like a tiger to win the nomination over the dead bodies of the disingenuous left-leaning RNC pragmatists that have tightened their grip on the reins of the Republican Party bringing us gifts like Comprehensive Amnesty and the 2006 election results, but he would, in the end, prevail. I thought this because I could see they were dividing up the RINO vote between a. Senator McAmnesty, b, a New York mayor and, c, a Massachusetts governor, both of whom were for gay rights.
  3. Fred would win a landslide victory over Hillary Clinton in the general election by drawing a bigger contrast between left and right than had been done since 1980, once again, without any stridency.

In the offing would be the grassroots revolution for which the restoration of American Freedom still waits. Check out Fred’s positions HERE.


But I did not realize that the National Right to Life Committee had, for about 15 years, been inadvertently preparing to destroy Mr. Thompson. They just about have. But I digress…

Not everyone, here, at the Reagan Wing, shared my optimistic views on Thompson.

Pro-Lifers, like Michelle, were highly skeptical of Thompson’s early nineties laissez-faire position on first trimester killing, despite his “100% Pro-Life” voting record. The fact is, for the entire time he was in Congress, he never had to vote on a measure to stop abortion, but only to regulate its perimeter. (More on this in part Two.) [But I was confident in the inevitability of the process that brings people to pro-life conclusions if they are both rational and of good intentions. It happened to me and many political types I’ve known on the conservative side. I expected Fred to unveil positions to match his labeling.]

Constitutionalists, Like Marilyn Taylor, believed Fred was an “Internationalist” because of his vote for NAFTA, CAFTA and membership in the CFR, and feared he would continue to erode American Sovereignty. [But Fred had voted for trade sanctions, to continue the Castro embargo, and against IMF grant money. I was concerned, but optomistic.]

Now Fred, on the strength of his South Carolina debate, appears, once again, to be on the threshold of a campaign breakthrough, but with, seemingly, much higher stakes because our other possibilities have seriously diminished. Most of the Conservative candidates need the kind of miracle American politics has never seen: Tancredo has dropped out, Duncan Hunter has failed to find traction, and has been cut completely off by the media at the most crucial time. You can’t win if you can’t get your message out. Alan Keyes was never serious about building a team or a campaign. It was just “Have mouth, will travel,” and he won’t break 1%.

Right now the media frontrunners and favorites are all RINOs:

Giuliani and Romney have never been anything else but liberals. They still are.

McCain is a proven turncoat on at least two nation-destroying issues.

Huckabee is, at once, the most religious and least ethical man in the race, a fiscal and foreign policy Democrat. He is the Jimmy Swaggart of the GOP.

None of these men deserve a Senate nomination, much less the Presidency.

What’s left?

Two Constitutionalists with surprising similarities and a glaring difference.

One wants to retract our forces from around the World and build bridges with the Caliphate. The other wants to cap foreign aid and defeat the Caliphate. These differences are irreconcilable and only one is the Republican majority view.

Both are soft spoken men, but straightforward and deadly serious.

Both are too conservative to have any friends among the media conglomerates.

Neither one will pander to groups or to the media.

Both need the Revolution that the GOP needs, that America needs.

Ron, Paul and Fred.

What does the National Right to Life Committee have to do with all this?



20 thoughts on “Two men. Three first names.

  1. “Fred would win a landslide victory over Hillary Clinton ”
    are you really think so? Fred versus Clinton wil be a ssenator versus senator
    I think if we will have a New York mayor or a Massachusetts governor we have a better chance against a senator

  2. “2008 voter”:
    In America, we look at a lot more issues than what positions in Government someone has held.
    Americans believe in Freedom, but our political establishment, generally, does not. We want less government, they want to tell us all the good things Government will do for us if they’re in charge of it.

    Fred would be on the side of the American People.

    Hillary, McCain, Romney and Giuliani would ALL be on the side of government as were Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George Bush, George Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry. Moderate Republicans are better than Democrats, but not on that key, national-election-winning issue.

    It wouldn’t be close.
    With Fred we’d have a candidate that made a contrast, that showed voters a difference, a real choice like we haven’t had since 1984.

  3. Kevin, the link on Fred and McCain/Feingold in post 1 is deceptive.
    Fred, indeed, worked hard on the bill. He’s a superior legal technician and statesman which is why they chose him. He’s proud of the quality of work he did, as a technician, in a sincere attempt to create some firewall against the Clintons selling American Security secrets to the Red Chinese for campaign funds (which actually happened.) But with the benefit of hindsight he is not proud of the final outcome and admits it did more damage than good. He has openly, clearly, unambiguously declared it a mistake he no longer supports. This is not like McCain, who still supports it.
    The link gives none of that context, making the different positions seem like flip-flops.

    Regarding the “conservatives against Fred” link:
    1) Spencer Abraham is not now, and never was, Fred Thompson’s campaign manager. He was hired on a temporary basis for specific expertise. Spencer Abraham, served as U.S. Secretary of Energy from 2001 to 2005. He is not, currently, with the campaign at all. When he went to the Thompson campaign, the radical left wing “Politico” anointed him “manager” without sourcing the story so they could attack their straw man. It was just like the Politico’s “major story” that Fred “would drop out right after Iowa.” Or that Ron Paul is a white supremacist. LYING PROPAGANDA. The story was denied at the time, by the Thompson campaign, but the truth was ignored. You need, to some degree, to judge the quality of the “conservatives against Fred” link by that.
    2) Richard Viguerie:
    a) Four of Richard Viguerie’s complaints are the same issue (McCain/Feingold) expressed in different ways. I’ve covered that.
    b) Richard has a point on the impeachment vote, though, which we noted through the link <” .
    c) Thompson did reject one approach to eliminating the “marriage penalty” but in favor of a better one.
    d) He opposed the anti-trial lawyer’s bill on Constitutional grounds – the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority over the practice of law in the States. This is one of the ways Paul and Thompson are very similar. “It’s in the Constitution.”
    There are some issues, in Viguerie’s piece, I’m not familiar with and would require, probably some detailed reading. But it should be noted that Viguerie is endorsing total clone Mitt Romney.
    3) Thompson has weaknesses on life, all the remaining candidates do, but he is, with Paul, one of the two we can predict would be a friend of, and helpful to, the movement. We would make more progress on this issue than we did with Bush, in my estimation.
    4) Thompson has toughened on illegal immigration, as has Paul. They are the only two left (once again, excepting Duncan Hunter based on his elimination from the debates, which I believe will be permanent and fatal to his candidacy) with any credibility on the issue and it could be argued that Thompson is better than Paul on immigration. Ron Paul, relatively recently, said the idea of a fence to keep people out was “insulting” and he doesn’t like it, generally. Thompson made questionable statements earlier, but is rated the best candidate remaining on the issue by the Anti-illegal immigration movement (except Duncan Hunter).

  4. Mr. McCain, a longtime maverick in his own party, was named by Republican primary voters in the survey as the candidate most likely to win his party’s nomination. Thirty-nine percent of these primary voters saw Mr. McCain as the likely nominee. Only 11 percent saw Mr. Giuliani prevailing.

    Mr. McCain’s image ratings also have soared. More than half of the Republican primary voters (57 percent) — including more than half of the conservatives — viewed him favorably in the new poll, compared with 37 percent in December.

  5. You’re right, movin’ fo’, people HAVE forgotten who McCain is. The term “maverick,” however, is not as accurate as “turncoat” or “RINO.”
    I’ll try to bring back more articles on him.

  6. Just curious, I understand your opposition based on illegal immigrants & finance reform. What is your take on his foreign policy, and the defense of the USA from terrorist threats? Not sure where I stand, I concur with your support of Fred, but is there any redeeming value in McCain’s support for winning the war in Iraq (specifically his lone voice for support of the surge)?

  7. There are two other, major, issues you need to take into account:
    McCain/Lieberman: an under-the-table ratification of the Kyoto Accords to drastically curb American economic freedom and prosperity (And America only) to “save the earth” from humans. This failed, but warns anyone with eyes what damage McCain would do by capitulating to the “Environmentalist” Scams of the far left.
    His leadership in Negotiating a partial Democrat veto on Bush Judicial appointments “in exchange for” retaining the Democrats ability to shut down legislation with the unconstitutional filibuster. In other words, we give something up in exchange for giving something else up. This was highly successful and kept many conservative judges from being appointed by giving the minority Democrats veto power over them.
    The article I just posted: “Michael Medved’s Riches of Embarrassment” has links to good articles that cover McCain’s assaults on the Republic in great detail, one by one.
    Anyone who believes McCain will “appoint conservative judges” needs to understand that he’s already blocked dozens from appointment.
    Constitutional LIBERALS like McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee do not suddenly change their stripes just because they run for the GOP nomination and can recite the phrase “strict construction.”
    There are only THREE men in the race that can claim to even knowing what a “conservative judge” is: Hunter, Paul and Thompson (Alan Keyes is not actually running).

  8. Agreed with your rationale, probably persuades me to throw my support away from McCain. Just as a point of clarification, I do see redeeming value with his strong support of the war on terrorism, perhaps not enough to override all the points you make, but, do you have thoughts on that? Or, am I missing something from his platform, ect on that war? I know most candidates are not talking about it, but in my mind, it is still the major issue of our day.

  9. Well, you clearly don’t want Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee.

    Paul is a great Constitutionalist, but would retract from the war, and, presumably, from every front of U.S. Military power. This is a principled stand for him. Many of his followers expect virtual U.S. disarmament.

    Huckabee, by contrast, has no such thing as a principled stand, but is a professional in the Christian Entertainment Business (CEB). He can tell a joke. He can elicit tears and show great “compassion” at the drop of a hat. He knows that audience, like Jimmy Swaggart, or Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. He could have become a wealthy televangelist. But if you listen to his actual foreign policy statements on their own merit, you will recognize the ghost of Jimmy Carter. And Carter isn’t even dead.

    All the other candidates are pro-Iraq-war in the primary sense: “we must win it.” So to separate them on that issue you need to go deeper than just their position.

    Rudy would probably be very similar to Bush: adamant on the war and its objectives, but with no deeper conservative principles to help him out. He is a Cultural egalitarian, so, he would be issuing statements of support for the “Religion of Peace” like Bush and frisking grandma, at random, in airports while young, middle-eastern males between 19 and 40 walked by so he could avoid “profiling.” But Bush is a man of higher character. Rudy is a ruthless S.O.B. You have to guess what that would do to the war on terror. Reagan got the American public on his side. Bush failed. You don’t have to guess what Rudy’s ruthlessness would do to the war on social conservatives within the GOP, however. It would be a disaster.

    John McCain has a mixed record on Iraq that he cherry-picks conveniently:
    On March 23, 2003, McCain predicted, “I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short.”
    On June 4, 2004, McCain said, “The terrorists know that this is a very critical time.”
    On December 8, 2005, McCain said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course.” When confronted by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on November 12, 2006, McCain admitted that that has “proven not to be correct.”
    On August 20, 2006, McCain was asked, “You agree this is a critical moment in Iraq?” He replied, “I agree it’s a critical time, yes.”
    On October 19, 2006, McCain said, “I think that, first of all, things are very serious there. And to say otherwise I don’t think would be an accurate depiction of events, and this is a very critical time.”
    On November 12, 2006, McCain said it was a “critical time” in Iraq and that “we’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.”
    NEVERTHELESS, during Senate hearings on the appointment of Gen. Casey to Chief of Staff, McCain confronted him with this:
    “…you’ll need to explain why your assessment of the situation in Iraq has differed so radically from that of most observers and why your predictions of future success have been so unrealistically rosy.”
    On February 5, 2007, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced a resolution which would set eleven conditions that the Iraqi government would need to meet in order to retain American support.
    NEVERTHELESS, during his Presidential Campaign he told Ramesh Ponnuru we would stay as long as necessary, “one hundred years, one thousand years, ten thousand years or until the earth collapses under global climate change.”
    McCain is widely thought to be unstable.
    He has military combat experience. You be the judge.

    Fred Thompson is longime personal friends with General Patraeus and carries his same philosophy. The job of the military is to kill people and break things. The war on “terror’ (Primeval Islam) is one of Fred’s top priorities, as is strengthening the military infrastructutre. (George the first began disarmament in ’89, Clinton advanced it, George the second suffered from it as well as his own political corrrectness.)
    Fred Thompson is a “walk softly and carry a big stick” kind of guy. On this issue he is the exact opposite of Paul.

    Mitt Romney, as you should be aware, has no policital philosophy to speak of. He turned 180 degrees on Jan. 4, 2007 to run for President. His management background will serve him well to accomplish whatever direction he decides to go as President. In fact, his management methodology will determine the direction of the country. The problem is there is no force on earth that can tell you what that might be tomorrow. He will engage the public AND THE DEMOCRATS as well as the GOP Left in a dialogue to come to a “consensus” both on objectives and policy. It’s his business model. His statements on Iraq (or anything else), today, are as substantial as water for tomorrow.

    Duncan Hunter has been a member of the House Armed Services Committee for more than a quarter century. He chaired it for the last four years of the Republican majority. He is a committed “win in Iraq” guy, but, unlike Giuliani and McCain, is also a real conservative. While his campaign is not given much chance to win the nomination he is frequently mentioned as a Secretary of Defense in a Republican Administration.

    Hunter and Thompson, unlike Rudy McRomney, see border security as essential for national defense. Rudy protected foreign criminals in New York from discovery and McCain tried to give amnesty to all terrorists living here illegally.
    Ron Paul sees border security as almost the only essense of national defense, but is not particularly fond of a literal fence.

    Hunter is the best and Thompson a close second, in my opinion, on this issue (assuming you support the war). Fred just might bring a greater ability to win the public over on issues, while Hunter has focused on the defense issue, over the years, like no other candidate.

  10. This is what I mean when I refer to all (most) politicians as willing to sell out, compromise, whatever. It is tough to reconcile your comparison of Huckabee with Jimmy Carter, and Duncan Hunter’s (supposedly “a real conservative”) endorsement. Dare I say, a bit of pragmatism from a “true conservative”

    One a different note, with the withdrawal of Fred, is there anyone left if the field that you could “stomach?” Is Paul a viable/electable candidate? If he is not, anyone else?

  11. Pingback: Two men, three first names, Part 3: The TWO DAYS «

  12. Pingback: Life of the Party

  13. Pingback: Part 5: One man, two first names: Ron Paul, the Stone rejected. «

  14. Pingback: STAY TUNED. «

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s