Saturday, July 07, 2007

Is Fred a Fraud?

Fred Thompson: Last Great Conservative Hope or Trojan Horse of the Establishment?

I have a lot of conservative friends who are grasping for an "electable" (read "pumped up by the establishment media") candidate who reflects their values. I care about these people, and that is why I am going to be absolutely ruthless in crushing their dangerous illusions about Fred Thompson. This is an "intervention" for my conservative friends. They keep hoping for a champion that the establishment media has already pumped up into prominence for them. That is not going to happen. If we want someone to rise up to challenge the establishment then we are going to have to do the hard work ourselves, not count on the establishment to pump them up for us. The human tendency to look for a shortcut, an easy way out, is our enemy. It is time to look at things realistically. Forget about an easy way out, and start looking for any way out.

The Fred Thompson non-campaign recently announced that it had the support of officials from the last three Republican administrations. The last two of those are G. Bush I and G. Bush II. The "G" stands for "globalist". The "officials" from the Reagan administration center around James Baker. He is the one who derailed the last three years of the Reagan revolution by backstabbing all of the conservatives and replacing them with moderates. By the end, the Great Ronald Reagan was surrounded by them. That led to decisions like the failed 1986 amnesty bill.

Despite his posing, CFR member Fred Thompson is weak on the issue of illegal immigration. He has been quoted as saying that we need some kind of "regularization" for the millions already in this country illegally. He made a good vote or two on securing the border back in his days in the senate, but his overall score by Americans for Better Immigration is a "C".

He is also weak on defending innocent unborn life. Although the NRTL may give him high scores for his votes you have to understand two things 1) NRTL has been completely co-opted by the GOP establishment so that their real top priority has shifted from "protecting innocent life" to "not embarrassing the Republican party" and 2) There has never been a vote before the Senate that would have reduced abortion by even one half of one percent. The tough bills never make it out of committee to differentiate the posers from the champions. He can get a "100%" voting record by voting for bills that "maintain current policy giving US military doctors overseas the choice to refuse to provide an abortion". There is also evidence that Thompson was behind the failed push to weaken the GOP's pro-life plank in 1996. The insiders did not get their way on that one, so Bob Dole et al just decided to ignore the platform (Dole said he had never read it and did not feel bound by it).

The National Taxpayer's Union said in 2000 "Thompson voted for the $792 billion tax cut, death tax elimination, marriage penalty relief, and the termination of the telephone tax. But he disappointed taxpayers in supporting the omnibus appropriations bill and the massive FY99 supplemental bill. He has been a strong defender of federalism in the Senate. Unfortunately, by far the biggest issue in Tennessee in the past two years has been a proposal by the Republican Governor, Don Sundquist, to introduce a first-ever state income tax. Taxpayers have revolted against the measure, yet Thompson refuses to oppose the measure. His fence-straddling on the issue has seriously eroded his free-market credentials. When conservatives needed him most, he wasn’t there to fight for them. This doesn’t inspire confidence in how he would govern in budget negotiations if he were in the White House." They gave him a decent overall score (though worse than McCain at 80%) but again, the tough votes never get to the senate floor. People can get high voting scores without risking much.

In other words, he will cut taxes, but not spending, just like the guys we have now. This results in buying your votes with your grandchildren's money. Borrowing and spending is no more conservative than taxing and spending, and actually less moral.

I could go on, but that should be enough except for those in deep denial. Fred Thompson is mulling entering the race because the establishment wants to keep conservatives from rallying around one of the three real conservative candidates in this race. He is there because their efforts to cram Rudy down our throats are not working. If you want someone who will represent you then you must forget about easy answers and look to one of the three men that the establishment media is trying to ignore and distract you from: Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter. All Congressmen.


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

77% from NRTL. I would not call that a strong score.

7:19 PM, July 07, 2007  
Anonymous Shawn Gott said...

I want to begin by saying that I hold the moderator of this blog in high regard. He is a man of principle and a Godly Christian fellow. In saying all that I must take exception to the things he has written in this particular post. I am a member of the NRLC, The National Right to Life Commitee, (Not the NRTL, btw), I am a member of the Arkansas Right to Life an affliate of the NRLC and I am a member of a local Right to Life Chapter here in Jonesboro affiliated with the NRLC. The NRLC has not been co-opted by the Republican Party. The leaders of the NRLC are intelligent people to make well thought out decisions on the ways to reduce the number of legalized abortions in America. They are not just a front group for the Republican party. You should ask Sen Arlen Specter or Bart Stupkak Democrat of Michigan. The NRLC opposed Specter during his last election even though the establishment GOP was strictly behind him. Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan has been a long time supporter or the NRLC and the NRLC of him, if the NRLC had been co-opted by the NRLC I am pretty sure they would not have supported him during several of the last elections.
Those are just two pieces of evidence that the NRLC has not been co-opted by the GOP. We endorse both Republicans and Democrats, when they are real Pro-Life candidates.
Now in regard to Policy. Too many times Pro-Life groups think of these issues as ALL or NOTHING. Groups like the American Life League, Life Decisions Internation, the Pro-Life action league, are ALL or NOTHING organizations. Anything less than a complete ban (Which we all wish for) is totally unacceptable to them. The NRLC works incrementally to reduce the number of legal abortions in America, through legislation and education. We are the ones who have passed the Ban on Partial Birth Abortion, the Mexico City Policy, and a few other laws. All of which have helped to bring down the number of legalized abortion in America.
When has the American Life League or any of the others, even passed any laws to help save the unborn, NAME ONE!
To attack the NRLC is to attack the most successful Pro-Life organization in America. We are the largest and most organized group in America. Because of the work of our Lobbyist Doug Johnson, Partial Birth Abortion became greatest educational tools in the history of our movement. Lives are being saved!
When we take the ALL OR NOTING approach, we will get, you guessed it NOTHING!
This has been PART 1, PART 2 will come soon in regard to my friend Fred Thompson.
I am at

7:48 PM, July 07, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I appreciate your respectful tone. We clearly have different perspectives on this. I respect the ARTL group, and the people who run the local chapter.

As for why I think they are co-opted, look at South Dakota. The legislature was trying to pass a bill that would actually ban abortions and protect babies. The "Right to Life" actively lobbied against this bill.

Relative to the size and influence in the general population, I think the Pro-life movement has greatly underperformed. As the organization that has sucked up most of the pro-life resources and energy, NRLC bears the lions share of the responsibility for this lackluster performance.

I can't think of any constituency of that size that has gotten less in policy change than pro-lifers. I don't have a problem with incremental progress. That is not the issue. I have a problem with symbolism over substance. That is what we have been getting on the public policy front. It may be making us feel good about ourselves, but it is not saving any lives.

The current rate of progress, under the leadership of NRLC whose chips are mostly invested in the Republican party, is unsatisfactory to me and I feel it is not wrong to say so. It is time for some accountability. Not from the volunteers, but from the pros who make a living in these organizations.

As for Specter, the NRLC backs Dems about as often as NARAL backs Republicans. If you have followed this blog you know that I think the two current parties only provide the illusion of choice. After 35 years of no progress, maybe it is time to consider the Whig option. They should consider backing, or helping to form, candidates from a new party.

8:44 PM, July 07, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


I am looking forward to your info on F. Thompson. I may be overly frank, but this is an open forum where anyone can come on here and challenge what I write on the same soapbox I am standing on. I don't want to hit anyone without giving them a fair chance to hit back. Welcome.

8:47 PM, July 07, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

and while you are at it, please provide a little more evidence for your claim that the Arlen Specter case is evidence that the NRLC has not been co-opted by the GOP.

I remember that they backed Specter's opponent in the GOP PRIMARY, but that is choosing one Republican over another. I remember they did not want him to be chairman of the judiciary committee, but that is not the same thing as endorsing the Democrat in an election. The NRLC did not endorse Spector's opponent (who was pro-abort also), nor did they back the Constitution Party candidate in the race who WAS pro-life.

9:09 PM, July 07, 2007  
Anonymous Ashley Higgins said...

I have never met a self-confessed conservative with whom I agree 100 percent. However, I have seen plenty of leftists (Hillary! and Obama, for current example) with whom I disagree 100 percent. And the real stuggle here is between the leftists on the one hand and the mass of us who tend toward conservativism on the other.

When the New York Times starts taking potshots at Fred because he has a young wife, or whatever trifling thing they can dredge up and magnify, it is a good thing because it shows whom the leftists fear. However, when conservatives do so, apparently to maintain ideological purity, they are shooting at their own.

In a head-to-head contest with Hillary! or Obama, Fred appears to be electable. Until any of your three preferences can give the same appearance, we do not need to be trying to wound Fred.

7:48 AM, July 08, 2007  
Blogger Bill Smith / Editor said...

We encourage our readers stop by the Arkansas Watch. I found Mark's heads-up on Thompson is interesting and will post a link today on the ARRA blog to the article.

However, the statement that "Fred Thompson is mulling entering the race because the establishment wants to keep conservatives from rallying around one of the three 'real conservative candidates' in this race" implies some kind of conspiracy by "the establishment" which I do not believe exits in regard to Thompson's entry into the race.

Mark would you define this establishment and identify how you know what one "mulls over" in their mind? I believe Thompson use of the term "mulling over" is within the expected Tennessee use of words and his character over many years.

And with regard to your mentioning Ron Paul, although I have appreciated his past years of his leadership on many conservative issues, I do not agree with his isolationist viewpoint with regard to Islamist terrorists. Islamist radicals hate us (non-believers) and their historical viewpoint is in complete opposition to the historical Christian world view upon which the United States was founded and to the freedoms that have prospered our country. He has lost credibility on this issue just as the current White House occupant is losing credibility due of his viewpoint of comprehensive immigration.

8:02 AM, July 08, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Ashley and Bill:

To Ashley:

Thank you for writing. Before I we can proceed on a journey to understanding, I need clarification on your views and what you consider "conservative". Tell me, based on his actions and not his rhetoric, do you still consider G. Bush a conservative? Which of these areas has Bush done what you agreed with: Illegal Immigration, Government Spending, Education "No Child Left Behind", Expansion of state search powers without a warrant, "Campaign Finance Reform", Dubai Ports, Management of the War on "Terror", Harriet Myers attempted appointment.

To Bill: I define the "establishment" as those who have influence in the current government and who use that influence to expand the size and scope of government. George Bush and Ted Kennedy would be examples of members of that group. So would corporations that have no loyalty to a country. The establishment views any limits on government (including world government) expansion as an obstacle, and are thus dismissive of both the Constitution and a sovereign United States. The reason I understand what they are thinking is that I have been watching what they are doing.

Now that I have addressed your questions, please tell me what specifically about his so-called "isolationist" viewpoint with regard to Islamic terrorists bothers you?

8:46 AM, July 08, 2007  
Anonymous Ashley Higgins said...

That, of course, is the problem. We haven't a precise idea what the term "conservative" means. And I am not capable of defining what I mean by reference to the President and whatever he may mean. I can only say that he was, and still is, more pleasing to me than John Kerry or Al Gore. So whatever his failings as a conservative, I believe we are better off than we would have been if either of the alternatives had been elected.

The main difficulty with the word "conservative" is that it implies maintaining the status quo. That is not what I mean. For example, with respect to No Child Left Behind, I would not want to conserve either the current status quo or the one that obtained immediately prior to the passage of that act. Why? Because basic education has been immeasurably altered (I want to say corrupted) since I got out of high school in 1964.

So what I mean by "conservative" is the preservation and application of fundamental concepts, many of which are elegantly expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution as written, the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment.

I believe Henry Sumner Marne was correct when he wrote years ago that the progress of a society was shown by the progress of individuals from status to contract. Critical to this progress is limited government, fiscal restraint, the rule of law, the sanctitiy of contract and of property, free markets, and equality of all persons before the law. Obviously, this is not a path the United States has been on for at least 75 years, and equally obviously, there is little of the detritus of liberalism or progressivism or leftism from that period that I would want to conserve.

So I disagreed with government (the President, many Senators, many Representatives, the Supreme Court, state government, and so forth) on all of the above and a great deal more. At the same time, I am very grateful for two Supreme Court appointments--Roberts and Alito. I am grateful that the Second Amendment has new life, and that the First Amendment seems to be holding its own.

As what I call a conservative, I am particularly grateful for the Internet and blogs such as yours. Do you suppose for a minute that Gore, Kerry, Hillary! or Obama would tolerate this? I don't think so. And one measure of a conservative is opposition, not to just to what Bush has done or tried to do, but to what they could do--what they would do. An editorial in The Arkansas-Democrat Gazette recently, talking about the Little Rock Schoool Board, said that the underlying issue was power and patronage. I belive that is true of government at all levels. And that is what a conservative must oppose.

10:25 AM, July 08, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Roberts and Alito have had some votes I agree with, but if you will look closely their reasons for the votes preserve the unacceptable status quo. For example, their vote to uphold the PBA ban was that the state could regulate the method by which innocent children were executed as long as the woman had other methods to choose from. I take no comfort in that. Only Thomas and Scalia voted the right way for the right reason.

But let's cut to the core of our points. Listen to me: There is no spoon. What you think about Thompson being better than Hillary is an illusion. Thompson will give us the same policies as Bush, which are the same policies as Senator Ted Kennedy (who worked so hard with Bush on NCLB and Amnesty).

Dare to take the Red Pill. We are being forced into a statist destination by giving us a choice between a person who will take us to socialism fast or one who will take us there slow. By continuing to play that game, you are being moved each election cycle closer to the point of no return. We are almost there now.

Your hypothetical that we must keep electing these people because the other side will take away our guns and free speech rights is hitting the fear button. My fear button is broken. I see the end of the United States with either side. Both sides threaten our Constitutional Rights and see the Constitution as an obstacle to their goals. We are frogs in the pot and it is getting dangerously warm. Maybe a Hillary overplaying her hand is just what we need to wake people up. Regardless, efforts to convince me to support a man who will do the opposite of everything I want just because someone else might to the opposite of what I want faster is not going to move me.

The very definition of a wasted vote is a vote for someone that you already know is going to do the opposite of what you want.

Your only chance to win at this game is to overturn the gameboard. You have to quit playing the lessor of two evils game. I am not saying the odds are good by backing a Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo or DH. The odds are not good, but your odds are zero doing what you are doing now. You have zero chance of victory supporting the establishment designated conservative. You are throwing your support behind the alligator that you think will eat you last.

If I have to get knifed, I want it in the front, not the back. At least with Hillary we will know we have an adversary and be wary. With Bush, conservatives were like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football. We were so wrapped up in a cult of personality that it was years before we realized that he was doing the opposite of what he said and we wanted.

It is extremely frustrating to me to watch once-ardent Bush supporters make the exact same mistake with Thompson. I mean, people who were behind Bush for years in the last six months have flipped on him- but it is like they have some kind of psychological need for hero-worship of "the big man". Within months they latch onto Thompson based on little or no substance. They make the exact same mistake, they have the same blind-follower attitude.

The primaries have not even started yet. Thompson has not even announced yet. Surely he is not above criticism now. If he gets handed the nomination because no one on the right scrutinizes him, then how is he going to hold up in the general election?

Whoever the Republican nominee is will have the name recognition to win if they run a good campaign. I cannot agree that now is the time to pick a "front runner" who should not be criticized.

11:27 AM, July 08, 2007  
Anonymous Shawn Gott said...

Mark, I respectfully agree that you and I have different perspectives on this. I can respect your viewpoint, although I disagree. Lets start with South Dakota.
I believe that the ban passed by the legislature of South Dakota was a good piece of legislation at the wrong time. Before the Pro-Life movement can pass any 'bans" on Abortion it must be found constitutional by the Supreme Court, which means there must be a change from a "Living Constitution" view point to a "Originalist or at least a Strict Constructionist point of view. Until that change is made, we as a movement have NO CHANCE of passing anything restrictive. As of now we have 4 judges that most likely will support a change in Roe, that is one short of what we need. If the South Dakota ban were to have made it to the SCOTUS they would have ruled against us and made a whole new layer of Abortion law. A whole new layer we would have to overcome sometime in the future. This is why the NRLC opposed the ban at this time, it was more of an opposition to the timing than it was the Ban.
Hopefully someday we can try this again, with 5 members of the SCOTUS.
Now about Arlen Specter. The NRLC Pac did endorse Pat Toomey in the last election, but the establisment GOP supported Arlen Specter, whom we do NOT like at all. Our hope was to get Toomey (A real Pro-Life Person) elected in both the Primary and General election. Unfortunately that did not happen, therefore when the General Election came aroud the NRLC stayed out of it due to not having a Pro-Life candidate in the race. ( I was not familiar with Third party candidates). This is why I say that the NRLC broke with the GOP, because they were strictly behind Specter, and we were NOT. We did what we could, but it did not happen.
Toomey also gave us some problems in regard to helping get him elected, which I gladly share with you in a private e-mail. We did not support him because he was Republican, we supported him because he was and is Pro-Life.I hope this has answered your question. I will be glad to answer any more that you might have. I can be contacted at


6:16 PM, July 08, 2007  
Anonymous Shawn Gott said...

Please forvive the typing errors in the last e-mail. I am on my laptop and it is much harder for me.

6:16 PM, July 08, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

When is the right time to save 1 million babies a year?

When 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered on 911 we mobilized immediately. There are twice that many killed each day via abortion.

I cannot agree that we now have 4 justices that would vote to overturn Roe. If you read the reasoning behind their votes on the PBA ban you will note that Alito and Roberts agreed with the principal that abortion was a "right" and the only thing the state could regulate was the MANNER of execution. Bottom line: Bush and the GOP establishment betrayed you again.

I am unwilling to participate in a strategy of waiting until "the signs are right" before we actually act to stop the holocaust. I say we deal with them like the widow dealt with the unrighteous judge in the Bible. Not only South Dakota, but 20 more states should pass laws that directly challenge Roe. At the same time, we should 1)demand that Congress take it out of the Court's hands by using their constitutional authority to limit matters within the purview of the courts. and 2) whether that fails or not vote for a President who will pledge to ignore court verdicts on abortion. This would effectively put it back in the hands of the states where it belongs- (assuming a narrow view of the 14th amendment. If one takes a more expansive view there is another way).

Even NOISE about doing any of this could easily make those judges back off. They know they have been pushing the envelope. Even a lot of Democratic Congressmen ran as "pro-life". It is time to see if they are.

These are the kinds of things NRLC should be pushing for, not pushing S. Dakota to drop their efforts to save babies.

I am just frustrated because in principle you are the people I agree with. I am frustrated because your tactics are not working, yet you won't change them. Your confidence in the GOP is mostly "faith based". There is little in what they actually do which justifies such faith.

As for that Senate race: There was a third party candidate in that race who was 100% pro-life. A lawyer from Lancaster County named Jim Clymer. Both Specter and the Dem. were pro-aborts all the way. You say Toomey gave you other problems. I believe you. SO WHY DIDN'T THE NRLC GET BEHIND THE PRO-LIFE CANDIDATE IN THE RACE? That is what I keep asking myself, why is there never any accountability? Why is the NRLC putting pressure on truly pro-life legislators to "wait" until "the right time" instead of putting pressure on phonies who ran as "pro-life" so long as they don't have to actually DO anything pro-life?

6:03 AM, July 09, 2007  
Blogger The Blue Eye View said...

Fred Thompson: Sorry folks, the kindly actor you've come to know through the TV series "Law and Order" is not who you'd like him to be. Despite the polls (AP/ IPSOS 6/9/07) which tout Thompson as a darling among conservatives, most are apparently ignorant of his political pedigree. Like his friend, McCain and other GOP leaders, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a main group behind the North American Union.

Thompson's "Pro-Life" position in his own words: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."

After 8 years as a US Senator from Tennessee, Thompson racked up some votes that should be cause for concern. He voted YES:

1. in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act- the law to silence grassroots conservative groups.

2. to expand NAFTA. Modeled after the European Common Market, NAFTA was a first step toward open borders in North America and the North American Union.

3. on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)

4. on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

5. for permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)

6. for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)

7. to fund the GOP Medicare prescription drug benefit debacle.

Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq. (Freemarket Prior to his run for U.S. Senate, he was a Washington lobbyist for 20 years.

10:01 AM, July 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey bill smith,

you are acting like you don't believe there IS a GOP establishment that works against the desires of the grassroots. If that is true, the what is your Republican Assemblies even around for?

12:44 PM, July 09, 2007  
Anonymous Joe said...

I agree with you Mark. I wouldn't vote for Fred Thompson for dog catcher.

6:33 AM, July 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Why is it better (or more noble or however one wants to phrase it) to have the "greater of two evils?"

Many of us who did choose the "lesser of two evils" in voting for Bush did so knowing that he was not a true conservative but that we would not get unadulterated liberalism shoved down our throats either (i.e. tax cuts, cutting off of federally funded abortions overseas, ceasing of prosecuting sidewalk counsellors under RICO statues as was the policy under Clinton, conservative judges (I see nothing to criticize thus far on the judges - what you mentioned proves nothing of the way they would vote in a true test of Roe), veto of stem cell legislation, etc.).

And while many of us have decided to jump ship based on the latest immigration debacle it does not mean that we still would not choose and vote for Bush over Kerry or Gore AGAIN.

So I ask, why is it "better" to have the greater of two evils?

You mentioned above that Bush is not necessarily the "lesser of two evils" and that they (Bush/Kerry/Gore) are virtually the same (the only difference is the speed at which we arrive at the same place). If that is the case, then why speed the process?

What good will come from that strategy?

6:32 AM, July 16, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

If you want the answer bad enough to listen to 30 minutes of audio, then I invite you to go to "the lessor of two evils"...

It discusses when and why it is morally OK to do that, and when and why one should stand on principle.

I do take issue with your list of "accomplishments" that we have gotten by going with Bush (much of the country blames conservative Christians for the arrogant incompetence that is the Bush administration). Tax cuts? Without spending cuts that is just buying your votes with your grandchildren's money (prescription drug plan for example). Borrowing and spending is even more immoral than taxing and spending.

Stopping the funding of abortions overseas was good, but it was judges that ruled RICO out of bounds for pro-lifers. 8-1 on the Supreme Court.

The PBA ban case DOES indicate how they would rule on a direct test of ROE. Alito and Roberts agreed with the principal that abortion was a "right" and the only thing the state could regulate was the MANNER of execution. They COULD has sided with Thomas and Scalia, who indicated in their opinion that not only was the PBA ban legal, but the REASON it was illegal is that ROe should be overturned. They could have joined them, but they chose not to. Please READ THE DECISION. The facts are there for all who care to see. For those who don't, no amount of fact will help.

He vetoed the latest stem cell research bill, but he is also the man who opened the door to federal funding of stem cell research- after promising you in his election campaign that he would not do so.

I am really at my wits end trying to help people see the truth that they do not wish to see. You are giving him credit for things where he has double-crossed you (judges) and has outright lied to you (stem cell research). You are giving him credit! How I wish I could snap you out of it and back into reality. But I can't. You must make that decision in your own time.

8:36 PM, July 16, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I understand that the Supreme Court ruled that the RICO statues were misapplied by the Clinton administration. What I was saying was that the Bush justice department discontinued the policy prior to the ruling.

As for Judge Roberts, he has consistently said that his style will be to tailor opinions very narrowly. He addresses cases in the narrowest possible manner. This case is consistent with that philosophy. The underlying issue was NOT whether abortion is constitutional. If such a case comes before him that will be a true test of ROE.

Until that happens I don't see the betrayal. Maybe you are right, we'll see, but for now we truly DON'T KNOW.

But my main above question was in response to your comments that both parties are taking us to the same place just at different speeds. For sake of argument, I'll concede that point and then ask "why speed the process?" Why is that the wise option?

Also, to comment on your original post, Fred Thompson had a Congressional conservative rating of above 85% while Hillary has a liberal rating above 90%.

You see no difference between the two?

I'm not arguing that Fred is flawless, I'm arguing that there is a big difference between he and Hillary. I wish his record was 100% conservative, yet this is the real world and I may not live long enough for the perfect candidate to come along.

11:13 AM, July 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred T. 85% conservative? It looks like he got a 77% from the NRLC, and a "C" from a group concerned about illegal immigration. The National Taxpayer's union gave him an 80% on his voting record but sourly noted his lack of leadership in holding the line outside of his voting record.

He voted for the McCain "Campaign Finance Reform". His record is just a bit to the left of John McCain, whom most conservatives find to be too liberal. He is a "Southern Fried John McCain".

It is like Paul Viggurie said, "conservatism is no longer a program with these people, it is a style of talking".

2:28 PM, July 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Until that happens I don't see the betrayal"

- the poor guy never saw it coming, not even after Harriet Myers

2:34 PM, July 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We did not get Harriet Myers did we? Of course I did not like her but we didn't get her. I saw her nomination as a betrayal yes but I don't see Roberts or Alito as a betrayal.

I also notice that my question, of why is it a wise strategy to speed to process of degenerating to outright socialism/Godlessness/Stalinism a wise strategy, has gone unanswered.

I don't blame any of you guys for not tacking that one. I wouldn't want to either.

And maybe those statistics referenced above are more accurate than the ones that I provided. Let's say they are and let's take your thinking illustrate the logical end to that line of thinking.

That line of thinking would mean that there is no meaningful difference between a man who "does the right thing" 77% of the time vs. a woman who "does the wrong thing" 95% of the time. That is neither logically or mathematically possibly is it?

While I prefer a 100% conservative, if my choices wind up being a guy that "does the right thing 77% of the time vs. a woman who "does the wrong thing" 95% of the time, the answer is easy.

So I ask again why speed the process of degeneration?

9:36 AM, July 18, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Because he tried Myers, I suspected he was going to betray the pro-lifers again with Alito and Roberts, but I could not say for sure until I saw their reasoning on an abortion case. I have now. The evidence is in.

It is betrayal straight across the board. Not just on abortion. He got guys who would go along with his small view of civil liberties and constitutional protections, but who were in no rush to take that same view on abortion "rights".

Now as to your question that has not been answered; 1) I object to the premise of your question. People who vote in a PRIMARY for a true classical conservative rather than an establishment statists pretending to be one are not "speeding the process of degeneration". Rather YOU are, by so quickly accepting the dumbed-down definition of an acceptable candidate. It is the Primary. This is the time we are supposed to fight for what it best...for what we really believe. If someone else gets the nomination THEN the principled conservative can decide about voting for "the lessor of two evils". Even then, voting for a third party candidate with no chance to when does not mean one is "speeding the process of degeneration". But that is 30 minutes worth of audio. If you REALLY care to know, go here and listen...

it discusses when it is and is not moral to vote for "the lessor of two evils"

4:32 AM, July 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You may be right on Roberts and Alito, time will tell. For now though we don't know and as I said earlier this narrow ruling is consistent with Roberts' stated judicial philosophy. I believe that they both will be anti Roe votes...we'll see.

I never said that I would vote for Thompson in the primary. I said rather that I prefer a 100% conservative. I'm simply discussing the issue from a standpoint of what is likely to happen (i.e. Thompson being the nominee).

If the two major candidates, however are Thompson and Hillary and on balance I get 75% conservatism vs. 5% (95% liberalism), then it is an easy choice for me.

If a person is faced with those two choices and decides instead (albeit out of principle) to vote for a no name / no chance candidate then the effect of his vote will be the speeding of our march toward socialsm/stalinism (degeneration).

11:22 AM, July 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what? He who "wastes" his vote speeds toward socialism, but you suggest we merely freefall there-- is that any kind of solution?

3:08 PM, July 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No it's not a solution necessarily but it does slow the process down considerably (arguably several generations) which would seem to be preferable to speeding it.

Besides if/when we get to true socialism then the ability to get out of such a system is nearly impossible because all debate and dissent will be stifled. Websites such as this will be highly monitored and shut down when they are deemed "hostile." Things such as 2nd amendment rights that we take for granted and are not under much threat currently will be a thing of the past. Christians will fill the prisons being "guilty" of hate crimes.

It could get a whole lot worse than it is today even as bad as things seems sometimes. And as long as we still have "most" of our Constitutional freedoms (and are not a true socialist/stalinist state) then we can at a minimum fight the good fight. A socialistic state will not tolerate a fight and those who try to fight will be dealt with by the state. History teaches that what I'm saying is true.

That is my logic in slowing the process. What is the logic (or big picture strategy) for speeding it?

10:31 AM, July 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I forgot to add that my true wish is not to merely "slow" the process but to reverse the trend and reclaim lost liberties.

But if faced with the choices of slowing or speeding I'll take the slowing process.

10:33 AM, July 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want to change directions. slowing down is no way to get there.

You want to change directions: you have to go with Ron Paul.

11:51 AM, July 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: your 10:31

You are arguing that we must give a majority vote to someone who will take us to socialism more slowly because the alternative is someone who will take us their fast- at which point our ability to resist will be taken away.

But that is exactly why we must get out of the pot before it boils rather than consistently voting for the chef who will add heat to the fire at a slower rate. In fact, if those are the only two chefs available I say vote for the one that will turn up the heat so fast that your fellow frogs will finally wake up to what is going on and hop out of the cooking pot.

If Hillary wins without a majority because some of us won't vote for a socialist Republican, then she may overplay her hand and cause a backlash. At this point, that might be our best ticket off this ride.

8:09 AM, July 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a very dangerous strategy but at least now someone has put some logic to it.

I think the most dangerous aspect of that strategy is that liberals like Hillary are very smart and they know the only way they can "cook" us is to make elections inconsequential. Therefore, she will stack the courts with ACLU types which will institute the things I referenced above such as:

- taking away the 2nd amendment on the grounds that it only applies to "militias" and not individuals as the Clinton justice department attempted.

- uphold any hate crimes legislation that passes (and we are dangerously close already to having a Congress that will pass it). Hillary would certainly sign it into law. The effect would be outright Christian persecution.

- Speech in general would be under assault and websites would be highly scrutinized (arkansaswatch would be on the hitlist for sure)

- gay marriage would be deemed "Constitutional" under the guise of the 14th amendment or under the guise of the invisible "privacy doctrine"

These are but a few of the things she would love to give us and as long as she secretly pushed these things by the unaccountable courts she could get away with it.

As I write I'm thinking of the citizens of Germany who were cooked by the Nazi's after they came to power by an ever increasing police state. Dissenters were dealt with by the Gestapo. The frogs were cooked as soon as the fire was turned up. I'm also thinking of Russia basically going through the same process with Lenin and Stalin. Pol Pot as well.

Is there a historical reference that you can point out that the frogs jumped out of the pot when it was turned up too hot? I can't think of any.

Also, I'm still learning about Fred Thompson myself, but I certainly don't think that Fred Thompson is a socialist. I wasn't trying to imply that earlier.

1:55 PM, July 21, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Unfortunately, G. Bush has already initiated many of the tools for a police state. Hillary might move them along faster, but I agree with the point made above. When both sides are eroding civil liberties, one slow and one fast, find someone else to support. When the greater evil doer wins the election (with a plurality rather than a majority since the good guys boycotted both) then there is a better chance they will overplay their hand and produce a backlash.

Is ten more years of slower progress to a police state and socialism going to find us in a better position to cast it off or a worse position?

You asked if there had been other examples of the pot being heated too fast producing the kind of change we are talking about. I think the American Revolution is an example. And Patrick Henry makes the same point I do about not choosing the "lessor of two evils" but being willing to take a bold new course. Below is his famous speech. I will bold the part where he makes the same argument I am making....

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

3:34 PM, July 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]exstream software[/url]
[url=]pawnbroker software[/url]
[url=]palm zire 31 software[/url]
[url=]echinacea angustifolia[/url]
[url=]airsoft grease gun[/url]
[url=]tiberium wars no cd crack[/url]
[url=]jamf software[/url]
[url=]birddog software[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]wpa dbl crack[/url]
[url=]exstream software[/url]

bad people always find a way around the laws

2:02 AM, December 02, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=]natrol tonalin cla[/url]
[url=]soft hackle[/url]
[url=]nail salon software[/url]
[url=]murad acne complex kit[/url]
[url=]codeine cough syrup[/url]
[url=]kirkland vitamin c[/url]
[url=]metoprolol tartrate[/url]
[url=]ageless skin care[/url]
[url=]ginseng powder[/url]
[url=]edms software[/url]
[url=]edms software[/url]
[url=]natrol tonalin cla[/url]
[url=]pc miler software[/url]
[url=]ab initio software[/url]
[url=]soft sole infant shoes[/url]
[url=]spironolactone hair loss[/url]
[url=]edms software[/url]
[url=]mortgage loan origination software[/url]
[url=]oxycontin addiction treatment[/url]

Every man builds his world in his own image. He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice.

10:10 AM, December 09, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home