The Next President of the United States
Well, to no one's surprise, Fred Thompson is running for president - new video up at Fred08.com. The money quote:
The way I see it, here's the biggest difference between Fred Thompson and pretty much every other candidate considered a front-runner today (on either side). Because his campaign is based on a set of core principles and beliefs, and not a well-lubricated political weather vane, you won't see Fred out on the campaign trail one day pandering to a particular group of voters, only to whip around in a neck-snapping 180-degree turn to attract a different group of voters the next day.
Trying to be everything to everybody is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.
Examples:
Clinton: Against the war in Iraq (which she voted to authorize) when addressing the far-left, infantile Moveon.org crowd, and now, thinking she's got the nomination in the bag, coming up with all kinds of newly-discovered, pro-military, strong on defense positions.
Obama: Never mind. My dog took a dump yesterday with bits of orange crayon in it that has as much a chance of getting elected president as that boob.
Edwards: Yeah, right. He makes the aforementioned boob look like the second incarnation of Ronald Reagan.
Romney/Giuliani: Both actively supported draconian gun control measures in their liberal-dominated home turf, and are now claiming to be defenders of Americans' right to bear arms. At least Hillary's displayed a little consistency (so far) on this topic, however tyrannical and antithetical to the concept of individual liberty that consistency may be.
McCain: In the wake of the public backlash against his Ted Kennedy reach-around of an immigration bill, he's now claiming to be a strong advocate for strengthening our nation's borders. He's "too little too late" personified.
Now, to the idiots who say that such a strategy is necessary, and that the GOP needs to tack left to attract the middle-of-the-road voters, I say "Bullshit!".
That will achieve but two disastrous goals.
1. The far-right conservative voters will stay home on election day to protest the party's nomination of someone who has abandoned conservative, small government principles in the interest of his own political ambition.
2. The middle-of-the-road voters, will either stay home, thinking there's no appreciable ideological difference between the two candidates, or go into the voting booth flipping a coin for the same reason, not really caring who gets elected.
By sticking to his principles, Fred Thompson will achieve two desirable goals. First, and most important, he'll become the GOP nomination for President. Second, he'll actually be giving the American people a clear-cut choice for President (assuming the Dems are stupid enough to nominate an overt Marxist such as Hillary Clinton) at the polls come November.
So, what do these candidates stand for? Assuming Karl Marx In a Pantsuit gets the nod for the Ding-Dong Party, what choices would the American voters be asked to make?
Let's review.
FDT: Limited government, more power to the states, respect for individual liberties and freedom.
HRC: Massive and costly expansion of governmental power, coupled with the destruction of individual rights in favor of a collectivist model (a la Hugo Chavez).
FDT: Work to reduce the actual cost of health care through a market-driven approach, allowing more Americans to provide for their families' well-being.
HRC: Why reduce the cost? We'll just take more money from the rich (anyone making more than $50,000 a year) to pay for health care for the poor (anyone making less than $80,000 a year).
FDT: Respect for of American citizens' 2nd Amendment rights, recognizing their natural right to self-defense and defense of their families and communities.
HRC: The disarming of peaceable, law-abiding American citizens, recognizing that rapists, carjackers, and rampaging murderous madmen have rights too.
FDT: Find terrorists, then kill them.
HRC: Find out why they're angry at us, then "fix" it. And, if it can't be fixed, arrest the terrorists and prosecute them in the American judicial system, affording them the same Constitutionally-protected rights of American citizens.
FDT: Economic prosperity through lower taxation and adherence to free market economic ideals.
HRC: Marxist redistribution of income through higher taxes, and government control of earnings and wages (see Hugo Chavez....again).
FDT: Parental control over their children's educational needs.
HRC: More taxpayer money for the teachers unions.
FDT: Secure our nation's borders.
HRC: Qué?
If that's not enough to make up the minds of intelligent Americans, try these on for size...
The defense rests.
A government that's big enough to do everything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us.
The way I see it, here's the biggest difference between Fred Thompson and pretty much every other candidate considered a front-runner today (on either side). Because his campaign is based on a set of core principles and beliefs, and not a well-lubricated political weather vane, you won't see Fred out on the campaign trail one day pandering to a particular group of voters, only to whip around in a neck-snapping 180-degree turn to attract a different group of voters the next day.
Trying to be everything to everybody is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.
Examples:
Clinton: Against the war in Iraq (which she voted to authorize) when addressing the far-left, infantile Moveon.org crowd, and now, thinking she's got the nomination in the bag, coming up with all kinds of newly-discovered, pro-military, strong on defense positions.
Obama: Never mind. My dog took a dump yesterday with bits of orange crayon in it that has as much a chance of getting elected president as that boob.
Edwards: Yeah, right. He makes the aforementioned boob look like the second incarnation of Ronald Reagan.
Romney/Giuliani: Both actively supported draconian gun control measures in their liberal-dominated home turf, and are now claiming to be defenders of Americans' right to bear arms. At least Hillary's displayed a little consistency (so far) on this topic, however tyrannical and antithetical to the concept of individual liberty that consistency may be.
McCain: In the wake of the public backlash against his Ted Kennedy reach-around of an immigration bill, he's now claiming to be a strong advocate for strengthening our nation's borders. He's "too little too late" personified.
Now, to the idiots who say that such a strategy is necessary, and that the GOP needs to tack left to attract the middle-of-the-road voters, I say "Bullshit!".
That will achieve but two disastrous goals.
1. The far-right conservative voters will stay home on election day to protest the party's nomination of someone who has abandoned conservative, small government principles in the interest of his own political ambition.
2. The middle-of-the-road voters, will either stay home, thinking there's no appreciable ideological difference between the two candidates, or go into the voting booth flipping a coin for the same reason, not really caring who gets elected.
By sticking to his principles, Fred Thompson will achieve two desirable goals. First, and most important, he'll become the GOP nomination for President. Second, he'll actually be giving the American people a clear-cut choice for President (assuming the Dems are stupid enough to nominate an overt Marxist such as Hillary Clinton) at the polls come November.
So, what do these candidates stand for? Assuming Karl Marx In a Pantsuit gets the nod for the Ding-Dong Party, what choices would the American voters be asked to make?
Let's review.
FDT: Limited government, more power to the states, respect for individual liberties and freedom.
HRC: Massive and costly expansion of governmental power, coupled with the destruction of individual rights in favor of a collectivist model (a la Hugo Chavez).
FDT: Work to reduce the actual cost of health care through a market-driven approach, allowing more Americans to provide for their families' well-being.
HRC: Why reduce the cost? We'll just take more money from the rich (anyone making more than $50,000 a year) to pay for health care for the poor (anyone making less than $80,000 a year).
FDT: Respect for of American citizens' 2nd Amendment rights, recognizing their natural right to self-defense and defense of their families and communities.
HRC: The disarming of peaceable, law-abiding American citizens, recognizing that rapists, carjackers, and rampaging murderous madmen have rights too.
FDT: Find terrorists, then kill them.
HRC: Find out why they're angry at us, then "fix" it. And, if it can't be fixed, arrest the terrorists and prosecute them in the American judicial system, affording them the same Constitutionally-protected rights of American citizens.
FDT: Economic prosperity through lower taxation and adherence to free market economic ideals.
HRC: Marxist redistribution of income through higher taxes, and government control of earnings and wages (see Hugo Chavez....again).
FDT: Parental control over their children's educational needs.
HRC: More taxpayer money for the teachers unions.
FDT: Secure our nation's borders.
HRC: Qué?
If that's not enough to make up the minds of intelligent Americans, try these on for size...
US Attorney General Charles Schumer
Secretary of Defense Jack Murtha
Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Secretary of Defense Jack Murtha
Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
The defense rests.
