FRED THOMPSON ON THE ISSUES
While this video gives only a thumbnail idea of how Fred Thompson stands on the issues, it does give some detail concerning many of the major issues of today. Thompson's conservative credentials are strong and one of the many advantages he offers to the GOP and the nation is that he has the clout and name recognition to defeat Hillary and/or Obama the likely Democrat nominees.
Thompson also offers something that is not in the current field of GOP candidates. His strong conservative stands coupled with the name recognition makes him a very viable candidate unlike other conservatives in the field like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. Both are good men and strong conservatives but unfortunately facing the facts neither has the ability to win in November 2008.
In a comparison to the top tier candidates, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, Thompson is more conservative than each of the three. Romney's record despite his conservative talk of late is very left of center. McCain has irritated much of the GOP base and again he is centrist or left of center. Giuliani while conservative on foreign policy and issues involving the war has received much criticism for his liberal stances on social issues.
Thompson is not a far right conservative but his voting record and stand on issues defiantly puts him very right of center. With the seeming collapse of the GOP and the recent news of grassroots support of the party decreasing because of the immigration issue, Thompson has the capability of bringing the base and those who are somewhat disillusioned with the GOP back to the fold.
This factor also is another reason for the surge in popularity for his candidacy since it again emphasises his ability to beat the Democrat nominee and prevent the likely nominee Hillary Clinton from gaining The White House. Additionally his strong conservative stands will force the GOP to once again base the party platform on conservative ideals that brought the party into prominence in the 80's under Reagan and into power in 1994.
Thompson will stop the GOP from running away from conservatism and rather embrace it especially if he continues to gain support as he has been. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that since his announcement Friday forming his committee he has surged from third and fourth in many polls to second only behind Giuliani. This while still technically an un-announced candidate.
Fred Dalton Thompson, conservative values, ideals and leadership that brings to the 2008 Presidential race what the country is looking for.
Ken Taylor
Also blogging on Thompson Mikes America
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:16 AM
17 Comments:
On the central issue of Iraq - Fred basically says he is "stay the course" and do what the President is doing.
As Iraq continues to worsen (the sectarian killings in Baghdad are now higher than before Bush's war escalation started), I'm sure he will regret saying that.
Rob, I know your stance on the war and though we disagree, I believe that much of the polling is skewed to make it seem the public wants a pull out now.
The opposite is actually true as you talk to people and follow much of the buzz on the web at sights that deal directly with the war and are not liberal or conservative in nature.
Most while tired of the war want to see it comleted and our troops brought homw when the job is done. That is what Fred was referencing. Completeing the mission to allow a fee Iraq and a stable Middle East.
The majority of the American people want our troops home within the next year - no matter what. They have the good sense to know that Bush has totally botched the war and that he is a horrible CIC.
I would love to see us leave a free Iraq and a stable Middle East. However, the Iraqi government that we are supporting is not worth defending. Iraq is fast becoming a Shia homeland that will be heavily influenced by Iran.
The best we can hope for at this late point in time is basically a stalemate in which Iraq does not become a failed state. Retired General Rick Sanchez - who was in charge in Iraq just 18 months ago - said as much just yesterday.
"sectarian killings in Baghdad are now higher than before Bush's war escalation ....The majority of the American people want our troops home within the next year - no matter what."
Nice fantasy Rob! Where'd you get that "news?" The New York Times?
Figures!
There were more sectarian killings in Baghdad in May (three months into the "Surge"), than in January (before the "Surge")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301780.html
Only 1/3 of Baghdad has been pacified. Baghdad is never going to be pacified by American troops.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070604/ts_nm/iraq_crackdown_dc
Why do you think Mitch McConnell said yesterday that he thought there would be a major change in strategy in September?
Yesterday, we also saw Republican Senators Lamar Alexander, Robert Bennett, and Judd Gregg, and 22 Republicans in the House proposed legislation that would make most of the Iraq Study Group's 79 recommendations official U.S. policy.
As the Surge continues to fail - as I predicted months ago - September will roll around and Republicans in Congress will join with the Dems to end the War.
While the liberal mindset is pretty amusing, it's tragic that it carries weight in a country whose traditions, founding religious beliefs, Constitutional laws and national interests it maligns and sabotages wherever possible.
Rob, tell me something. If some maniacal looking dude wielding a hatchet cornered you, alone, in an alley someplace and snarled, flecks of spittle flying everywhere, that he hates you and his sole ambition in life, the root of his very existence, is to now split your skull in two with his trusty hatchet would you,
a) take him at his word and jump him first and attempt to take the hatchet out of play,
b) attempt to open a reasoned, civilized dialogue in hopes of establishing negotiations, or
c) fall to your knees and beg for mercy?
I'd guess that you'd go with "b", and I'd pray that the other guy had really bad aim.
Seth, are you:
a) an idiot?
b) trying to be funny?
c) serious?
I'd guess that your question is "b", and I'll pray that it is not "a" or "c".
But you support a political dogma that seems to see "b" as a universal solution, anything but matching the violence of a vindictive enemy.
You throw out figures like "95% of scientists" and guarantee that the majority of Republicans will soon join Democrats on the Iraq issue.
Your comments often make The New Republic look like Neocon Central.
You were actually being serious? Holy cow, I thought it was a joke.
OK, let's discuss the scenario you laid out.
First, tell me, what did you do the last time some maniacal looking dude wielding a hatchet cornered you, alone, in an alley someplace and snarled, flecks of spittle flying everywhere, that he hates you and his sole ambition in life, the root of his very existence, is to now split your skull in two with his trusty hatchet would you.
I cannot wait to hear about how you thrashed that person. Please don't leave out any of the details.
If you have never actually been in the situation, then it is impossible to say how you will react. Some folks freeze. Some wet their pants. Some fight. Some beg. I am quite certain a person's reaction to such extraordinary circumstances has nothing to do with whether they are liberal or conservative.
Since you must have faced such a harrowing situation, otherwise the premise of your question is completely ludicrous.
I can say this, I am smart enough not to get myself into that situation. If I saw a maniacal looking dude with a hatchet, I'd run the other way.
LOL.
Rob, that was meant as a comparison with your politics -- I would assume "b" because that's the standard liberal approach to situations of that magnitude on a political scale. You folks would negotiate right up until the crazy guy, laughing at your naivity, swung the hatchet. The hatchet could be Teheran's first bomb, bound for Israel, or it could be another large scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Whatever.
In the case of Iraq, you believe what? That the crazy guy will leave us alone after we've pulled out our troops? That he won't still come after us once he's done all the mass murdering and restructuring he "needs" to do in Iraq to make the country a secure base for his own purposes?
I really have a rough time understanding where you folks are coming from, what kind of thought processes are involved in forming your political opinions and in bringing your fearless political leaders to try to extend our necks over one chopping block after another.
BTW -- being "cornered" doesn't afford one the luxury of running away, much as we can't simply pick up our country and run away when it is under attack. There are times when you (or your country) have to stand and fight. Sometimes, as in Iraq, the fight is, by necessity, far away from where you live and in order to keep it that way, you have to keep fighting until the fight is over.
Thankfully, the maniac with the hatchet was among the few kinds of threats that never showed up in the course of my younger years, during which there was a certain amount of violence, though I will say without hesitation that I would have taken option "1", for better or for worse. I'm smart enough to know when negotiating is a waste of time, I've never been one to beg for mercy and I've always been blessed with the ability to think on my feet. As a college professor, I doubt you've run into many crisis situations, but as a security professional, I have. I don't panic.
I also know reality when it looks me in the face, and the political POVs you and your fellow travellers in the MSM and gov't espouse are not compatible with our definitively addressing the dangerous realities our nation and the world are now facing.
They are recipes for defeat and disaster.
Wow, I'm really, truly impressed. You would face down this hate-filled, deranged maniac with nerves of steel. I am sure you would simply wipe away his spittle without taking your hawk-like eyes off of his hatchet. As he blinked, you would spring into action and disable this monster with some of your patented karate moves. You are a real hero.
Since you are now putting in the caveat that I could not avoid the neighborhood that actually had this maniac running free. AND you are REQUIRING that I was not paying attention to my surroundings, which is presumably how I would end up cornered. I wouldn't be worried at all.
All I would do is turn to you and have you take care of the maniac. I wouldn't panic, because I would have hired a real fully-trained security professional who laughs at danger. I'm just glad I am smart enough to know who to hire before blindly walking in a neighborhood where hatchet-wielding maniacs roam free.
Personally, I think your scenario is extremely foolish, but I'll continue to humor you.
BTW, Iraq did not attack us.
Okay, so I tend to use extreme examples.
I don't seem to recall mentioning any patented Karate moves --
I said that I would attack the maniac first rather than take either of the two more liberal, guaranteed-to-get-chopped options. Whether I got my head chopped in would be another story.
I've never seen a sign that said, "This neighborhood has maniacs in it." Do you suppose Manson's victims expected to encounter any where they lived?
Bush had overwhelming reason to believe Saddam possessed WMD, whether he did or not (I believe he did, but that's an old and nonproductive argument from either side).
He fiddled around with Blix & Co during their inspections, telling them where and when they could inspect.
Saddam's military fired on U.S. aircraft that were patrolling via UN sanction.
Saddam sponsored terrorism outside his country.
The human rights violations, mass murder and torture his regime oversaw were more than enough reason to go in and "fire" him -- it's interesting that you folks see nothing wrong with a brutal dictator getting away with all that, yet can make GITMO sound like a nazi concentration camp. To my way of thinking, Saddam's abuse of his own citizens would, by itself, have been a reason for liberating Iraq.
Regardless, however, of how you feel about our Iraq involvement, pulling out before we've completely stabilized the country and ascertained that the Iraqis can assure their own security would come back to bite an exponentially bigger chunk out of us than would sticking around and finishing the job.
So why not buck up, remember you're an American and support your country for a change?
The "karate moves" was my own contribution to your scenario.
I don't live in fear of being cornered by hatchet-wielding maniacs. But, I am quite comfortable that I can handle myself in sticky situations. There is no real reason for me to go into detail and explain why, but I can tell you that it has nothing to do with not being a Republican.
We won't stabilize Iraq. Bush has botched it so badly and it is too far gone now. Had he held Rumsfeld and Co. responsible for their huge mistakes years ago - instead of saying we were making progress - there may have been a different outcome. Now, it is a mess that we just need to extricate ourselves from.
Turkey is planning to invade Northern Iraq in order to put down Kurdish terror groups. Add that to the ever escalating civil war, and you can see that it is only getting worse.
IMO, Turkey has every right to go after the PKK, just as Israel has every right to go after Hamas and Hezbollah for the same reasons. I would hope, however, that the Turks coordinate their operations with the coalition so we don't see the mess it could become.
We can honestly call it a civil war when the participants are homogeneously Iraqis. At the moment, one side consists of al-Qaeda and a lot of foreign Muslims as well as Iraqis.
It is a failure. Plain and simple. There is no changing that fact. In the hands of a competent CIC, the outcome may very well have been different, but Bush is not a competent CIC.
Call it what you want. When Iraqi Shia are killing Iraqi Sunnis (mostly through the Sadr's Mehdi Army), and Iraqi Sunnis are killing Iraqi Shia, I call it a civil war. The Pentagon's latest report on the violence discusses the complexities of the war, but clearly points out that most of the killings and violence are a result of Iraqi on Iraqi violence. In fact, the Pentagon calls the majority of violence a civil war - but if you want to call it something else be my guest. The result is the same - Iraqis killing Iraqis.
Foreign fighters are responsible for very little of the total number of killings in Iraq. Again, just read what the Pentagon says about the civil war.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/mar/pentagon_iraq_report.pdf
The Turks are going to coordinate? Why? They didn't allow overflight rights and did not allow U.S. forces to stage and invade during the original invasion. What makes you think they care what we want them to do?
Also, thanks for the laugh about "the coalition." What coalition are you talking about? Why don't you just say the Turks should coordinate with the U.S.? Aside from the small contingent of British forces in southern Iraq (who will be withdrawn soon after Blair is gone), we are basically the only ones there.
We will see.
Haley's Comet...
Post a Comment
<< Home