June 14, 2007
Kirby Wilbur on Fred Thompson
Kirby Wilbur added a constructive comment at #40 in this thread on Fred Thompson :
Eric, I'm sure the fact that George Will, whom I admire greatly, has endorsed one of Fred's opponents, didn't in any way color any of his comments about Fred. And, not all of the Republican candidates have been thouroughly vetted yet by the mainstream press. The fact is that none of the big three or less-than-magnificent seven have wowed the grass roots enough that there is no room for another credible candidate. Fred will be standing and contending long after many of the current crop, including at least one of not two of the big three are no longer in the arena. Count on it.
Now here's a comment from a Fred enthusiast I agree with for the most part. I concur Thompson is a "credible candidate," at minimum filling a void perceived by the grassroots, and who is likely to still be competitive even after others in the "Big Three" may falter. Wilbur and I would likely agree John McCain may well be the first casualty the way the campaign is unfolding, though obviously much can change.
I could quibble with a couple points though. My understanding was George Will gave a glowing introduction of Rudy Giuliani at CPAC, not that he endorsed him. I get Wilbur's point, though I think proven pundits like Will generally have enough ability to be intellectually serious in looking at assorted candidates regardless of their personal preference. Either way, I thought Will's column was harsh, whatever the merits, and said so.
I'd also argue that while Wilbur is correct that none of the candidates have been "thouroughly [sic] vetted yet by the mainstream press," the Big Three have all received a high level of scrutiny, even if there are other topics yet to explore. The campaign still has a long way to go after all. Even at that, the blogosphere has also had much to say about Giulani, McCain, and Romney. They may not be thoroughly vetted, but it's not as if we don't have a good idea of their strengths and weaknesses as candidates. That's more than we know about Thompson at this point.
Regardless of those minor points, I appreciate Wilbur joining the discussion and generally agree with what he said.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 14, 2007
07:34 AM | Email This
1. Fred Thompson is probably the Republicans' best chance at retaining control over the executive branch. You guys should be praying for the Democrats to nominate Hillary for 2008.
Fred refuses to officially announce so he doesnt have to debate his opponents or particpate in the process he is quick to criticise.
Fred refuses to field questions from reporters or even his own supporters.
Karl Rove, who is the mastermind behind the amnesty bill is the one pulling strings and stiff arming people into showing support for Fred.
Matlin/Carville is sending Thompson to Israel and London this month to pas his resume and make it appear Fred has foreign affairs experience, when in reality, he doesn't.
Fred was for abortion before he was against it depending on who is standing in fron of him at the time.
Fred was for Mcain/Feingold before he was against it.
Fred, after working hand in hand lobbying with Harold Fickes, a Bill Clinton insider, Fred voted NO to impeach Clinton.
Fred is a globalist.
Fred is a lobbyist.
Fred is a dirty ol man with a fetish for young girls.
This is just the begining and this is all really know about the guy. I predect that more we know about Fred, the less people will support him. It is however, interesting to see SoCons twist themselves into a pretzel trying to sell this guy as the SoCon candidate (read: savior) when he is anything but that.
That was a good decent criticism of Mr. Will.
Even George, the true expert, is being blown off course by the warm southern winds of Fred Thompson. The man shows he is smarter than all the Wills. He has almost won the race and hasn't even paid the entry fee.
He get's bruised some but he is a big boy and had that factored in his scheme.
As a boost to Fred and a slap to Will, look at the special anouncement Friday on MyManFred.com
George made a mistake he will regret. I still think George is a great entertainer however.
Fred is a joke! He cant win, which is why the coward wont announce. He is scared to answer questions and be put under the same scrutiny as the other candidates.
Not to mention he is in remission. Do we really want to elect a guy that might die before his term is up? I sure dont.
Fred is a joke! He cant win, which is why the coward wont announce. He is scared to answer questions and be put under the same scrutiny as the other candidates.
Not to mention he is in remission. Do we really want to elect a guy that might die before his term is up? I sure dont.
Jim Robinson said:
"Fred is a dirty ol (sic) man with a fetish for young girls."
Heck, I'M a dirty old man with a fetish for young girls! Who doesn't enjot a little "eye candy" now and again? Why the hostility, Jim?
Because he caught one?
You know, if Thompson can pull it off, it will because he can talk to the people, not because of his experience or lack of it. If, at the end of the day, we can look him in the eye and say he is our leader, then he will win. If not, then he won't.
He is announcing in 3 weeks, so we will start to know then. Too early to call, though.
8. Here is a thought, Fred Thompson has not yet announced, but look at all the media exposure he has gotten and it is all FREE. How much have the other candidates on both sides spent campaigning already? Fred is competing with them and running neck and neck in most polls and he has not even had to spend a dime to date. This is going to be a really interesting campaign.
9. Anybody can find fault with anybody. I'm sure Mr. Thompson will be picking out more than one barb but as Richard Nixon once said, "I have a theory that in the United States those who seek the Presidency never win it. Circumstances rather than a man's ambition determine the result. If he is the right man for the right time, he wil be chosen". Fred Thompson will be the right man for the right time primarily because of the deficit in the candidate pool of both parties.
WOW look at all these Ron Paul supporters just twisting them self's up over Thompson.
Can he win or help the REP party, heck we don't know yet. But I'm getting a big kick out of watching the Libs & wackos going nuts!
Makes you wonder why they are so afarid of him?
Remeber Clinton was a no-body and he won.
Eric said: "They may not be thoroughly vetted, but it's not as if we don't have a good idea of their strengths and weaknesses as candidates. That's more than we know about Thompson at this point."
But we can count on you to continue your Thompson vetting process.
I wonder if his shoes wear out before his shoelaces do. Another interesting question that must be answered before we even consider him being of Presidential timber.
12. If any of the anti-Fredheads actually followed the political process they'd know that the REQUIRED Quarterly filings of fundraising activites is end-of-June (that's a quarter of a year for those who are finding this hard to follow.)Therefore, a July announcement begins the true fundraising task. Up until then, it gives him time to put his organization into place.
John, yeah, there are many reasons to hold off. That's one of them. Also Fred brought up a very good pair of points on Leno: he is gaining ground without actually running, and it is hard to look good on stage with 10 other people (especially when they are doing that raise-your-hand nonsense), so what's the rush?
I thought Fred had to announce before the initial debates to have a chance. I was wrong. (For those who think I never admit I am wrong, here's your counterevidence!)
Unfortunately, campaigns take money. Is Thompson too late to the campaign money trough? Some say they have been waiting for the announcement. We'll see.
And Mr. Williams, I think the Rs have the strongest list of candidates in my lifetime. I could easily vote for any of them, except Paul and Tancredo. Next week, we can add Huckabee, Hunter (my favorite) and Gilmore to that list.
With Thompson in the race, as far as I am concerned, no one has "sealed" the deal. That will happen after Christmas.
Why Duncan but not Tancredo? Just curious. I know the prevailing wisdom is that Tancredo is a one-issue candidate.
As for Thompson, I am not sold. Not by any stretch. The GOP is so desperate for a "new" Reagan, they are beginning to reach for someone who just "sounds" good. But as others have pointed out, Thompson's record and positions are hardly ideal. With Reagan you KNEW what you were getting, with the top tier candidates, all you get is wishy-washy.
I think the longer the immigration Shamnesty bill stays alive, the more that McCain will sink due to his strong support of something that's extremely unpopular with the GOP base
I haven't heard much from Guliani or Romney on the topic. Either they're staying quiet (don't want to alienate voters on one hand, and Big Money on the other) or I'm just not paying close enough attention (which is entirely possible.)
Thompson's statements on this issue-"Secure the border, enforce the law," is concise, simple, and has resonated with the voters, and I think it's a big reason he's doing so well in the polls.
Hey, Blazer, I did say next week that Hunter is "out" in my book.
Hunter has been good on national defense and speaks much more clear than Tancredo on immigration.
18. FRED??? The Dems are drooling over the possibility of facing Fred. Hillary could probably beat the old man who has some very questionable ties to some very bad people his firm lobbied for. Maybe he can't be directly tied, but campaigns have a way of making things fuzzy i.e. Swiftboaters - that worked.
19. Rocketdog, yawn. Hillary has even closer ties to even worse people. No, they don't want to face Fred. Fred is too much of an unknown. The Dems want McCain to win; of the top four, he's by far the most vulnerable.
DOG, Thompson is younger than the Hildebeast, isn't he? She just hasn't been shy about hiding her looks and poor hygiene. Remember the pictures of her the first few days in the Senate before she hired a nanny type hair stylist.
And someone recently commented that Clinton looked 'babelicious' at the last debate. Not bad for a 60 something.
Swiftboat wasn't fuzzy at all? Kerry still has refused to release the full records.
Fred Thomspon, 2008 = Wesley Clark 2004.
Clark looked good on TV and people went bonkers. Thompson is on TV all the time (but doesn't look good) and people are going crazy over him just the same. It all will fade. A southern drawl and a gig on Law and Order does not a President make.
22. George Will has not "endorsed" Giuliani (which would be an odd thing for a columnist to do), but he's certainly made his sympathies clear. Kirby's point is well taken, and Will's nicely timed attack on Thompson should be taken with an entire shaker of salt.
AD: nope. The reason Thompson is where he is is because people know about him and his views. The LEAST interesting thing about Thompson, to those of us who have been interested in supporting him, are his acting and accent. It's his ability to communicate conservative principles, his adherence to those principles, his work with the NTI, his strong work as a Senator, and so on that we are interested in.
Feel free to dislike him or think he won't make a good President, but it is foolish to ignore the reasons why he actually became popular in the first place.
Fred Thompson is a neocon globalist not unlike McCain.
Although Fred Thompson is tougher than McCain and Giuliani on border enforcement, which isn't saying much seeing how they line up with Barack Obama, he had a rather lackluster record on immigration while in the Senate. As one commentator notes: "Overall, Americans for Better Immigration gives [Thompson] a career grade of C; on chain migration, C; visa lottery, C-; reducing unnecessary visas, F; on reducing asylum fraud, C-; on reducing amnesties, D; and on interior enforcement, C+. Although he was tough on border control, he was lacking in almost every other area."
Fred Thompson also supports affirmative action, and ideologically worships free trade, regardless how much it harms America. Historically, conservatives have opposed free trade, but Thompson, like others, has been "neoconned" into backing it.
He furthermore is a "fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the largest (and most sinister) neocon think-tanks, which demonstrates where his true loyalty lies. If you did not receive the Burkean memo, the transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Jacobin, not conservative. There is not a single thing conservative about the membership of AEI. They are neocon / neoliberal globalists.
Why are neoncons backing Thompson? Ideally, being ex-Trotskyites themselves, neocons would prefer a liberal candidate, like McCain, Giuliani or Romney. But they see that conservatives deplore these candidates, and now are going to try to peddle Fred Thompson, who is just socially conservative enough and just tough enough on the borders, even if it is feigned, to woo naive GOP voters. But let's hope this nefarious neocon plot fails.
Let's pray that the more real conservatives learn about Fred Thompson, the more unacceptable he will appear. Use your BRAIN America, and not fall for sharply dressed, full set of 'sexy' hair (Romney/Edwards), nor for someone who 'Acts' on TV.
A Dean of a College I know was touting a large RUDY sign. I asked him why Rudy, and he said, "Because he's from MY state...I gotta support the home team!". This guy has a MASTERS DEGREE and TEACHES! He has no friggin clue. I encourage all of you to not vote on 'popularity' but rather on who is the best candidate for the job. Fred Thompson will KEEP US IN IRAQ FOR A LONG LONG TIME according to his Fox News interview. Please research for yourselves America. It should make you puke if you truely knew who some of these people are.
25. The one thing I think everyone is discounting is how much the conservative base hates Hillary Clinton. They will have 90 year old men in wheel chairs who haven't voted in five elections making their nurses take them to the polls. She will mobilize the right unlike anything we have ever seen. Fred, on the other hand, is seen, obviously by the posts here, as a flash in the pan and no real threat to the Democratic Party. Their base will fail them again.
IMO it still feels like a lot of people are focused too much on the 50-yard line instead of the goal; i.e.:
Who will win the (R) nomination, instead of who can best beat whoever of Hillary-Obama-Edwards-(outside-shot)-Gore in the General.
First let me note that I like a lot of what Rep. Duncan Hunter has done and said: He is one of the most knowledgeable people in D.C. on defense issues, and (as was already mentioned) has a rational, well-thought-out position on border security. But (sadly) I don't see Hunter being able to win over half of the independent vote, which is what ANY (R) candidate for Pres is going to need to do in 2008.
And right now trying to be as objective as possible, I don't see Fred Thompson being able to win over half the independents either. IMO Guiliani-Romney-McCain still have the edge in that critical arena; regardless of what else can or cannot be said about each of them.
27. Fred Thompson is a neocon globalist not unlike McCain.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
I don't see Fred Thompson being able to win over half the independents either. IMO Guiliani-Romney-McCain still have the edge in that critical arena; regardless of what else can or cannot be said about each of them.
I'm not supporting anyone right now, and I'm very sceptical of Fred for a variety of reasons, but I think you have a very unusual view of him. His imposing looks and down-to-earth manner could sell very well in a national campaign, and he's been well liked in movies. He's certainly got a decent chance to win over Independents, certainly no less so then Romney.
NATHAN LAHUE: well, no, Thompson is not a neocon. Are you honestly going to play "guilt by association"? And if so, how do you explain his years of work with the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which has been highly critical of AEI and neoconservatives?
Of course, AEI is characterized by far more than its predominantly neoconservative foreign policy. Foreign policy makes up a very small portion of what AEI does, and much of the rest is quite conservative.
How about you look at what Fred has produced for AEI and say what it is you disagree with, instead of playing silly association games? Maybe start with this piece, where he explicitly rejects what many consider to be neoconservative domestic policy, in favor of the canonical conservative view of federal power?
Whoever has the best chance of beating the Democrats!
I find it interesting to watch the heavy criticism of Fred. There are many easy shots to say his strategy won't work, etc. but it is a different and interesting strategy, and he presents a very compelling image. Americans can be very seduced by a compelling image. And especially one that seems to be a bit different and more honest than the current crop of political faces.
If I had to bet money right now, I'd put a fair amount on Fred. This just might work.
But as I said above, the only thing that matters is stopping the Democrats. We can fight all other battles within the Republican party. The candidates on the Left present a truly game changing and destructive philosophy that will severely damage the USA.
PS- For those still hanging on to McCain, I hate to break it to you, but he's done.
30. I don't know if McCain is done. People said the same about Kerry. He is in serious trouble, though.
Fact: The war is unpopular. 60% oppose the war. 70% think we need a new direction in the middle east.
Nine of the ten Rep. Pres. Candidates endorse the war.
Only one, US Rep. Ron Paul (R TX) is a true conservative who voted against the war. Not even Hillary can boast that!!!
Ron Paul is the only R nominee the D's have any fear of.
R's have a choice:
Nominate a pro-war candidate and lose
Nominate Ron Paul and have a chance at winning.
McCain is an authoritarian who loves big government.
Romney is for socialized medicine.
Giuliani is pro-war and pro-choice
Only Ron Paul provides a fiscally conservative alternative to the above party hacks.
But the R's will lose in '08.
And the D's will increase taxes and implement socialized medicine even faster than the R's have.
I'll probably be voting Libertarian again.
Bruce Guthrie: you are delusional
. Ron Paul has not the slightest chance of winning. Fine, 60 percent oppose the war. But far more than 60 percent are in favor of federal funding for at least some of the many programs Paul wants to cut, not to mention his opposition to abortion and pretty much all gun control.
If being against the war were enough to win the election, then Dennis Kucinich would be the Democratic candidate. Come to think of it, Kucinich probably has a better chance than Paul does, because almost all Democrats will vote for Kucinich, but many Republicans wouldn't vote for Paul.
Again, I like Paul. I agree with many of his stances (though not on Iraq, where I believe he is very shortsighted). But a rational person cannot look at him and think he has a chance of winning. Who do you think you're kidding here?
Pudge, I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul has a chance of getting the R nomination, indeed, my last line "I'll probably be voting Libertarian again" tells you that.
All I'm saying is that if enough Republicans got behind Ron Paul, they could stand a chance of winning in November. But I don't go so far as to suggest it is likely to happen.
I'm also pointing out that the "far sighted" policy you endorse in Iraq is quite unpopular. Whomever gets the R nomination for president will quickly beat a path to the center on this issue in order to be competitive in November. In doing so, he will leave such an awful taste of hypocrisy in your mouth that you will wish you'd endorsed an honest conservative instead of a political hack.
I don't think the Republican Iraq polcy has any chance of working, even in 100 years of trying, and I'd like to point out that I have been publicly opposed to the Iraq war since my campaign for US Congress in the 2nd District in 2002. My incumbent Democratic opponent has a lot in common with the likely Democratic candidate for President: he supported the war and the USA PATRIOT Act.
This is why Ron Paul is the only hope for a partisan R victory in November of '08. He's a real threat to the pro-war Democrats like Hillary.
So far not a single solitary one of you has hit on the key to Fred's appeal.
A clue: What 20th century president does Fred Thompson most resemble physically? Answer below.
Fred right now is the anti-candidate, and people want that. They're tired of people wanting to be president and lusting after it like so many teenaged boys in the back seat of dad's car with a prom date who absolutely resists his overtures because her daddy taught her better, Hillary excepted...maybe.
He's in no hurry, and that has a soothing effect upon people. You get the sense that an adult is in charge who doesn't get all worked up; we don't see him sweat.
But we do see him get pissed as he did in the You Tube video countering Comrade Michael Moore, who happens to be in town right now. Fred didn't go ballistic, but he did stare that fat, flatulent "film maker" down and take at him like the father of the prom date girl who gets a little mussed up by her slobbering date.
"You've made your one your one mistake, boy, but let's just say you best not show your face to me again. And lest there be any misunderstanding? You look cross-eyed at my daughter again and you'll wish for death in so many ways as to tax your imagination. You hearin' me, boy?"
Boy gets the message and tells other boys not to mess with daughter.
Much of politics is symbolic, and nothing more sore than the presidency. FDR, JFK, and Reagan intuitively understood this, and this is where the comparison, primarily to Ronaldus Maximus Reaganus, takes hold and bears fruit.
To the majority of the vox populi, the medium is the message, as Marshall McLuhan said decades ago, not the picayune details that wonks like us fixate on. We suffer from the same disconnect as Washington politicos, only ours is local in nature. What we think resonates with the people t'ain't necessarily so.
So...Fred's on to something that the others can't handle or emulate for reasons unique to them. And Fred covers enough base bases to be able to hit for the cycle. That he's not running a traditional campaign proves he's forward looking while grounded in our common traditions.
Fred's a winner...
Now...the answer to the look alike question? Fred is about as close to a dead ringer for Ike as anyone out there, and after sixteen-years of tumultuous presidents - Clinton and Bush - what the country hungers for is a grandfatherly, take charge, calm personality ala Fred Thompson.
That he's got a hotty wife simply shows he's not taking the Ike comparison to ridiculous extremes; we don't need another Mamie.
Don't discount the value of symbols and perception. Those who do lose elections.
Bruce Guthrie: I was not talking about the Republican nomination either. That should have been perfectly clear from my post: I was talking about people liking his view on the war, but disliking his views on abortion and deregulation and gun control. But the GOP voters primarily are the opposite: they dislike his view of the war, but like his views on abortion and deregulation and gun control.
I am saying, specifically, that Paul cannot possibly win the general election. Any other Republican candidate has a far better chance than Paul does, despite their unpopular stance on the war. I know the Republican view of the war is unpopular. But there are other issues. Romney or Thompson or Giuliani or McCain will not lose merely because they support the war, and Paul won't win despite opposing it.
You may remember from our last discussion on this site, I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party, and I espouse many of the ideals you do. I agree with Paul on many, many things, but I am not blind to think that the views I share with him are popular. They, in fact, are not.
Paul wants to significantly limit the authority of the FDA, if not abolish it outright, for crying out loud. I am not saying that's a bad thing. I am saying that sort of view will kill him. All his Democratic opponent would have to do is parade pictures of kids who died from food that wasn't inspected, and the race would be over before it began.
As to your opinion that the current Iraq policy can't work, well, I hope you don't take offense when I say your opinion on the matter is no more well-informed than mine, and I believe it can work. And whether or not it does work, I still think we're likely to be better off than we would have been had we never tried (and that goes for the entire Iraq war).
It doesn't matter who the GOP nominates for President in 2008.
Really. It's too late.
37. FOR FREE, QUALITY INDEPENDENT NEWS THAT DOES NOT IGNORE GLOBALIZATION AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO CFR INFILTRATION, VISIT http://www.sandersresearch.com
Most of the candidates are backed by the money of David Rockefeller in one way or another, and that money is being spent for the purpose of pushing forward the agenda for One World Government, which will greatly benefit international corporations.
All of these candidates are members of Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which advocates One World Government --
Fred Thompson (also member of the pro-war American Enterprise Institute)
39. Chris Romney: again, guilt by association is boring. Not everyone affiliated with CFR advocates one world government.
40. Fred Thompson is boring. He is from the Bush wing of the Republican Party, he hasn't done anything. Please ... he will completely implode. The only reason he has any support is that all the Bushies (folks working for the current adminstration) are scrambling to avoid getting kicked out of their jobs next election and have latched onto him as he is the next most incompetent guy sort of in the race. Fred is their man - if you love Bush, you'll love Fred.
John McDonald: shrug. I don't think Thompson is boring. He is not from the Bush wing of the party, quite clearly: he is for limited government, and Bush is for expanding government. Two completely different philosophies. And Thompson has done a lot: start with looking into the NTI and the ACNAB.
May I suggest you don't really know much, at all, about Thompson?
(For those who think I never admit I am wrong, here's your counterevidence!)
Hell just froze over!!!!
I have to agree with Guthrie. A Pro war candidate is not going to win in 08. The democrats realize this and slowly changing their tune in regards to the war. The R's instead are rushing full speed ahead torwards their destruction and laughing at their only chance at salvation.
Ron Paul is anti pork spending so is most all of america. Ron Paul is against the patriot act. So is most of america. Ron Paul is against universal health care. So is most of america. Ron Paul is for a balanced budget. So is most of america.
44. Also I have to strongly disagree with Kirbys comment that no candidate has a strong grassroots effort yet. The Ron Paul Revolution has thousands in every city. In addition to all the volunteers, I think america will be shocked when they see how much money and how many donors he has come July 1st!
Travis: we won't know until it happens. I hope the Democrats agree with you, because it will make the GOP's job easier. But it is extremely unlikely that you're right.
Let's look at history. Nixon wasn't antiwar, but he was against how the war was being waged, and he wanted to find a resolution to it. Sounds a lot like McCain (except, of course, that McCain is not from the opposition party).
Also, I was not attacking Bruce's unknowable claim that no pro-war candidate can win. I was attacking his ludicrous claim that Ron Paul has a chance of winning. Even being pro-war, any GOP candidate has a much better chance than Ron Paul of winning.
You mention pork and health care: the polls on both issues are varied. Yes, people don't want to pay for them, but they also like it when they get it, and don't want it taken away if it is given. And of course, that ties directly to a balanced budget: people say they want it, but only until their pet projects are cut. As to the Patriot Act, not 1 in 100 actually knows WHY they are against it.
But I notice you left out that he wants to abolish the FDA and FCC. When porn is piped in over their antennas and kids are dying from tainted beef, you think Paul will be popular then? You think the Dems won't convince voters that's what will happen?
Plus, we saw in 2006 what happened when the GOP base doesn't come out and vote. That's what would happen if Paul was the nominee. No Democrats would vote for him, and almost no moderates. About half the Republicans would stay home, all the Libertarians would vote for him, and he'd be lucky to pull in 30 percent of the vote nationwide.
Every other Republican candidate would win at least 40 percent of the vote.
I have a better chance of becoming President in 2008 than Ron Paul does. I turn 35 next year, so I'll even be legal!
I am amazed that the lesson you get from 2006 is that republicans must not stay at home for election. Look one step further and ask yourself why so many republicans stayed at home. The war is not as popular even amongst republicans than the party elite think. The PATRIOT act is not as popular as the party elite think. There is a large portion of the republican base that is not going to vote for another big government war promiting republican. That is what the other 9 candidates are offering us.
Ron Paul is offering a conservative message that will get republicans back into the voting booth. IN addition Ron Paul is giving the strongest anti war anti-patiot act message which will get independants and democrats regardless of whether they know why they oppose the patriot act.
Travis: please do not misrepresent what I said. I never said that I learned a lesson, and I never said that was the lesson I learned.
I simply stated it as a fact: Republicans were angry at the Republican Party, and stayed home in large numbers. And it is a fact you apparently concede, so what's your problem?
And of course, you're also misrepresenting the "other 9 candidates" by saying they are all in favor of "another big government war," which is something you have no way of knowing, and even guessing they all would, with the available evidence, is clearly unreasonable.
You, like Doug Parris et al, incorrectly think the Republican Party itself is comprised primarily of true conservatives who support the basic tenets of the Libertarians. It's not true. The grassroots does, probably, but not the voters at large. Huge numbers of Republicans would not vote for Ron Paul, and almost no Democrats or independents (except for Libertarians) would either.
He has literally no chance of winning. Sorry.
Haha. Pudge... You were quite clear when you said, "we saw in 2006 what happened when the GOP base doesn't come out and vote" that you do not think the GOP leaders did anything wrong. But if I somehow misrepresented you, it was certainly less than you proceeded to do by stating that I misreprsent the other 9 candidates by saying they are in favor of another big war. I have never said that. I correctly have stated that they are in favor of the current big wars we have going on now. You then proceed to assume that I am like some guy named doug paris.
I do not think that the republican party is comprised of primarily libertarian leaning supporters. I do however think that most voters want to end the war (polls back this up). Are opposed to the Patriot act (polls back this up). Are opposed to the current level of taxes (polls back this up). All of which Paul is the best candidate.
I also believe that most GOP activists as of a few months ago are actually far less libertarian than the average voter. The GOP has over the past 20 years pushed most libertarian/constitutionalist out of the rank and file. They are however coming back to support Ron Paul.
49. You were quite clear when you said, "we saw in 2006 what happened when the GOP base doesn't come out and vote" that you do not think the GOP leaders did anything wrong
That could not be more false. Your analysis doesn't even make sense. Indeed, I've stated many times that the reason the GOP base stayed home is because they were angry at the GOP leadership (mostly in DC, but also at the state level).
But if I somehow misrepresented you, it was certainly less than you proceeded to do by stating that I misreprsent the other 9 candidates by saying they are in favor of another big war. I have never said that.
Well, yes, you did:
There is a large portion of the republican base that is not going to vote for another big government war promiting republican. That is what the other 9 candidates are offering us.
Perhaps your spelling error (I still don't know what "promiting" is supposed to mean in this context) confused me: maybe the word "another" is modifying "republican" and not "big government war." Please be more clear next time.
You then proceed to assume that I am like some guy named doug paris.
In that you both have the same incorrect assumption about the GOP, yes, you are like Doug Parris.
I do not think that the republican party is comprised of primarily libertarian leaning supporters. I do however think that most voters want to end the war (polls back this up).
Not the Republican base, no. The Republican base is the one segment that clearly doesn't want to end the war (not prematurely, anyway: I've wanted to end the war since late 2003, but only when the conditions are right, and while I dislike that it's taken so long and the conditions still aren't right, I won't let emotions cloud my judgment).
Are opposed to the Patriot act (polls back this up).
Not really, no, they don't. Again, we are talking about the Republican base, which supports the Patriot Act. Further, the polls are useless, since 99 out of 100 people cannot name a single valid point against the Patriot Act. (Can you?)
Are opposed to the current level of taxes (polls back this up).
Sure, but so what? The Republicans have cut taxes significantly since taking office, both since 1994 and 2000.
All of which Paul is the best candidate.
And polls also show people don't want to abolish federal oversight of food safety, Social Security, Medicare, and a host of other programs which makes Paul, quite clearly, the WORST candidate.
Anyone who thinks Paul could possibly win the general election (assuming the other candidate doesn't die or get hit by scandal) is completely delusional. If I were the Democratic rival, I would just parade pictures of sick or dead kids in front of the cameras and say "these kids got sick or died because of a lack of federal regulation of our food supply, and if Ron Paul becomes President, more kids will get sick and die."
Or if that's too rough, just parade pictures of grandmas and grandpas who would be unable to pay for their food, housing, heating, and medicine once Paul abolished Social Security and Medicare.
Paul cannot win, and no one sane thinks he can.
I also believe that most GOP activists as of a few months ago are actually far less libertarian than the average voter.
More delusion. The average voter wants MORE government programs and government control, not less. The average Republican, of course -- and far moreso, the Republican activists -- want LESS.
Americans have been bombarded by the war negative press. Polls merely report the press status, like a score sheet. And th polling questions are misleading. Many people are against the war are actually for greater more deliberate action and feel that the current war policy ties the hands of the troops serving in Iraq.
Public sentiment will change dramatically as events in the middle east unfold over the upcoming months.
What will the impact be if another attack on American soil is successful?