Thursday, May 10, 2007

Politics: Why I'm pulling for Fred Thompson.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not planning on voting for the guy; depending on who the Libertarians finally run, I'll be voting my conscience or for None Of The Above. However, of all the candidates and maybe-candidates announced so far who have a realistic chance of winning, he's my favorite because I can at least understand him. Hawkish, vaguely laissez faire fiscally, and socially conservative, I can mostly grok where he's coming from since that was the GOP stance during my adolescence. Plus, his Hollywood background should enable him to at least act presidential. I agree with him on maybe 35-40% of the issues, but compared to the rest of the field, we're downright sympatico.

Arranged against him in his own party are an array of ciphers, and a couple of neon pink RINOs who make Tip O'Neill look like Barry Goldwater. The Democrats, meanwhile, are offering me my choice of either one of several midgets from the neo-socialist peacenik Martian wing of the party, or the most amoral, power-hungry weathervane to wear a skirt in Washington since J. Edgar Hoover. Such choices.


The Old Man said...

The skirt statement would've earned you a file of your own in the Feeb files.
But it was damned hilarious. Thanks, T.

Tracy said...

Tam, I'm surprised you're not backing Ron Paul. I mean, we're either gonna get Hillary or McCain regardless, so why not back the best available candidate, whether we have any realistic hope or not?

Bonnie said...

My boyfriend seems to think that Ron Paul is the way to go. I'm going to research a bit more on a few other people. I don't feel I'm prepared to do more than write in "Snuffleupagus" on the ballot at this point.

Tam said...


You'll note I said "However, of all the candidates and maybe-candidates announced so far who have a realistic chance of winning, he's my favorite..."

Also, re-read the first sentence of my post.

Anonymous said...

I live in Ron Paul's district, and I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

Do your research, especially regarding the 11 year staff member (former military) who resigned his staff, upon realizing that Rep. Paul does not give a tinker's about the troops, only votes.

He's not a Republican, he's a "big-L" Libertarian running under "R" party cover, in a deeply conservative district.

The local conservative (non Clear Channel, btw) radio station (AM 700) is actively recruiting candidates to run against him in the next election.

Having me the man personally and in business, I can attest to this; I trust neither his handshake nor his word.

That 'bout sum it up?

Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Bill Tuttle said...

'He's not a Republican, he's a "big-L" Libertarian running under "R" party cover, in a deeply conservative district.'

Hmm, thats more of a recommendation than condemnation.

Gringo_Malo said...

I can't imagine why anyone would want to be president in the next term. The leading edge of the Baby Boom generation turns 65 in 2011, thereby becoming eligible for Medicare and full Social Security benefits. If our next prez tries to actually pay for all this by rasing taxes and/or cutting benefits, he'll be less popular than Jorge Arbusto is now. If he lets the Ponzi schemes run as before and tries to monetize the costs, he'll risk a financial meltdown. (I can't imagine that the foreigners who sell us all our oil and Wal-mart goodies are going to accept unlimited amounts of Monopoly money, can you?) I suppose that somebody's got to fill the job, but nobody who really wants it has two brain cells to rub together.

Rick C said...

Bill Tuttle, you like kooky "I won't get a driver's license" candidates who have no chance of getting elected, or, indeed, even getting enough of the vote to qualify for matching funds and the other perks?

Tam said...

rick c,

Are you voting or playing the ponies?

Bill Tuttle said...

Seeing as how Dr Paul has been elected multiple times and has been at the top of virtually every internet poll of republican candidates (MSNBC, ABC, etc.), I wouldn't call him "un-electable". Also as someone who is a strict constitutionalist and probably the only current member of congress to never have violated his oath of office, yeah, I plan to vote for him. There certainly isn't anyone else running on either the Rep or Demo side that I'd vote for.

Anonymous said...

"The local conservative (non Clear Channel, btw) radio station (AM 700) is actively recruiting candidates to run against him in the next election."

The republicans have been doing that for a while. Heck, the NRA endorsed Paul's Dem opponent even though I know of no more pro-gun candidate anywhere.


T said...

Yeah, that's it, Jim, KSEV AM 700 doesn't like Ron Paul so he must be bad. Considering how deeply in bed with the current Republican power structure in Houston all of the KSEV crew is, I wouldn't think that's a stinging rebuke. Oh noes, Ron Paul doesn't march in lockstep with the RNC! Stone him!

Ron Paul voted consistently against the war, which makes him teh debbil in the eyes of people Like Edd Hendee. Let's see: guy who consistently voted against the war on principle, or radio host who raises money to buy bombs? Hmm. Tough choice.

Strangely, he's still in Congress and the guys who run against him aren't.

pdb said...

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian or conservative. He's f'n bonkers.

Not an option.

SteveO said...

That's weird. Everything I've ever seen attributed to him made him look like a Reagan Conservative.

I suppose it's because he's only quoted (by authors I respect) when he says something that makes sense.

Cybrludite said...

And if "voting your conscience or for None Of The Above" results in a repeat of '06 and further Democrat gaiins? Half a loaf is better than President Hillary... I'd rather elect someone who agrees with me 65% of the time, especially if it's on the big issues, and win than vote for someone who agrees with me 100% who looses to someone I can't stand. I'll take what I can get rather than holding my breath until I turn blue & end up with nothing.

Jacob said...

Excellent analysis of the current crop of Democrat candidates.

Kevin said...

Cybrludite, in our case it isn't "half a loaf," it's "half a turd."

And yes, half a turd is better than the whole thing.

Anonymous said...

Response to "T".

Sorry, but in Rep. Paul's case, being a big "L" libertarian masquerading as a Republican in a deeply conservative district, ought to be a direct violation of Truth in Advertising laws.

Ron Paul is out there beating the "truther" drum. Loudly. You agree with Rosie O'Donnel? He does.

Barking effin' moonbat, nothing less.

If he is indeed a Libertarian, then dammit, let him (try) to run and win as one.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Myself, I'm a small "r" republican, with libertarian leanings, especially in terms of personal, social freedoms. But I don't mislead people about my affiliations.

I have had three encounters with Mr. Paul. Two personal, one professional. None redounded well to his standing with me. Most especially, in regards to his ethics or the worth of his word.

His standing among libertarians is largely due to the weight of his campaign literature and rhetoric. Look more deeply into the whole of his House voting record, and especially his speeches as recorded to the Congressional Record, and I think you just might change your tune.

Frankly, I size him up as a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and I'm being generous here.

He did make sense back in the olde days, about the Gold Standard and such.

But he's not the same Ron Paul these days, and if you think he is, then I'm sad for you.

Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX