Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Fred Thompson Nearly Out Of Gas Keeping true to his campaign, he's bringing back the Red Pickup and Ronald Reagan from the dead. He's begging for money to prop up his failed conservative bid in Iowa.by Bob Nightingale
(libertarian)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The race for President consists of money and ideas. Fred Dalton Thompson is falling short on both. As a conservative, he has not made the case that he is a better conservative than say, Duncan Hunter. Hunter at least has campaigned fiercely for the immigration issue, whereas Thompson sat on the sidelines until the last minute. Hunter's fence south of San Diego is proof that something got done. Thompson is not even in reruns now.
His latest letter to his followers aims to raise $248,846 in two days to air a commercial across Iowa. The graphic on his website shows a pickup truck and a tote board with about $59,000 at the time of this writing (12/26/07 11 p.m. EST).
Those of us following the Ron Paul campaign are extremely underwhelmed. Fred Thompson is credited with raising $12 million in the third quarter, and having almost $7 million cash on hand at that time. Since he didn't announce his eligibility for president until late in the summer, his third quarter numbers actually include all the money up to that point on Sep. 30. "Conservative" is supposed to include fiscally responsible. Where did all that money go?
I don't really care about Iraq, Iran, Iridium, Uranium or whatever. None of those people have hurt me directly. I don't have anything against Conservatives either. I like some of the same things that they do, such as the rule of law and making sure that the money I'm working for doesn't go worthless. However, if one really old politician and actor says he's like another even older and deader politician and actor, I'm not impressed. I'm more interested in what he will do, not who he resembles.
This campaign should first be about ideas. It's obvious that this country is headed in the wrong direction. The government is broke and broken. We've been lied to by both parties for years. I see politics as way to get rich if you don't have skills to do something else for a living.
I don't expect government to take care of me. My two regular interactions with government are the IRS and the motor desk. I go to family court whenever my ex-wife is being stupid. The rest of the time, I'd rather the government leave me alone.
I'd rather my church take care of poor and sick people, instead of the government. It makes me feel good to donate to those causes. Is that liberal or conservative, or just being American?
So when Fred Thompson brings up his old red truck to show he's one of us, it just reminds me that the high price of gas is a direct result of our failed foreign policies in the Middle East. Our endless wars have caused shortages. Our one-sided trade policies with Mexico does not give us the leverage necessary to tap into that huge oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico. We instead depend on supplies half way around the world. The high price of gas is also partly fueled by run-away inflation and out of control government spending. The fault lies with both liberals AND conservatives. I want them to own up to it and fix it.
Sorry, Fred. I already gave to the Doctor. Have a cup of tea.
Update (12/27/07 6:55 a.m. EST): His tote board now shows $67,411. That's about $8,000 in about 8 hours. At this pace, it will take over a week to reach the stated goal. Stick a fork in it. This campaign is done.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bob Nightingale only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bob Nightingale is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Fred's all about ideas. It'd be worth your while to check out his detailed proposals. I'll bet you didn't know that he's got a plan for fixing entitlements, implementing a flat tax & in stopping illegal immigration dead in its tracks.
It's time to do your due dilligence on Fred. I've known for years that he's a man of gravitas & ideas. It's time everyone else learned that, too.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-27 06:19:03
Gary says that Fred Thompson has a plan to fix entitlements. What exactly is his plan? The two, main Federal entitlements are Social Security and Medicare. Thompson's plan for Social Security is to put 2% of your social security tax into a private fund, matched by the government. This is supposed to cure the coming Social Security funding shortage in 2017. In fact, it does nothing to prevent the shortage but actually makes it come quicker. No one can opt out under the Thompson plan, but everyone kicks in slightly less money and the government matches that money out of general revenue funds. Yet, the Federal budget is already bloated. We can't even afford existing "entitlements," yet Thompson wants us all to be entitled to even more. Preposterous!
As for Medicare, Thompson has virtually avoided all mention of the word. When he does mention it, he skates over it like most of the other candidates do. For instance, in this video he talks about Medicare at length without making a single, specific proposal about it.
A flat tax (otherwise known as the mis-named "fair tax") is a non-solution to any problem other than the misery of having to fill out tax forms each year. It does, however, open the floodgates for massive tax increases in the years to come. It also conditions the population to accept "entitlements" by making sure that every American gets a check from the government every month to pay for groceries and rent. Oh, and by they way, let's not forget that it masquerades as a 23% sales tax when in fact it's a 30% sales tax...which, in my opinion, is fraudulent.
I have problems with the Flat Tax, even when Forbes proposed it years ago. Taxing is a side effect of excess spending. Marriage should be left to the church and families, not the government. I could go on.
He will need the support of Congress to make these sorts of changes. Congress won't respond unless there is a popular uprising, such as blocking of the immigration bill. McCain has figured that out and has changed some of his positions accordingly.
I have read the proposals of all the candidates. FDT started this election run far too late to make these issues his. Many of his points are embedded in the platforms of the higher polling candidates. For that reason, he doesn't get missed when he doesn't show up at a debate.
He only has seven days to beat his poll numbers. It's my opinion that he doesn't have the support to raise the cash necessary to keep campaigning.
If he's in the race past Michigan (Jan. 15), I'll honor him by writing a point-by-point hit piece. If he can't afford gas money, it won't matter.
The most telling part of the article is at the end when you give one option for a thumbs up. You wouldn't want to see all the support for Fred by adding a "thumbs down" to the article. How very unbiased of you!
Why do you care at this point if you aren't concerned about Fred? Why would you even go out of your way to spend your time writing about a guy that doesn't mean anything anymore if you weren't somewhat scared of Fred still?
Gary was right, you haven't even taken the time to really research Fred's ideas and proposals. He gets higher marks for his ideas, especially on immigration than any other candidate. That's why Tancredo's #1 advisor Bill Salier has chosen to hop aboard Thompson's campaign.
Were you just bored today? Didn't you have a few other candidates that are supposedly in the top tier that you could do hit pieces on? Again I ask, why are you writing about someone that you consider to not have a chance?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-27 08:02:38
C'mon Nick! You complain that the author didn't do any research. Well, I did some research (see my first comment two above yours), and Thompson clearly comes up short. Why don't you address the facts concerning his clear shortcomings? Take you own advice...do the research, and then write about it!
Good Grief, yet another Paul supporter taking a shot at the real Reaganite Republican. Quick question for all you Ron Paul supporters out there- Ron Paul says we need a more humble, less interventionist foreign policy, and he frequently cites the fact that he was sympatico with Ronald Reagan. Yet Reagan invaded Grenada, gave air cover and support to the Contras, bombed Libya, and put ICBMs right on the Russians' doorstep. Would Ron Paul consider this part of a more humble, less interventionist foreign policy? Or would he be blaming America first, just like he is today?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-27 08:37:32
Vince: if you saw Paul's Meet The Press interview last Sunday, you'll see that he was much more specific than what you're giving him credit for. The reason Paul cites Reagan is that people already know what Reagan stood for on the campaign stump. Paul agreed that Reagan's actual term in office was a disappointment compared to what he had promised on the campaign trail. Paul refers to himself as a Reagan Republican because he is referring to what Reagan promised, not what Reagan turned out to be.
The big difference between Paul and Reagan is that Paul would actually follow through on his promises. He has a whole history in Congress of doing that. Reagan can't claim that track record.
A useless, baseless article. The only fact you got right was the current fund raising campaign, and that only resulted in me making a donation!
And Walt, you didn't do any research because you don't have YOUR facts straight! Check out Fred's SS proposal: (Link Edited For Length)
He clearly states 1) the private fund is VOLUNTARY and 2) the key component to make it solvent is to index increases to wages instead of prices. Read the paper to see why that makes such a difference!
Paul is disappointed in Reagan? Well, that puts Reagan in pretty good company since Paul also thinks Lincoln did a lousy job!
Hey Walt- I saw the interview with Paul on MTP. While Paul makes some valid points with regards to domestic issues vis-a-vis the Constitution, when it comes to geopolitics, the man is completely ignorant. And it's very telling that you think that Ron Paul wouldn't have wanted to stand up to the Soviets the way Reagan did- you called him a "disappointment"???? You have got to be kidding. I can only thank God Ron Paul wasn't in charge back then - im sure he would have been calling for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Eastern Europe and other hotspots around the world, all the while blaming America first, whilst communism spread its tentacles around the globe.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-27 10:27:25
GM: your charge is ludicrous. Clearly, I must have done research, or else I could not have come up with the video link. Also, your charge that I ignored the fact that Thompson makes the 2% a voluntary choice as proof that I'm ignorant is truly not relevant. I readily admit that that is part of his program. But that does not in any way invalidate my critique. I pointed out that you can't opt out under Thompson's...and that's true. Having the right to accept or refuse participation in 2% of the tax is not even remotely close to opting out...nor does it have the same impact. Only by allowing people to opt out of Social Security completely can we possibly begin to transition away from it as an "entitlement." A 2% option to place funds in a private account doesn't qualify....not by a long shot! It only accelerates the inevitable while doing nothing to actually solve the problem.
I also see that Vince believes the propaganda that says Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Sorry Vince, but your reading of history is simply inaccurate. The Soviet Union collapsed because of decades worth of over-spending and internal decay, not because Reagan "stood up" to them. There's also little doubt that Paul would have stood up to them (for what it was truly worth), your false inference notwithstanding. The difference is that Paul would have done so without contributing to the bankrupting this country in the process. That's a notable difference.
In case you didn't notice, communism DID spread its tentacles world-wide. That's exactly what the Vietnam War was about, remember? The old, now discredited Domino Theory. Once Vietnam fell, the rest of Southeast Asia would also fall to communism, and this would be a catastrophe. Except that once it happened, it was no catastrophe. When we pulled out of Vietnam, the entire region did turn communist And the catastrophe? Well, we're still waiting for that to happen. Don't hold your breath. Meanwhile, communism continues to collapse, while Southeast Asia becomes more and more of a trading partner with the U.S. So much for the Domino Theory!
Walt- the only "propaganda" here is the propaganda that the Left has promulgated about Reagan that you have fallen for- hook, line, and sinker.
Perhaps you need to reassess YOUR version and interpretation of history, because I find it severely wanting.
And perhaps YOUR candidate should completely disassociate himself from the legacy of Ronald Reagan, becuase he clearly doesn't agree with Reagans INTERVENTIONIST policies, which were his signature achievements.
I am a huge proponent of Fred Thompson and think he is largely misunderstood primarily because of his lack of openess with the press. He is very guarded at times but for good reason. What has been the result poor attention to his campaign. Granted, he did get in later than the others and time will tell if it was too late.
For those that fail to see what he stands for first and foremost (Federalism), please try to learn more about what Fedaralism is and realize that our founding fathers meant for the powers of the Federal Government to be limited. Understand that all of Fred's beliefs are based on this notion. He is a man of principle not a man that simply has a stance on an issue. This is strong leadership. Will he be the nominee? Nobody knows. Look for a piece by me in the coming days before the caucus defending Fred's campaign. He is the clear conservative and at the very least has given us a picture of what the right candidate should look like on the issues (principle-based). Fred has quietly garnered support by being himself. I will say to Ron Paul's credit he takes the same approach as Fred, and deosn't compromise himself or his beliefs for political gain, you have to give him credit for this.
He is similar to Fred in that regard but polar opposite on many issues because they differ in principle. The problem with Libertarians is they lack a consistent set of principles that can be accumulated into a fluid platform. If this Libertarian site achieves anything it should be moving closer to that end.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-27 16:31:07
Publius:
I'm glad to see you have set up an account here at the Nolan Chart, and I look forward to reading what you decide to publish about Fred Thompson. The site is currently dominated by libertarians, but the intent of the site is to involve people from all political viewpoints, not just libertarians. I say that as the founder and webmaster of the site.
I also applaud the open spiritedness of your comment about Thompson and Paul.
I do have one question for you, based on your comments. You wrote, "The problem with Libertarians is they lack a consistent set of principles that can be accumulated into a fluid platform." My question is this: do you mean that principles should be fluid?
My understanding is that principles don't change because there is no need for them to change. If by principles-as-fluid you mean ideas that metamorph from their original and adapt to any new situation by adopting a new form that contradicts the original, then I'm afraid you are not only going to be disappointed, but you are also sadly mistaken. True principles are timeless. They span the centuries and withstand the test of time, which is an important test as to whether a concept is truly a principle.
If you mean something else by your use of the words "principle" and "fluid" in the same sentence, then I believe you are going to have to elaborate your meaning.
Regardless of which meaning you apply to your use of these terms, I think you will find over time that libertarian principles are far more consistent than you currently realize. In fact, you may find that your own principles are the ones that are in conflict with each other. It shall be interesting to see how all this plays out.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
