Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Fred Thompson 2008 Again

A note to current supporters of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul: They have no chance. I'm thinking that supporters of these candidates would support Thompson before Romney or Huckabee. If that is the case, then you better get reasonable quick and throw your votes behind Thompson. Otherwise you will get neither McCain, nor Giuliani, nor Paul, but one of the other two, or a Democrat.

Think about it.

7 Comments:

Blogger Yuri Orlov said...

Good luck getting the Paulites to change sides. It's cultlike with them, with a fervor only matched by the black suit wearing, bicycle riding young men who only want to study the bible with me and leave me copies of The Watchtower.

1/01/2008 4:47 PM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

I have to admit that Fred's position on immigration would be as good as Ron Paul's, if Fred would add the proviso of eliminating birthright citizenship. Fred's position on the 2nd Amendment sounds good, but I read on Alphecca's blog some time ago that he voted for the Lautenberg amendment. From his National Security statement, it seems that he wants to continue the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So there's the most important difference. If you think that America should continue acting as the world's policeman, and that we can afford to continue acting as the world's policeman, then vote for Fred. If you'd prefer to concentrate on the defense of our own country (currently being invaded) and let foreigners handle their own affairs, then vote for Ron Paul.

1/03/2008 12:54 PM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

The more I listen to Paul the more I'm inclined to agree with him. However, I just don't know how practical his positions are, especially on foreign policy.

If we end up with a big RINO on the GOP ticket, and if Paul ran as an independent (but he sez he won't), I'd vote for him.

Also, out of curiosity, can you explain to me why it is that the lefty nutballs seem to like Paul? I live in a very liberal city, and there are Paul supporters everywhere, including some real weirdos. What's the deal?

1/03/2008 2:52 PM  
Blogger carnaby said...

I don't think it's so much being the world's policeman as it is finishing what we've started, and not leaving those folks to suffer a brutal Islamist dictatorship. We started the mess, I think we need to finish it.

1/03/2008 3:01 PM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

As to Ron Paul's appeal to lefties, it's probably his unequivocal position on the war. Only Ron Paul says that the war was a mistake from its inception, and that he would withdraw as quickly as possible if elected. I would shoot all the leftists in the country if allowed, but I do agree that the war was a mistake. The administration falsified intelligence about Saddam's WMDs, and has never stated a clear reason for the war.

As to finishing what we started, well, we didn't do it in Vietnam. We abandoned our Vietnamese allies to the tender mercies of the NVA. In Iraq, once again we're fighting insurgents indistinguishable from the "civilian" population we're protecting. Once again, the insurgents are supplied from and harbored in adjacent countries that we don't dare touch. The war in Iraq is Vietnam in the desert, and will end the same way.

As for the brutal Islamist dictatorship, that's our fault too. We could have left Iraq in the hands of a brutal, but secular, dictator. Regrattably, we allowed (or caused) him to be hanged.

Does anyone whose IQ exceeds room temperature (Celsius) really expect to create a democracy in Iraq? No Middle Eastern country has ever spontaneously evolved a Western-style democracy. The British left a replica of their government in Iraq in the 1920s, and we've seen what became of it. The same fate will befall the replica of the French government that we're creating. There's only one way to create a stable democracy in Iraq: replace the indigenous population with Americans. Nobody's really prepared to do that.

On the original topic, Fred doesn't seem to have a much better chance than Ron Paul, based on the results of the Iowa Caucuses.

1/04/2008 6:30 AM  
Blogger carnaby said...

"As to finishing what we started, well, we didn't do it in Vietnam. We abandoned our Vietnamese allies to the tender mercies of the NVA."

Yeah, thanks to Jane Fonda and the rest of the lefties you mentioned.

"Does anyone whose IQ exceeds room temperature (Celsius) really expect to create a democracy in Iraq?"

Probably not. But we can hope to achieve something better than what was there before, and what would come should we abandon them altogether.

I don't agree that the ware was based on falsified evidence. Heck, even Clinton admits that. I think Iraq's repeated refusal to abide by the terms of cease-fire of the first war were grounds enough.

1/04/2008 9:07 AM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

Hanoi Jane certainly should have been hanged for treason, but I don't think we can give her all the blame for the abandonment of Vietnam. It came down to a cost/benefit analysis. Most Americans came to understand that we grow all the rice we need in Louisiana, and control of Vietnam didn't really buy us anything.

Sooner or later, we'll leave Iraq. Left to their own devices, the Iraqis will subject themselves to one brutal dictator or another. They'll still need to sell petroleum or revert to the 7th century, so maintaining a nominally pro-American government in Iraq for a few more years at a cost of trillions of dollars will not have bought us anything.

1/04/2008 9:21 AM  

Post a Comment

Testing ...

<< Home