Well, folks, I can't help myself. This is supposed to be primarily a theological blog, etc., but it also gets personal sometimes, as you know. And political here and there, which drives some of you nuts. But that, I believe, is part of what blogs are about, saying what's on your mind. And I have to say, I'm really thrilled about this Fred Thompson guy.
I was toying with the idea of taking an hour drive up to Davenport today to meet him, and I should have, because my son Peter did, and was thoroughly impressed. It was a rather small gathering, as he was en route to New Hampshire. Count me jealous. I should have gone. Nuts.
Fred Thompson is the most exciting candidate for president I've seen since . . . well, since Ronald the Great himself. Finally, another guy who not only gets it, but knows how to communicate it.
You can check out his announcement here.
The planets are aligned perfectly. Nobody's too excited about the Republican lineup, and even less (than nobody?) is excited about the Demoncratic contenders. The field is wide open: people are all kind of jittery about Hillary (Democrats too, I think: they have to know that she's as Machiavellian as they get, and that's scary). People are also less than thrilled about the Republican hopefuls, none of which seems to be, both socially and politically, a true conservative.
Cue Fred on the white horse. Or is that a pickup truck, like the one he used to win in Tennessee? Yes, Tennessee, you know, the state where Al Gore's own energy-guzzling home is. He once won a senate seat there, and handily.
People complain that he upstaged the Republican debate. And I say, So? There are waaay too many debates these days. And as Fred himself said, who's going to say: I like him, but he entered the race too late . . .?
Now it's true that the Wall Street Journal is editorializing that he has to be more than a "populist" candidate, rather implying that that is all he might be. But I think he's the real deal. I've read many interviews, and I've heard him speak. I've studied this guy a bit.
He is, I think, another Great Communicator, which is exactly what we need (something our current President isn't). His acting career will help him, just as was the case with Reagan. He seems to have a knack for knowing how to say what needs to be said, when it needs to be said. I like that a lot.
People are going to like what they see in him, I think. I hope. I envision a campaign making steady gains and overtaking everyone. I envision a Newsweek headline that reads: President Thompson. That would make my day.
Posts
28 comments:
And I'm with the Great Communicator of our day, Dr. Ron Paul of Texas. Everything is aligned for him, since Thompson will just split the ticket of those previously pro-Giuliani/Huckabee/Romney.
One interesting factor I've noticed is the similarity of the shrill tones of so many Ron Paul fanatics and the shrill tones of Ron Paul himself. You have to scream louder than anybody else to make sure your point is heard! And then you have to scream even louder when you realize that no one is listening to you!
Ron Paul, seriously. Why do people like this man. He whines, he screams and he honestly believes that Muslims hate us because of our bases in SA. And worse yet, he essentlialy blames the US for 9/11. Whenever I see him, I picture a guy wearing a tinfoil hat in his mother's basement setting phasers on stun.
Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in 08.
You know I haven't heard the Doctor yell. I haven't heard him whine and scream. What those who will vote for him do you can't hold against him. Finally, he agrees with the CIA, and is merely reminding us of what Bin Laden said. By the way, he tried to get Osama CONSTITUTIONALLY. I'm with many young people, and more importantly, with the Family Preus on this one; Ron Paul in 2008.
Brian Westgate (who previously forgot to sign his name, and who, in a good natured manner he's sure, was previously accused of snorting by Fr. Eckardt; also who did not yell in the preceding message, nor whine, scream, or anything else, though he did emphasize one word, and who will now cease to refer to himself in the 3rd. person)
In all seriousness, Greetings from Fort Wayne!
Perhaps we need a comparison. Ron Paul is to politics what Martin Luther is to the Holy Catholic Church: a great reformer.
The only thing I'm nervous about on Thompson is the gay marriage thing. Why won't he come out in support of a US Constitutional amendment to prevent it? He's got a states rights answer on the question - and maybe this is the only realistic political goal. But it makes me question the solidity of his conservative footings.
+HRC
I actually enjoy listening to Ron Paul. He's sooo amusing. And yes, I heard some of his fever-pitched arguments, in two televised debates. I find his approach quite amusing. You certainly can't accuse him of pandering to get votes! NO! NO! NO! . . .
Ron Paul is to Republicans what Howard Dean is to Democrats.
I just read an article by Michael Reagan in which he admonishes Thompson to get down to business and give more than platitudes and feel-good folksy conservatism. But the way in which the article is written is such that he is half expecting Thompson to do just this. I, of course, am more than half expecting it. I "feel good" about his candidacy because I sense a genuine grasp of what is needed, and of how to express it in a way that convinces people. If I'm wrong, it won't take long to find out. But if I'm right, to rephrase Ghostbuster Peter Venkman, "Fred, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters."
A man after my own heart. I'm with you Fr. Eckardt. I like that he expressly denies trying to "grab the Reagan banner" like everyone is trying to accuse him of. And that message on his website says all the right things.
Ron Paul was just on O'Reilly. Wow! He sounds like a man shouting and saying nothing other than talking points from the DNC.
Seriosly, in the last debate the man said he is more concerned about losing elections than doing the honorable thing such as supporting our brave men and women as they battle a horde who would be more than happy to destroy us (regardless of our bases in SA)
UBL also said that the reason why he attacked us is because he saw how easy it was to defeat us during the Black Hawk Down incident. Paper Tiger and all.
When Katie Couric is saying that things are going much better in Iraq, one should take notice considering she sits in at DNC campaign meetings.
Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in 08
Well if O'Reilly wasn't trying to interrupt him over and over. . . .
As for the military, do you know who has received the most money from them? That's right. Dr. Ron Paul himself, so something tells me they're not quite buying Huckabee's honor argument.
There is NOTHING honorable about fighting in an illegal war. That is what it is, since Congress did NOT declare war. The President does not have that right, nor can the Congress give it up, according to our Constitution. If you want that changed, amend the Constitution, but remember what the Founding Fathers said. The moment you do that, they said, you will be ruled by tyrants.
BPW
Fred didn't start too late. The others started way too early. I'm voting for him.
And I dare not suggest that what our armed forces are doing is quite legal, and approved explicitly by both houses of congress before we went to war. Nope, I dare not say that, because then I will hear, again, and at twice the volume: No! No! No! That is what it is, ILLEGAL! since Congress did NOT declare war. NOT! NOT! NOT! . . .
Hey all you Ron Paul junkies, we hear you already. We just don't agree, OK?
I know it sounds like parsing, Fr. Eckardt, but Congress did not declare war. This is what the Constitution says must be done. Instead Congress simply gave up their right, something the Constitution does not allow it to do, to the President, who has no right to do that. I mean this question in all respect, have you read the Constitution?
BPW
Sure, I've read the Constitution. As have all who have argued not only that it is necessary to stay in Iraq until the job is done, but that it was right to go there in the first place. Question: if the President, working with the approval of Congress, aware of a clear and present danger to the common defense, sends troops immediately to meet the danger, has he disregarded the Constitution? Evidently Dr. Paul says yes. I say this is not only nuts, it is dangerous. Rom Paul believes that the reason we lost Vietnam is that it wasn't a declared war. I say it's because too many pols in Washington were keeping us from winning. And incidentally, Ronald Reagan, of whom Dr. Paul is reputedly so fon, agreed.
that's "fond," not "fon."
I think I might agree with you on Vietnam. However, you have to admit that he's right that we really haven't won a war that was not declared (then again, it seems we might have "won" Iraq I).
Now it's hopefully true that many have read the Constitution; that has not kept them from disregarding it however.
You speak of averting danger. What danger to this country has been staved off by the President's actions?
BPW
On Fred and Ron or any of the candidates, have any of you visited the Constitution Party web site? They have an evaluation of the Republican candidates. Their web site is at:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
the link to the article is found at the bottom of the page.
They provide some interesting history and comments.
"What danger to this country has been staved off by the President's actions?"
Quite possibly nuclear devastation. Check out this link: http://www.conservapedia.com, Search Operation Iraqi Freedom, and go to the section on "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
Even if threat of nuclear attack were ruled out (which I believe it wasn't), virtually everyone believed it to be viable enough to take action.
Oh yeah, Ron Paul didn't . . .
Bottom line...
Let the men and women serving our great country get the job done and let's keep Congress from trying to micro manage this war. We could already be done or much closer to our goals if this were the case. This is why we "lost" Vietnam and if Dems keep blocking our troops' success, that is exactly what will happen in Iraq.
P.S. If Saturday hadn't been my due date, I would've been in Davenport too, to meet Thompson. And don't shy away from politics on your blog...it's refreshing.
Bottom line is this, Bush hasn't done anything Congress couldn't have done. Any actions the President has taken unilaterally could have been taken by Congress, which just happens to be more responsible to the people than the President is.
BPW
PS. For what it's worth, I hear Monday is Constitution Day.
So General Petraeus announces the striking progress that has been made in Iraq, and he is under the direct authority of the Commander-in-chief, and you say this is nothing?
And, by the way, a Congress whose members launch such shameless attacks on a four-star general, and which refuses to repudiate other shameless attacks against him, is manifestly not responsible.
Hey, I never did say that Congress was responsible. If it was, they would have declared war or kept the President from sending the troops in. I won't blame the President so much; it's just as much Congress' fault, if not more.
BPW
So you know that Congress will do nothing. And you know that the President is Commander-in-chief. But you must think he can do nothing unless ordered to do so by Congress? So let me get this straight: Saddam Hussain was by his own admission close to having WMDs to use against us or to give someone else to use against us (there is abundant evidence of this likelihood), he was a madman, he wouldn't let us in to inspect, and we shouldn't have taken him out? Maybe we were supposed to wait a bit? I think somewhere it's on on record that he may have needed about another year. What, negotiate with him? Seems we tried that already. But maybe you think we should have waited? So someday the President watches as Chicago gets wiped off the map, and then he's supposed to say, "Sorry folks, Congress hadn't declared war." What's wrong with this picture?
So now we get to the heart of the matter. This country needs a reformation. This reformation should obviously follow the Constitution, even as the Church is ever in need of reformation according to the Scriptures. The Congress needs to do it's job correctly. 9/11 should have been the wake-up call. With Dr. Paul as president, Congress will have no choice but to do it's job (yes that is a hopeful statement).
And for the record, what the President sees, Congress sees. What is to keep Congress from declaring war? NOTHING. I apologize that I am not a neo-con, that I think like Preuses when it comes to politics, and that I don't seem to be getting as angry with you as perhaps you seem to be with me. Let's make sure we don't get into this stuff at the St. Michael's Conference, 'cause that would be such a downer. It appears that we're going to have to agree to disagree, since you obviously won't back down, and I have no intention of saying "you're right" in this instance.
BPW
BPW
Woah, wait a second. I'm not angry, I'm just arguing. Don't misinterpret my arguments because of the limitations of this medium. This is fun. I think a debate on this could be fascinating.
And by the way, seriously, what is a neocon? I could never figure that one out. Not being facetious, I just can't quite understand that term. Ronald Reagan is my hero, and although I believe our current President is handling things better than any of the alternatives would have, I also think he could have done much better than he has. Does this make me a neocon? Inquiring minds . . .
My apologies. You just seemed to be getting on the emotional side of things. Yeah, this can be fun though. Perhaps neocon is one of those words that aren't quite definable. This might be where a good debate between Dr. Paul and Sen. Thompson would come in handy.
BPW
I did a little searching. Here's what www.conservapedia.com says a neocon is:
A neoconservative (colloquially, neocon) is a former liberal who calls himself a conservative. Neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious values, and often disagree with conservatives on key social issues like abortion and homosexuality. Neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. On domestic issues, neoconservatives are best known for opposing affirmative action while being silently opposed to social conservatives on moral issues.
Neoconservatives were hugely influential in the administration of President George W. Bush, and have lobbied for regime change in Iraq, and for military action against Iran. Neo-conservatism is characterized by an idealistic belief in social progress and the universality of human rights, coupled with anti-Communism; it is based on the view that there is a universal desire to live in a technologically advanced and prosperous society and liberal democracy is one of the byproducts of such modernization.
Post a Comment