“Fred Leads — Others Pander”

If you listen to PaulBots and Fox News Quasi-pundits, Fred(!) Thompson is a lazy man.  According to them, because Thompson is not out gladhanding media representatives and reporters every waking minute, he “lacks the fire in his belly” to become president.

Of course, while his opponants are out kissing babies and running for president, Thompson, much to the chagrin of the emotionally insecure press with the constant need for coddling, has been researching and writing policy.  Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee are out campaigning — and Thompson is preparing for the office of President by putting together real and workable plans like his recent one for comprehensive tax relief.  (Who knows what Paul’s up to — probably still trying to figure out just how the hell W managed to get so many Arabs to agree to fly planes into buildings.)  And, of course, it wasn’t two weeks ago that Thompson unveiled his plan to address and repair Social Security.  I could only wish I could be this lazy.

For somebody who’s been accused of lacking specifics, Fred “no fire in the belly” Thompson seems to have more “specifics” than any other candidate running. 

Now, to me, this would seem to bear out the point that planning and action trumps empty rhetoric; that substance beats style.

Thompson is, in fact, leading the other candidates in specific plans and goals, and has been lauded by the editors of National Review Online for doing so.  I should also mention the Club for Growth nod Thompson’s getting for this plan.  Lazy, lazy, lazy.

This is Fred Thompson.  A leader where others simply line up and act as expected.  Think for yourself.  Check out his website, consider his positions, study his proposals.  This is the man to lead this country.

By the way, I “borrowed” the title from a fellow Fredhead over at fred08.  So, thanks for that.  It seemed appropriate.

Advertisements

19 Responses to ““Fred Leads — Others Pander””

  1. fisticmystic Says:

    If the Club for Growth is for Fred, then I’m against him. I’ve seen the dishonest hit job they’re doing on Huckabee, and I haven’t failed to notice that Fred is repeating their lies.

  2. Ask yourself, what possible motivation could Club for Growth have for lying about Huckabee?

    Does his fairly liberal taxation record (not to mention his own stated willingness to support nanny-state policies such as smoking bans) speak for themselves?

    It seems you’ve made up your mind regarding your candidate of choice, and would not be “for Fred” regardless of what Club for Growth has to say.

  3. Fred is an unconventianal candidate. How many times have we all said how much we hate politicians? If we hate politicians, don’t we really hate the conventional things about politicians?

    Lazy? Fred lets you know exactly where he stands and then lets you figure out if you support them; I consider that a lot more respectful of me as an individual than all the glad handing a conventional politican does.

  4. redneck hippie Says:

    Great site Randy, did not know this was yours. Thanks for the credit.

    FRED LEADS others pander – Yeeeeeeeees!

    Carolyn Wolthusen a.k.a. Redneck Hippie

  5. fisticmystic Says:

    “Ask yourself, what possible motivation could Club for Growth have for lying about Huckabee?”

    Um, they don’t like his policies and they’re scared to death he’ll be elected. Obvious enough, don’t you think? But no honestly held opinion is worth lying for. Beat him on issues, not lies.

  6. mystic: you’re going to have to be more specific on what you’re referring to when you say “lies.” I haven’t seen any. Again, why would they? The only things Club for Growth discusses are issues they’re concerned about. If Huck had policies they liked, they’d mention them (and I’m sure they have). He has policies that CFG dislikes very much, so they talk about them. Again, there’s really no reason for them to lie.

    Nevertheless, if you have a blog or something where you go into detail on these supposed lies, you are more than welcome to provide me a link. If you would like to post them right here, you’re more than welcome to do that as well.

    But just to come on and say, “They’re lying!!!” is pointless without some sort of idea of what “lies” you’re referring to, and proof that these things are, indeed, lies.

  7. fisticmystic Says:

    Lie: Huckabee is a pro-life liberal who supports amnesty and wants to raise taxes (From Thompson)
    Lie: Huckabee’s record is one of higher taxes and ballooning public spending (Club for Growth)

    If you know anything about Huckabee, these are all laughable on the surface, but if you want an in-depth rebuttal, you can get the story from the horse himself at his own website. I won’t provide the url because I don’t work for Huck, either paid or volunteer, but I’m sure you’re smart enough to find it yourself.

    My blog, by the way, is at http://www.fisticmystic.wordpress.com and it’s about 70% boxing and 30% politics, so don’t expect anything too deep there.

  8. Smart enough, sure. Interested enough, not so sure. I don’t like Huck because of his fairly nanny-state policies and interests, so finding out about his tax issues is not my concern. The accusations were yours, and so is the burden of proof. I’m not interested enough to pause my other pursuits to do your research for you.

    I will say that the idea that Huckabee supported (and still supports) making scholarship money available to children of illegal immigrants is not disputed by his camp — he defends it, but doesn’t dispute it.

    Club for Growth has cited their sources on what they have said about Huckabee. They do it for every candidate they discuss. I find that their assessment of candidates is honest within the spectrum of what they are interested in. They are sometimes scathing, but they are honest. There’s no reason not to be.

    Once again, if you would like to defend your assertions against Thompson and CFG, feel free – but I’m not going to do it for you.

    Not that into boxing personally, but I do find it interesting. Looking forward to checking out your site.

  9. fisticmystic Says:

    Since (like Fred) you’re too lazy to do any research, I’ll spell out the scholarship deal for you. The proposal was that if a kid is an exceptional student, spent his/her entire academic career in Arkansas, and is either a citizen or has a citizenship application pending, they would be eligible for state-funded scholarships. That’s perfectly reasonable. As I wrote on my blog, it’s better than deporting bilingual honor students who have lived in the US since preschool age because you’re mad at them for obeying their parents when they were little.

  10. Still waiting for you to get around to defending your original point…
    As I say, if you don’t want to, that’s cool, too.

    Scholarships — wrong. I know exactly what it is, even without you spelling it out, and it’s the wrong thing. It’s rewarding people for doing things the wrong way. What should happen is, once somebody’s illegal status is identified, there should be a penalty of some sort — I’m not personally sure whether deportation would be the appropriate thing, but certainly, they shouldn’t be fast-tracked to citizenship; and certainly, they should not be given the reward of state money. And don’t tell me it’s not amnesty, because it is. If illegals in are a position to become “citezens”, they have been granted amnesty.

    Is it the kids’ fault if their parents broke the law? Nope. But rewarding the child for the illegal behavior -is- rewarding the parents, also.

  11. fisticmystic Says:

    So you’re the kind of person whose reasoning process is, “if someone is willing to accuse you, then you must be guilty.” If someone accused me of beating my wife or hurting my kids, I would know I was innocent without wasting my time asking why. I know it’s a lie without asking what their motivation is. The motivation is someone else’s problem.

    I don’t know why Club for Growth is so intent on seeing Huckabee lose. But their accusations are transparently false. I don’t want to write a paper on the subject – enough people have already done that. And if you want to know the truth, it’s out there. Just have the courage to do a google search. Or visit Huckabee’s website.

  12. Wrong again.
    I’m the kind of person who chooses to look at unbiased sources (such as actual records) in making decisions — not the truthspinning of the person in question. Once again, you came here and made an accusation. I made no accusation here regarding Huck’s tax-and-spend policy. You made an accusation regarding Thompson and CFG. I have nothing to prove here — you do.

    Overall, my interest is in promoting my candidate, and in showing what the liberals are doing — and want to do — to our country. I’m not interested in Huckabee. You made an accusation, you make it stick. That’s how it works. You don’t want to write a paper on it? Great. Link me to a person that did. That’s what it comes down to. I respect your opinion, but when it comes to your own accusations, put up or shut up.

  13. fisticmystic Says:

    You’re right. It was presumptuous of me to assume that you would take the initiative to inform yourself.

    The biggest flaw I find in the CFG position is that they ignore the fact that when Huckabee finished his governorship in January ’07 the state of Arkansas had a $1 billion surplus which he recommended returning to the people. Once Huck had vacated the capital, however, the subsequent state leadership decided to keep the money and keep taxes higher. For a brief rebuttal to the CFG paper you can read: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004053.html

    But don’t stop there – Google is a wonderful thing, make use of it.

  14. And in response:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html

    I note they also mention Thompson is incorrect on his facts regarding Huckabee — his numbers are off. Not quite so off as Huck’s have been here, but nevertheless…

    But, I suppose, factcheck.org also has it out for Huckabee?

  15. fisticmystic Says:

    In politics, I don’t have to tell you, everybody’s got it in for everybody. I don’t have time for a point-by-point (gotta get the kids up and ready for the day) but I’ll start at the top and rebut what I can in the time I have…

    The issue of the speech: who cares whether the funding in question was for education or not? Fact Check allows that there was a combined shortfall of about $276 million for the years of ’02 and ’03 that needed to be addressed. As you probably know Arkansas has a state law that a legislative session can’t adjourn until the budget is balanced. The governor and legislature cooperated to cut the budget about 10% but the deficit wasn’t completely gone, so he asked the legislature to consider various taxes to make up the difference. Maybe you have a problem with that scenario, but I don’t.

    On the fee -vs- tax issue: We’ve had the same argument in my home state of Minnesota, and I consider it so much political BS. Call it a fee, call it a tax – it was supported by the nursing homes as a means of correcting past errors and even the detractors admit that the revenue allowed the state to keep some nursing homes from going out of business. Technically it’s a user fee, but most people will refer to it as a tax for the sake of brevity, and evidently that’s what Huckabee did.

    Was the gasoline tax passed before or after the referendum? As I understand it, the referendum was for a huge road-improvement package, and the gas tax was intended to pay for the improvements. Both were necessary and both were passed, I think it’s irrelevant which was passed first; if the referendum had 80% support, they knew they were going to need the money once the referendum passed. Think the road improvements were unnecessary? I drove all over northwestern Arkansas myself in the spring of 1994, and believe me, the all the roads needed improvement.

    Okay, it’s time to get the kids up. I wish I’d had time to respond to more than three points, but if you need I can write more tonight.

  16. Nah. I think we can agree to disagree. You vote your candidate, I’ll vote mine. Like I said, it’s the nannystate tendencies that bug me — but mostly it’s that I already have a candidate I like. I think much of it is semantic, but I do think Huck’s wrong on his tax issues. You think differently. So be it.

    This is a post about Thompson’s tax plan — and that’s mostly what I’m interested in on this one. As for Huck — I’ll continue to leave him alone on taxes, inasmuch as this blog was never about them.

    Have fun with the kids.

  17. fisticmystic Says:

    This will be my last word on the subject – you can have the final word if you want it. But be sure to check out an article written by Dick Morris and published at Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/huckabee_is_a_fiscal_conservat.html

    Summary: The analysis by Morris compares the finances of Arkansas to the 50 state averages and concludes that Huckabee’s credentials as a financial conservative are bona fide.

  18. I just can’t resist. Independent thought? Hardly! Say, ba-a-a-a-a-a-a.

  19. Freeborn:
    Hmmm… a well-reasoned thesis, an informed argument. Let me guess, Ron Paul supporter?

    Ever notice how often Paulbots are saying “baaaaaa”? Hmmm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: