Archive for the Fred(!) Category

Fred Heads Unite

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), News, politics with tags , on September 8, 2008 by ambrose7

Alright, I’m back.  It’s true I haven’t posted here in a long time, I let the liberals beat me down, and for a time, I lost faith in those fighting for conservative values.  However I have been re-energized, I am once again excited about this election, and can now believe conservatism isn’t dead in America, Its alive and well.

 

 That being said, when SIT got started, a small part of its purpose was to put Fred Thompson into office.  Now here we are 9 months later, and that’s not going to happen.  Yet Fred has not given up on conservative values and neither will we.  So in today’s post let me encourage you to check out Fred Thompson’s newest endeavor to elect conservatives to Office. 

 

FredPAC, also known as the Fred Thompson Political Action Committee.  FredPAC has been created to find those candidates on all levels who hold true to conservative principles and values.  And help those candidates financially, and through on the ground support.   I could go on further but I’ll let you check it out for yourself. 

 

Check it out, sign up to support FredPac, and keep checking in here to SIT for election year truths.  It’s time to move, it’s time for conservatives to get excited, it’s time to fall in line with Fred. 

 

-Ambrose-

 

Advertisements

What’s a Conservative to Do?

Posted in Economy, Elections, First Amendment, Fred(!), Hillary, immigration, John McCain, Mitt Romney, politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , on February 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Fred Thompson bow out of the race.  A heavy heart as I finally made the decision on Super Tuesday to vote for the nearest candidate left to a true conservative: Mitt Romney.

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Romney get his ass handed to him on Tuesday, and then read his concession speech today.

It was with a heavy heart that I read John McCain’s speech to Conservatives, and began to understand that this arrogant SOB is the only chance we have left against a Dem-led White House.   The speech in which he acknowledged his differences with Conservatives on particular issues, but then dismissed those issues as unimportant.  Issues like the First Amendment and border security.  Issues like the Bush tax cuts. 

To his credit (I guess), McCain did not apologize for his decisions in these matters — merely acknowledged that they failed to line up with the views of the Conservative base.  He still believes the Conservative base is wrong on these issues.  He fails to see how McCain-Feingold attacks the fundamentals of Free Speech.  He promises constructionist judges — but won’t say how he will find judges who are both “strict constructionists” and will uphold McCain-Feingold (because such individuals don’t exist — the two are mutually exclusive.  This leads one to wonder, then, which ideal will be the guiding principle).  He promises to secure the borders first, if elected, but will not backtrack on McCain-Kennedy amnesty for those already living illegally within our borders.  He has not acknowledged any wrongdoing regarding his blatant and false smear against Romney on the Iraq issue.

Today, he said the right things.  I am not convinced — and don’t expect I will be — that he is the right man.

But, we conservatives are told, now is not the time to “abandon” the Republican party.  Now is not the time to let our principles stand in the way of a Republican victory.  There’s a war on, after all, we’re told.  An economy that threatens to collapse.  Could we be so callous, so … so selfish, that we would sacrifice the US to the will of the Democrat party, simply to “make a point?”

So, with a pat on the head (or a smack on the face), we’re told to hang on to those principles until 2012, perhaps.  Or maybe 2018.  The Republicans haven’t abandoned Conservatism, we’re told.  But we really need a win right now.  And if we Conservatives weren’t so damned picky, we could have this thing in the bag.

Fine… so we hang our ideals and vote for McCain.  We beat the Democrats.  And then what?  When do the Conservatives get their party back?  When do get to fight for our own values without being labeled as “traitors” to the party that is even now betraying us?  When do we get to fight the leftward motion of the Republican party, or failing that, leave?  2012?  Assuming there isn’t a similar crisis that demands our loyalty?

McCain spent the last few years of his career betraying Conservatives.  Now he’s asking for our loyalty?  How many times does this dog have to bite before we’re allowed to put it down?

I haven’t yet made up my mind about whether McCain gets my vote in November.  I know he’s not getting my money.  He hasn’t earned my support.  He hasn’t yet earned my vote.  A few paragraphs of pretty words and a call for Conservatives to make nice doesn’t undo McCain-Feingold, or the Gang of 14, or his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or McCain-Kennedy.  The looming spectre of a Democrat president may well be enough to scare me into pulling the McCain lever.  But neither McCain nor his supporters should make the mistake of taking the vote as anything other than that.

It’s not a mandate to continue pulling the crap he’s been pulling.  It’s not an invitation to urinate all over Conservative principles in the interest of “bipartisanship.”  Conservatives aren’t voting for the Maverick.  They’re voting against the Democrats, plain and simple.  It’ll be a hollow victory for all involved, if victory it is.  A marriage of convenience with divorce looming ever-so-near on the horizen.

So congratulations to John McCain.  He may or may not get my vote, but he has effectively won the nomination.  He hasn’t won my mind.  He hasn’t won the heart and soul of the Republican party.  In spite of the fact that most Conservatives can’t stomach the man, he has a victory.  Maybe it’ll be enough.  Maybe fear of Hillary and Obama will be enough to unite and mobilize the Republican voters.  It’ll have to be.  Because McCain isn’t.

I’ve Come To A Decision

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul with tags , , , on January 23, 2008 by Randy Streu

I’ve been pretty down since Fred Thompson’s announcement to end his bid for the Presidency yesterday (Tuesday).  I won’t go into it again; I explained my reasoning already.  I’ve been doing a lot of thinking since then — sadly, I don’t have the luxury of a brain that turns off.  I’ve considered the possibilities of where to go from here, considered turning my support to the second-best candidate, Mitt Romney, and I’ve reached my decision:  I’m voting for Fred Thompson on Super Tuesday.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc., may well get to determine who winds up as the Republican nominee for President, but they don’t get to determine how I vote.  I helped draft Fred(!), signed the petition, and have had every intention of voting for Fred in the Primary — and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let anyone change my mind but me.

As Thompson said himself, this isn’t about Fred Thompson.  It never has been.  It’s not about me, or you, or Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.  It’s not even about Hillary Clinton.  It’s about principle.  It’s about standing up for Conservatism.  And now, even more than that, it’s about a primary system that is flawed and only becoming more so.  As I said above, these early-voting states shouldn’t get to determine who the rest of us vote for.

For me, personally, it’s about voting for the candidate I want to win.  People have said we don’t vote for ideas, and that’s at least partially true.  You can’t put an idea in office.  What you can do is vote for the candidate who most accurately reflects those ideas.  That candidate, for me, is Fred Thompson. 

I will vote for Thompson in the Primary and, probably, in the General Election — unless something very big happens between now and then to change my mind.  But I’m tired of holding my nose.  I’m tired pulling the lever for a candidate simply because he’s “better than the other guy (or lady).”  This year, I’m voting for the man I want to see in the White House.

I say that to say this: Rombots, Huckabelievers, McCainiacs, Ronulans — all due respect, your guy’s not getting my vote, so don’t bother.  I’m voting for the man I believe is the best candidate — and that’s a right Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina can’t take away from me.

-Streu-

The Difference Between “Voting For” and “Voting Against”

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul with tags , , , , on January 23, 2008 by Randy Streu

If you take all the remaining GOP candidates and mash together the best qualities of each, I think we’d have the perfect conservative candidate.  Take the fiscal policies of Mitt Romney, the consistent social conservatism of Huck, the foreign policy experience of McCain and the basic knowledge of the Constitution contributed by Ron Paul (but without the crazy), and there’s my perfect candidate.  And you know what?  We had him.

We Conservatives had a candidate whose career and policies reflected nearly perfectly the fundamentals of Reagan/Goldwater conservatism.  And we let him go, because some people believed he “didn’t want it” badly enough.  Forgetting, I suppose, that the mantle of leadership often suits best those who want it least. 

Then, of course, there are those rooting for the death of classic Conservatism — those for whom growth of government, loss of independence and a building national sense of entitlement are not only inevitable, but desirable.  “Moderates.”  Pah!

Fred Thompson’s bid for the Presidency is over.  Hopefully, his message isn’t. 

For me, I was looking forward to, just once, actually voting for a candidate, instead of simply against the other guy.  Of selecting the best, instead of checking on “good enough.”

The end result, I guess, is the same, as far as the individual vote goes.  But there is an excitement, a passion, in having a candidate you believe in.  When a message resonates, when you and your co-supporters find that community that comes from realizing you are like-minded in very important ways.  For Thompson supporters, those ways included a desire to really see a return back to this country’s fundamentals.  A road back to those ideals that made this nation great.  But in Thompson’s case, it wasn’t simply the ideas — it was the candidate himself.

In spite of what the MSM may have told you, Thompson has a way of energizing his supporters — not with a flash, or a soundbite, or that charisma which produces successful car salesmen — but with an honesty, intelligence, thoughtfulness and humility long missing from the hallowed halls of Washington.  With Thompson, you know what you’re getting.  He’s slow to speak; deliberate.  And when he does, you know he understands what he’s talking about and believes in it with every fiber of his being.  Unlike many candidates, Thompson the Candidate was never afraid of telling somebody he “doesn’t know.”  If he didn’t have enough information, he didn’t give an opinion.  He doesn’t fill up the space between facts with endless monologue, so you know when he does speak, you’re getting something well-thought-out and based on as much information as possible. 

That is the candidate I was voting for

Sadly, for too many, the sizzle outweighs the steak.  So now, I’m reduced to voting against.  In the primaries, against a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants (by any name), who created and worked to pass a bill limiting the right to Free Speech; against a candidate who, it appears, will say anything to anyone to get elected, who cut taxes a few times, but begged for tax increases totalling a net increase in taxes for his state, who engages in liberal rhetoric on taxation and redistribution of wealth, who supported the mone of taxpayers going to the children of illegal immigrants; against a candidate vocally pro-abortion, who has talked a good game with the Second Amendment, but in his only executive role practically eliminated it from his city.

I will vote in the Primaries, for the reasons stated above.  I have not yet decided whether I will simply write Thompson in, and so needlessly sacrifice my voice to my principles, or vote for Romney.  I’m against Mitt-care.  I’m nervous about his flipping on the abortion issue.  But I believe he may be sincere in that. 

If I do pull the Romney lever on Super Tuesday, however, it should be known, it is not a vote for Mitt.  It is a vote against the liberalization of the Republican Party.

-Streu-

Choosing The President Based on Amending The Constitution?

Posted in abortion, Constitution, Elections, Fred(!), Mike Huckabee, politics with tags , , , , , on January 17, 2008 by Randy Streu

This election season has seen more than its share of candidates vowing to “create Constitutional amendments” that will do … well, whatever: end abortion, ban gay marriage, permanently end the income tax, or what have you.  These promises have certainly proved beneficial for those candidates making them — and somewhat detrimental to those who refuse to.

But these promises, unfortunately, are less than empty.  This is true for two reasons, both of which have to do with how an amendment comes to be.

First, the proposed amendment has to garner a 2/3 majority vote in the Legislature.  Never happen — especially when you consider what those proposed amendments would be.  The amendments in question this year are largely Republican-oriented; bans on gay marriage and abortion.  Even if 2/3 of the Legislature was Republican (which it isn’t, and I’d wager won’t be, certainly for the next eight years), not all Republican representatives would agree to vote for them.  So, barring slipping Sodium Pentathol into the Congressional coffee urns, it’s unlikely any proposed amendment would even pass this first step.

But let’s, for the sake of argument, pretend that whatever needed to happen, happened, and that some amendment — let’s say a Family Protection Amendment to ban gay marriage — did pass the first test.  Now, it has to go through the Legislative houses of every state, and garner a majority vote there for ratification (by 3/4 majority of the states).  This, of course, is a process which could take years.  For example, Amendment 27, restricting pay raises for congress, was proposed in 1789, and not ratified until 1992.  Granted, this is an extreme case, but you see the point.

Does anyone (Mike Huckabee, for example) honestly believe that such contested ideas as the gay marriage ban and abortion ban will even get to the ratification level — let alone pass?

Fred Thompson has been ostricized by neo-con activists such as James Dobson for no other reason, frankly, than being a realist.  There are other, better ways to fight abortion.  Ways that could actually work.  But it starts with good judges. 

The promises to pass amendments, as dear as these are to the hearts of many conservatives, are simply empty words.  And the sooner voters understand that, the better.

-Streu-

HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson

Posted in blognews, Elections, Fred Thompson, Fred(!), general, Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, News, politics, Ron Paul on January 11, 2008 by ambrose7

I was excited yesterday to hear Sean Hannity speak of a big mystery endorsement for Fred Thompson today.  I had no idea who it could be.  Lets face it Conservative group after Conservative group have endorsed Fred Thompson over the past few weeks.  I love to bring up to supporters of the Huckster that it was Fred Thompson not Mike Huckabee who the National Right to Life group supported and more recently the South Carolina Right to Life supported.  Recently South Carolina right to life even put there money where there mouth is sending out thousands of mailers supporting Fred Thompson. 

All that being said this morning I was ecstatic to read that Human Events would endorse Fred Thompson.  Human Events is the premiere conservative magazine in my opinion, with such featured columnists as Newt Gringich, and Ann Coulter.  

About there endorsement Human Events said this We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us — and for the conservative community — boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.  To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.” 

Its good to see one Conservative media group to step out and do the right thing.  I would now challenge both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who must support Fred Thompson because of those things they say they want in a President to step out and do the same before it’s too late.

To see the rest of the article from Human Events – http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24398

To tell Sean Hannity “Your A great American now step up for Conservatism and support Fred Thompson” – http://www.hannity.com/

To Tell Rush Limbough the same – http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

-Ambrose-

Can Thompson Rally the Party — and more importantly, the Country?

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), politics with tags , , on January 11, 2008 by Randy Streu

Last night’s debate was a revelation to many people who have just started paying attention to this race to the White House.  After months and weeks and days of being told by the MSM that Fred(!) Thompson barely existed on the Presidential Radar, that he had “no fire in the belly,” and that his campaign was all but over, his performance last night made people sit up, take notice and, I’d imagine, ask the question “hey, what the hell have you media guys been talking about?”

The debates up to now have been, for the most part, lackluster for every candidate — the “winner” mostly undetermined, and certainly not agreed upon on any mass level.  Largely, it came down to who people already supported (or sort of supported) or else who’s performance was the least mediocre.  Though Fred won a few of these debates, it wasn’t, for the most part, the inspiring performance his supporters knew was in the offing.

Last night, Thompson became the first in this race to offer a clear, commanding and decisive win — a win reflective of, and worthy of, the man himself.  And people noticed.  Last night, when it counted, America saw the leader they could have in Fred Thompson.  A strong voice for common sense, conservatism and pride in our country.

Can Fred Thompson unite this divided nation?  I say he can — and I say he will, given the opportunity.  When he speaks from the heart (which always passes through his brain on the way out), Thompson has the uncanny knack to provide something long-missing in much of America: Pride.  Thompson, like Reagan did before him, makes us feel good about being Americans.  And I think Americans are tired of being told half-truths and outright lies designed to make our country look bad. 

Is Thompson Reagan?  No.  Hell, not even Ronald Reagan was “Ronald Reagan.”  In the way of all legends, the myth of Reaganism, grounded as it is in Truth, is bigger than any man could ever be — including the Gipper himself.

I think America is tired of being dragged down by those who want to see us fail.  I think we’re ready to feel proud to be Americans.  We’re ready for a rallying point — And I believe that rallying point is Fred Thompson.

-Streu-