Captain's Quarters -

I hope Fred runs.

"I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately"

Yes. Exactly.

I'm liking Sen. Thompson's positions on taxes & federalism.

This is good news. I'm actually starting to like the idea now.

I'd much rather vote for Thompson than Guiliani.

Fred Thompson? No way. Don't you realize that means Sam Waterston and Dick Wolf would be a heatbeat away from the Presidency?

Slainte Sin Padraig

A GRUMPY VIEW OF IRISH HISTORY

95% of Irish History ends with the words, "...and then he was betrayed by..." This cover everyone from Finn MacCool and the Knights of the Red Branch to Michael Collins.

3% of Irish History ends with the words, "...and then success went to his head and turned his brains to ****..." This covers everyone from the bards to Conn of the Hundred Battles to the Kennedies and Michael Flatley.

2% of Irish History ends with the words, "...and then he really made something of himself but he had to leave Ireland to do it." This covers everyone from Wellington to Shaw to every starving paddy who jumped on a scow heading West during the famine.

I don't know why it took Sen. Thompson so long to realize that the only practical campaign finance solution, given human nature, is bright and immediate "sunshine" on every contribution given to the candidate. The only never-tainted candidate (theoretically,) by a PAC, or by an industry, is the self-financing candidate. And when "Mr. Gates goes to Washington," or "Mr. Perot goes to Washington," it's by its nature a very different story--in emotion and in priority--than "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." We want Mr. Smith to go to Washington, as long as he shows us immediately where he got his money. If half of it comes from organizations founded by George Soros, as might happen today, all I ever wanted is to know about it, easily and immediately.

If I remember correctly, Thompson waited until the last minute to announce he wasn't going to seek re-election in 2002- which
could have cost the Republicans his seat.

Alas, the field is awash with flip floppers.

"Flip flopping"?

It seems to me the guy is changing his mind based on the facts at hand. He tried to fix something, with obvious noble intentions albeit with a naive prescription. It clearly hasn't worked, and he's acknowledging that and looking for another solution.

And you really find something wrong with this?

Have we come to the point now in our society that you must make up your mind what your views are on every given subject by the time you're eighteen, and then any time you change your mind in the course of life from then on, be it from a new set of facts coming along or because of simple maturity, growth or further reflection, then you are a "flip flopper"?

Is that healthy?

Is there really no more room to change one's mind based on the evidence? Or to try something out and then change course when it doesn't work? Or would it be better for Thompson to subbornly cling to campaign finance reform out of a desire not to be a "flip flopper", even though the evidence now clearly shows that it hasn't worked like it was supposed to?

Don't we want government to be responsive to things that are working and things that are not?

With Romney, I'll admit, you have more of a basis for the charge. Being pro-Life then pro-Choice then back to pro-Life again, all dependent on where you're running your campaigns, is pretty suspect. Also, being against the NRA just a couple of years ago but now bragging about being a life-long member of the organization - which he joined in August of last year - right as he's running to the right in a political campaign? Yeah... doesn't look too genuine.

But the over application of the term "flip flopper" is dangerous if you are taking it to mean "anybody who ever changes his mind on an issue, regardless of what new facts come up on the matter".

I'm 30 years old, and I know that I've changed my mind on a few things as I've matured and learned more about what's going on. I don't consider myself a "flip flopper" for it. Just a human being seeking the truth and not always getting it right on the first go. Which I'll bet is the norm, and I'm sure is something that's not uniqe to myself and Fred Thompson...

jimboster:

He had every intention of running for re-election in 2002, but changed his mind after the sudden death of his daughter.

RBMN said:

I don't know why it took Sen. Thompson so long to realize that the only practical campaign finance solution, given human nature, is bright and immediate "sunshine" on every contribution given to the candidate.

RBMN, I can give you an even better way to solve campaign financing problems: take away the government's power to dispense favors.

I like Thompson and if he is the nominee I will vote for him...but I don't think most people, not even most conservatives, know or care what the McCain Feingold is. In fact I think that most people believe the problem with campaign finance is not that bill, but the money it takes to run and the money it takes to stay there.

As for smaller government, sorry, I don't think it matters to most people either. People want honest government, effective government and efficient government. But they don't want to lose benefits or programs that work for them or their families.

This creates a real challenge for conservatives. They need to convince people that what conservatives are doing will help, not average Americans.

That should be "will help not HURT average Americans".

Preview is for the faint of heart.

Re: Terrye at March 17, 2007 02:21 PM

"Preview is for the faint of heart."

Generally if I proofread it, I'll just end up erasing the whole thing, and then moving on to RedState.com and hope I can maybe make some sense there.

Terrye,

"As for smaller government, sorry, I don't think it matters to most people either. People want honest government, effective government and efficient government. But they don't want to lose benefits or programs that work for them or their families."

If Americans would think about it for a minute, smaller more effective government would mean theoretically that Americans would get to keep more of their own money. Then they wouldn't need the Government programs that they cling to so desperately.

Jim C

Jim:

I don't really disagree with you. That is my point. Conservatives need to make a case like this rather than just talking about what they will do away with.

Fred Thompson doesn't have the money. And, he doesn't have the machine.

I think his first posture was to claim he'd start in September. WHich is the Bill Clinton model of 1992. It's a "rear entry" device, in a party divided.

Well? 1992 was supposed to be Bush's re-election year. The dad didn't make it. He got booted out.

Reagan, in 1980, was also running against an encumbent. Jimmuh Carter. Where the GOP wasn't thrilled about mounting a "full" campaign.

So, Reagan stole the show. Or, as he said to Bush the Edler, "I paid for the mike."

When Bush the Elder tried to reduce the number of contestants debating at the table.

This time arouned? It's the donks who seem shy of talent. They've got their hard core. But hard core, by definition, doesn't do well in the daylight.

You could also say that every state should have a favorite son. So that in any election, there's manuevering from the insight, as different groups try to gain strength thru posturing.

The mainstream has left a lot of this stuff, behind.

McCain is old. As he's not tracking as well as he's done in the past.

You'll also notice that in 1996, McCain was NOT in the field. It was left to Dole. To lose.

Perhaps that has something to do with the way the money flows?

To run for president you need a huge machine. That's gathered up strength as well as states. As from the looks of things, now, it seems Guiliani is not only running in front of the pack. He's got Ohio, California, and Pennsylvania all sewn up. He may even have a majority of voters in New York State. But the GOP machinery in New York State is broken. So, there. In New York State. What Guiliani can pick up is lots of voters.

And, at some point, ahead, this will be the clarion call Fred Thompson can make. IF he can raise funds. So far, that's not apparent. And, if he can boost a GOP ticket. Since the old idea of running Condi has bombed out.

IF? You'd be looking at a GOP ticket of Guiliani/Thompson. You leave the GOP senators intact. No loss of seats by pulling one a way to be a veep candidate.

While for the donks? Obama/Hillary, which might be one line up, would, if both candidates were forced out of the seante to run; a whole new opportunity on the horizon for 2008.

Where a GOP candidate with coattails would mean something!

Meanwhile? The donks have only 12 senators running in 2008. To the GOP's 24. And, not all incumbents win, ya know?

Though the real lunacy this Bush currently faces should at least die down some. Why? Well, why would the donks waste ammunition on going after Bush when nothing happens? At some point wouldn't it make sense to think the donks have to get used to reality?

Just like hollywood did. When "300" killed at the box office. In some groups money really talks! Especially when that group sees the money stream diverted to the pockets of "unknowns."

According to Rumsfelld? Those are the KNOWN UNKOWNS. And, I still miss him!

Bush, himself, made errors. But we've had six years to get used to his way of doing business. Where he's been rich enough to avoid lots of responsibility. While the Saudis and the Kuwaitis do a lot of bad things with money to mess up his table. Someday, things will get better.

The no limits & strict transparent reporting scheme is essemtially the Illinois system (or at least the target aimed for) - I think it works much better than the federal mess.

Terrye,

I'm not sure whether "most" Americans are so irredeemably strung out on Federal money as you say or not. In my more cynical moments I would readily agree, but for me that misses the point entirely.

If we believe in the ideas we say we do, then we have an obligation to advocate them as persuasively as we can, at every opportunity we have. Simply sitting here, enjoying the anonimity of our computer terminals and eloquently sharing our despair, is pointless and destructive.

If we aren't happy with the status quo, then as free citizens we have an obligation to stand up in front of our friends and neighbors, and point the way to a new world. The fact that the road is bumpy and steep and strewn with our own weaknesses, does not absolve us from the obligation we have to those who follow us. It's our time in the spotlight and there aren't any excuses left!

Lew:

And what is federal money? Social Security and Medicare? School loans? Infrastructure such as roads? Medical Research? Medicaid for the poor?

Bush tried to bring private accounts into Social Security and where were all those fiscal conservatives who want government gone? Crickets......

He could not even get a slight modification of one major entitlement program off the ground without people having a fit.

Terrye,

So what? We lost a round, so that means we just slink off and try to shield ourselves from the ill effects of the pox that we've identified? Hell No!

It means we recognize the problem with more clarity and adjust our attack accordingly. It means we suck it up and hit it again, only stronger and smarter. And if we get rebuffed again, we adjust and attack again.

If you think anything really important is going to be achieved easily or with just a bullet-proof logical argument, then you need to re-evaluate. This is going to take DECADES, and its not going to happen in Congress before it happens in Peoria. So suck it up and get ready for a long long fight.

He hasn't got the depth of experience I'd like to see... but...

... he's also the first one to seriously consider, or has thrown their hat in the ring, on our side of the field, that I'm actually glad to see do so.