I was starting to wonder if there was a pro-life candidate in the top tier. We already knew Giuliani obviously wasn’t going to get that endorsement due to his long history of support for abortion rights. Of course, he did try hard to fool everyone. Romney has the same problem; he was for it and now he’s against it. If he were a Democrat they would call that flip flopping. So I guess that leaves Freddy as the pro-life candidate of choice.
According to MyDD and Shakesville (and probably others but I’m too far behind on my RSS Reader to find them all) Thompson is going to be receiving the endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee. This endorsement is interesting for several reasons. First it goes to further illustrate how weak the Republican field really is on true conservative credentials. Seriously, Hillary Clinton is more of a traditional Republican than any of these guys.
Of course one can argue that Fred Thompson is an excellent choice for conservative endorsements right? Think about it, he doesn’t care about speaking with minorities and hates the gays, he’s confused on all the major issues, and he is obsessed with the Soviet Union. That’s the conservative hat trick right there. Shut ‘er down and call it a night folks, Thompson is gonna walk away with this thing.
Not so fast, is Thompson really the right candidate for a pro-life endorsement? I know that Rudy and Mitt are clearly not, but is Fred? I mean Fred Thompson actually fought for abortion rights while he was a lawyer, I mean that’s not exactly the action of a strongly pro-life candidate. Fred is also quoted as saying that he does not support any law that punishes the woman for getting an abortion. Also remember that Thompson broke with the party ranks on the idea of a constitutional amendment banning abortions in 2004.
All this leads me to the decision that these conservative groups aren’t really picking their favorite candidates. Instead, and I’m honestly convinced of this, they are throwing darts at a board and going with whoever they hit (and then trying not to throw up). Let’s face it, if you’re a conservative your candidates suck. You have to choose between a slimy weasel that will say and do anything to get votes, a crook who’s poor leadership and planning caused the death of hundreds of firefighters, and a senile old man with liberal ideals that doesn’t even seem to care if he gets the nomination.
This week Fred will walk away with his pro-life endorsement, fluffing up his conservative credentials. Maybe even enough to seriously threaten Giuliani in the polls. I wish I could say that I felt sorry for the conservatives, but I don’t. Karma can be a bitch sometimes. The way I see it this isn’t even a fraction of what they deserve for the damage they have caused. Honestly I hope Freddy gets the party nomination so we can watch the top of his head as he tries to formulate a sentence during the big debates.
~ William ~
Add Comment![[Digg]](../../../wp-includes/images/digg.gif){kind=small}
![[Technorati]](../../../wp-includes/images/technorati.gif){kind=small}
![[del.icio.us]](./../../wp-includes/images/delicious.gif){kind=small}
![[Reddit]](./../../wp-includes/images/reddit.gif){kind=small}
![[StumbleUpon]](./../../wp-includes/images/stumbleupon.gif){kind=small}
![[Furl]](./../../wp-includes/images/furl.gif){kind=small}
![[Blinklist]](./../../wp-includes/images/blinklist.gif){kind=small}
![[Newsvine]](./../../wp-includes/images/newsvine.gif){kind=small}
2007-11-12 20:18:47
mullah cimoc say Giuliani him make big ashame for all ameriki.
him take him slut to live in government house while still the marry? Am this “conservative value” ameriki? How possible for usa media not tell ameriki people him giuliani father “Harold Giuliani” mafia loan shark enforcer serve him time at sing sing prison. usa media not the free. so control. benjamin frankling so sad if see now.
him business partner kerrick Giuliani almost make the homeland security czar of usa but now the investigate and hearing of the whores and the rich man condo on policeman salary. Am him the clean police? Conservative values ameriki?
him to serving the homosexual and disobey him bible, but still acting the proud. him to wanting man to marry man, man to marry donkey, and woman to marry the woman. so sick and show the destroy of ameriki society.
him Giuliani to obey every command of masters in tel aviv. him like puppet on fish line. am this make the geo. washington and benjamin frankling proud?
now the republican of ameriki having so many the gay homosexual like the kink sex act, corruption and cruel—now just opposite—not the family value, this the filthy corruption and amerika to be suffer maybe the earthquaking so terrible?
for him true info: stop1984now@yahoo.com for him aemriki learn.
2007-11-15 09:34:34
I think we should view the candidates record and not just their rhetoric. Also we should view the candidates like we approach a job interview. We should look at their references. Who have they associated with in the past. Then we want a president who has charm and charisma. I don’t care too much for Thompson, Julianni, Romney, or McCain. I like Huckabee the best. I have conservative views on politics and policies. The democrats don’t even come close to my worldview. The afore-mentioned list of republicans that I don’t care for, I don’t trust what they say. I feel like they are in many cases talking a good game, but they don’t really do what they say. My main issues are protect marriage, protect gender, protect babies, protect the elderly, promote economic growth by lowering taxes and lowering spending, stop illegal immigration, and save the whales (just kidding). That is where I am coming from.
2007-11-15 10:08:27
Thanks for the comment Sean. I have a couple questions. When you say you have conservative views on politics what does that mean? Also, what in the world does it mean to protect gender?
On a more serious note, if lowering taxes is supposed to promote economic growth how come our economy is weaker under Bush than it was under Clinton?
See chart below from http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_c.....tID=252964
2007-11-15 12:27:18
I can’t speak to your graph specifically, but I can respond by listing general economic principles that are crucial to promoting growing the economy. Cutting taxes to a fair and just single rate for everyone would promote extravagant growth. Since we have different rates based on wealth, which is fundamentally unjust, lowering the higher tax brackets to a flat tax would leave more of that person’s hard-earned money in their hand. Thus they would because of self-interest invest, or hire employees to increase their income more. Or they might make more purchases. Which will benefit someone’s business. I also see buying a product as a win-win proposition. Since I get something I want and the seller gets something they want, namely the money to buy their products. have to go.
2007-11-15 18:23:23
Do you realize that you answered reality with theory? Also the Flat Tax you talk about is very unfair, even worse than our current system. Implementing a flat tax would raise the amount paid by middle class Americans, and lower the tax paid by high income Americans. I think this screw the lower class approach is why the conservatives approve of it. That or they are foolish enough to vote against their best interests.
Time has a good article that I strongly recommend.
2007-11-16 14:37:06
You graph is suspect. Clinton iherited a booming economy from the Reagan tax cuts. Clinton promised tax cuts in the campaign, but almost immediately came up with and passed a record tax increase. Tax cuts always work. They fuel investment, growth, and jobs. More taxes have a bad habit of doing the opposite. Bush took office when there was a downward trend in economic growth. Then the attack on the world trade centers came. Yet, he perservered and pass tax cuts and there has been record tax revenues because of this. There has been record job growth and record housing market sales, until recently. I stand by Bush.
The flat tax concept would mean exempting the lower income folks from the tax. The flat tax simply means one fair rate for everyone. It is unjust to tax a $100,000 income at a higher rate than a $50,000. Taxing at different rates is punitive and is class envy at work. Class envy is a communist idea, not American idea. If the government doesnt have enough money, then cut spending on the social programs (medicare, medicaid, social security) that make up much of the budget.
2007-11-16 21:42:19
Sean, you said the chart was suspect, yet didn’t provide any references to prove your point. If you look at the source they clearly lay out their methodology and give references for the data. If you have any information that proves the chart inaccurate I would like to see it.
I have also provided references for why the flat tax is unfair to middle and lower income families. Unless you have something more credible to counter with then I see no point in repeating what has already been stated.
One last thing, if the government is bringing in more money through taxes that is a TAX INCREASE. Since there is a set amount of money in circulation (About 820 Billion), and rich people aren’t losing money, who do you think those record revenues are coming from?