AmericanPapist Comments
Personally, I have found Thompson's refusal to pander and preen refreshing. I like his unagologetic, matter-of-fact attitude, particularly with the media. I recognize that this may not be the best way to win over already largely dissatisfied voters (and I'm not saying he's won me over), but I like that he appears to be a politician who isn't in it for the spotlight. And as a Ron Paul supporter, surely you aren't faulting him for not doing the sorts of things that win general elections.
I thought the federalist approach to Roe v. Wade was the right route to take on Meet the Press, although his statements about "criminalizing young girls" showed a lack of understanding of where the abortion issue stands today (as opposed to where it might have been in the 70s and 80s). The YouTube video provides zero context, so I've no idea what's going on with that. And for what it is worth, he is in New Hampshire now; when Rasmussen NH numbers are updated tomorrow, we'll see if the two-week-old numbers linked to here have changed at all to reflect that.
"unapologetic"...
Proof that the New Hampshire primary & Iowa caucus are not as crucial as everyone makes them out to be...
Previous New Hampshire primary results: Henry Lodge (over Goldwater in ‘64), Ed Muskie (over McGovern in ‘72), Gary Hart (over Mondale in ‘84), Paul Tsongas (over Clinton in ‘92), Pat Buchanan (over Dole in ‘96), and John McCain (over Bush in ‘00).
And, what about the Iowa caucus?: Ed Muskie, again (over McGovern in ‘72), “Uncommitted” (over Carter in ‘76... those Iowans might've been onto something there!), GH Bush (over Reagan in ‘80), Dick Gephardt (over Dukakis in '88 ), Bob Dole (over GH Bush in '88 ), and Tom Harkin (over Clinton in ‘92).
I don't see him as "matter of fact". I just don't. The few times I see him, I get the impression of a man who's running for president because he wasn't particularly busy with anything else at the time, so why not?
"I get the impression of a man who's running for president because he wasn't particularly busy with anything else at the time, so why not?"
A lot of folks have been saying this, or saying things like this, and I'm honestly wondering: why would someone run for president if he didn't want it? Especially someone who has said (and demonstrated) that he hates the glad-handing, baby-kissing stuff that the job entails? Clearly Thompson doesn't like hogging the spotlight, and he doesn't seem interested in getting down and dirty with his opponents on several key issues (see his "I don't have to answer to Huckabee" responses to FOX news the other day). So why run? It seems to me he must think he can do some good in the Oval Office. I don't know whether or not that is enough to get someone elected (I suspect it isn't), but I think it's the right reason to run for public office.
His comments about abortion show a remarkable lack of judgment for a person seeking the GOP nomination for POTUS. I don't want a man with such a lack of judgment around the nuclear football...(disclaimer: I'm a Romney supporter)
I'm pleased Brownback is likely to endorse McCain. I'm still holding out hope he can still put together something and be a strong contender. If only Bush and Rove hadn't resorted to shameful behavior in South Carolina nearly eight years ago...
"And as a Ron Paul supporter, surely you aren't faulting him for not doing the sorts of things that win general elections."
Two sorts of things that don't win general elections are a) laziness and b) not compromising your principles. While Ron Paul is indeed guilty of the latter, Thompson is far more guilty of the former, it seems to me.
"So why run? It seems to me he must think he can do some good in the Oval Office."
Well, of course he does. But he does himself and his cause a disservice by not giving it a fighting chance. Many people looked to him to be a knight in shining armor, and frankly, 95% of that would have been showing up on time and alert.
The laziness charge has dogged Thompson since his days in the Senate; I think it's one interpretation of the way he's run his campaign, but not the only one or the most convincing. I think a lack of desire to make people like him is one possible explanation, and it's closer to Paul's "not compromising your principles" than you may like. And while it is probably not going to win him the nomination (especially up against the much more charismatic Romney and Guiliani), again, I find it rather refreshing.
I also disagree on the "knight in shining armor" point; I think ultimately the hype and expectations leading up to his entering the race hurt him, and there was no way he could avoid this. Too many people were getting way too excited about him without knowing anything about him; he was the perfect blank slate to impose dream candidate features upon, especially for social conservatives who didn't see a viable candidate elsewhere. Even if he was the most charismatic, energetic candidate ever, he couldn't have lived up to the ridiculous expectations that were out there. The drop-off was unavoidable.
I should qualify: Thompson's possible lack of desire to make people like him MAY be akin to Paul's lack of compromise. I think it is possible Thompson's unwillingness to pander is this principled; I'm not willing to write him off as lazy yet.
For the life of me, I can't accept a politician who advocates the "federalist" approach on an issue such as this . . .
We aren't talking about legalization of the sale of alcohol, or the speed limit on limited access highways, or even the laws of inheritance. These are all subjects that might be treated differently in different parts of the country.
With abortion we are dealing with the question of whose life is deemed a "human life" and therefore entitled to protection in law. Does that seem like a question that would have a different answer, depending on whether you were in Massachusetts or Mississippi?
Hmm . . . sounds strangely like an issue that the politicians of 150 years ago wrongly believed that they could leave to individual states . . . didn't this country learn anything at Appomattox Court House?
BRASSBAND, what you are missing is, i think, the fact that almost all legislation on human life taking is at the state level. why should this one be different? every argument you make against abortion laws state by state could be made about murder laws, state by state.
i think a state's right approach is sound in another way. 30 states, if empowered to legislate again here, would outlaw abortion tomorrow, and 10 more would make it all but impossible.
that's a lot of babies saved without compromise of american law on protectin lfie, and that 10 places that major economic pressure could be brought ot bear one.
at least, this bears consideration, espcially compared to what we have now, anda re likely to get another other way, short of the Second Coming.
Dr. Peters --
Although there are many differences in murder laws from state to state, these differences generally involve the elements that constitute a particular degree of murder, or types of punishment available for different types of homicides.
To my knowledge there are no states that permit homicide of a certain class of individuals (except, of course, for the unborn). Indeed, if a State enacted a law excluding from its homicide statutes any victim under the age of three years, for example, I think that exemption would violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Of course I agree with you that from a strategic perspective, victory in thirty states would be a great step forward from where we are right now . . . but I think that you and I agree that the lives taken in states that decide to permit abortion are just as human as the lives that would be protected in those states that would prohibit it.
The problem I have is with a politician running for national office who says that he (or she) believes abortion to be the taking of a human life, but then goes on to say that if the folks in South Dakota or Maine think otherwise, that's OK with him (or her).
bb, all reasonable points, certainly.
Re: Edward Peters’ “running for president because he wasn't particularly busy.”
This just shows that Mr. Peters doesn’t know much about Thompson, hasn’t followed him, but likes to mimic the Mainstream Media’s take on things.
Mr. Thompson has the most ambitious single agenda of any Presidential Candidate this year, except for Hillary Clinton. Hillary's agenda would be implementing Marxism, Thompson would be re-igniting the Reagan Revolution in economics and foreign policy, restoring America.
Regarding carlos’ “I don't want a man with such a lack of judgment around the nuclear football...” Thompson’s positions on abortion have nothing to do with lack of judgement. They just mean he is pro-choice (and, of course, wrong.) but it is interesting to see such a remark coming from someone who supports a candidate who has been on BOTH SIDES OF EVERY SIGNIFICANT MORAL ISSUE repeatedly changing sides, and proven beyond reasonable doubt that he cannot, simply cannot be trusted with anything: Mitt Romney.
Re: “Two sorts of things that don't win general elections are a) laziness and b) not compromising your principles…Thompson is far more guilty of the former, it seems to me.”
This is, simply put, a lie. Thompson is not, and has never been lazy. This is a concoction of the pro-abortion, gay rights, tax and spend, anti-American, Environmentalist Wacko, Global socialist media. It is a carefully concocted lie based on two things: 1. Thompson is, with regard to media and campaign methodology, iconoclastic and does not defer to the liberal mainstream propaganda machine. He won't dance for them. They hate that. 2. He speaks slowly and carefully, like a Southerner.
People who repeat this lie have absolutely no evidence and are undiscriminating about whether or not they speak the truth as long as it suits their purposes. It is a sin.
“I think a lack of desire to make people like him is one possible explanation…”
Here, again, remarks are based on ignorance. Thompson has, in past campaigning, slowly uncorked a huge bottle of straightforward, articulate, well-reasoned, Reaganesque charisma that swept him to landslide, upset victory, but, to be sure, has not yet appeared since he committed to the '08 race. Past performance is researchable history if you’re actually interested in the truth. His current methods disclose an enormous confidence, and, it would appear, his faith in God.
Re: “I find it rather refreshing.”
To be sure. If Thompson gets untracked, you’ll find it awesome.
Re: “I can't accept a politician who advocates the "federalist" approach on an issue such as this”
Thompson’s problem isn’t Federalism. That’s the solution to a whole range of issues dogging the Republic, most particularly including the slouching slide to Socialism we’ve been engaged in since FDR (except 1981-1989). Thompson’s problem is that his political position on abortion, despite his intellectual progress, is still pro-choice.
Re: “didn't
aparently, there is a text limit. Here's the rest:
Re: “didn't this country learn anything at Appomattox Court House?”
Indeed. That is the best question.
Re: peters’ “…every argument you make against abortion laws state by state could be made about murder laws, state by state.”
You miss the point. Murder laws, state by state, are prohibited from discriminating against blacks in their protection, but not discriminating against prenatal children on the same basis as was done with pre-civil war blacks.
You can argue for a state-by-state strategy, but not a state-by-state morality. All American law, from the Constitution down, must recognize the inalienable right to life. Who says so? The Lamb. Who must take that postion? His true followers.
But Ed, you write as if asserting the moral imperative of a Human Life Amendment somehow diminishes the “Dump Roe and go State by State” approach. There is no contradiction between one and the other. It’s not either/or. Support both.
I, personally, believe that Fred would be one of the four candidates who would actually nominate Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe (Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, Thompson), because he is one of the only four that have demonstrated Constitutional Conservatism. We need to demand our leaders be Constitutionalists and Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee and Romney are NOT.
But Brassbear is right. We also need to demand our leaders be pro-life and Thompson, McCain, Romney and Giuliani are NOT.
Who’s left?
Commenting by HaloScan
