What you are mad about is his actual position. That’s it. I understand it too, But he believes what he believes. You don’t like what he believes, but he obviously is only going to back down from it to a certain extent. Take it or leave it.

I know most of you will leave it. And that is your right. But like I am told ad nauseum regarding the abortion issue, there are other issues here. You guys were ready to forgive Rudy on everything encluding McCain/Feingold, which he supported (along with your “pure” Fred), as long as he was “right on the war on terror.” Yet, McCain, who is more than right on the world on terror, gets no such break from you guys.

Maybe Thompson isn’t making a big deal out of the amnesty thing because in 1997 he voted for amnesty for illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba.

I mean what difference does it make where they come from, right? Amnesty is Amnesy and illegal is illegal.

My point is..if you want purity, go watch “Snow White” but if you want a good man who will be a great President and will beat the most chilling Democrat to run EVER, then you might want to forgive McCain.

Candidate Research – Know Who You’re Voting For
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/candidate_research_know_who_youre_voting_for/

“He’s amassed a rogues’ gallery of troublemaking former pals – Keating, Gary Hart, John Tower, Fife Symington, Duke Tully – who hardly square with his ambitions as a reformer.”

“He prides himself on his personal integrity yet admits he wasn’t faithful to his first wife, Carol, who was injured in a horrific car accident while McCain was in Vietnam.”

“While at the Naval Academy, McCain let some subjects slide, spending his time reading history and literature and, of course, howling at the moon. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his class.”

If we start electing presidents who come from heritage traditions outside our national one, then we’re pretty much finished as a cohesive society and culture.

kdaddy,

I don’t know what else to say to you but that I love everything about America including our customs and our culture. I love it is so much that I keep up with our political process in almost a daily basis. I’m so very fortunate to be born in this country. I don’t ever doubt that. I would never support anything I feel undermines
our country. That’s all I can say.

Not too many Americans citizen can say their ancestors have lived here for centuries.

…but actually, considering that immigrants (there were no immigrants before the 1780s) have never made up even 15% of our population, there remains a strong plurality of Americans who have ancestors that were here at the time of the founding.

The casting off of my ancestors through this insipid “nation of immigrants” nonsense (from a book by JFK in the 1950s), is just another progressive tool to distract people from learning anything useful from this nation’s proper heritage past.

It’s sad that there exists an almost accidental conspiracy of political correctness, multicultualism and diversity that has served to discourage some Americans from teaching their kids about their heritage and ancestral achievements, so this generation of American youth is the most clueless about its past of any. I even see it in my family, but certainly not in my home. It’s shameful that we have invited others into our midst whose children actually believe that there aren’t many descendants of the founding generations left, when mathematically such claims are absurd.

The nation of immigrants mantra is true so far as the useful fictions of ideology go if you decide to simply accept it, as many have. But your believing the narrative still does not make it factual, nor will it bring it closer to being true.

And to many of us who know how our ancestors would have objected to being referred to as “immigrants,” casting us as a nation of them will always remain an insult.

It’s not in the Constitution that the president has to have ancestry in Western civilization. Should we start having blood test to make sure that everyone elected has no once of blood from outside Western Europe?

To make this clearer, the discussion is about the importance of maintaining the common heritage threads that made this nation what it is, not clinging to constitutionality as a reason or means to sever them. You don’t get it, and perhaps because of latent ethnocentrism you can’t. If we start electing presidents who come from heritage traditions outside our national one, then we’re pretty much finished as a cohesive society and culture. Not that it would bother you, obviously.

It’s weird to dialog with people who can’t even grasp their own ulterior motives.

We are a nation of laws.

True. That is why I said this earlier:

No, I don’t support illegal activity.

It’s not gibberish, it’s the truth. Not too many Americans citizen can say their ancestors have lived here for centuries.

It’s not relevant. We are a nation of laws. Whether you are a 1st generation or a 10th generation American, we exist by the consent of the governed to operate under common laws. What advocates of ill imm don’t understand is that there is identity and value there that is very deep.

Pull up the biographies of all previous presidents and find me one who had a parent from anyplace outside Western Civilization.

It’s not in the Constitution that the president has to have ancestry in Western civilization. Should we start having blood test to make sure that everyone elected has no once of blood from outside Western Europe?

All the gibberish people believe about this “nation of immigrants” junk

It’s not gibberish, it’s the truth. Not too many Americans citizen can say their ancestors have lived here for centuries.

Michael in MI – Fred has the weakest executive experience in the R side. It’s a poor card to play pro-Fred anti-Obama.

What I was getting at is this: Fred was called into service by the grassroots if you buy that. Obama was called into service the same way. It is undeniable that there is a clamour for him, his 1st quarter fundraising was record-breaking. That wasn’t because he has a Clinton or Bush like network already existing on the ground.

My point is that the fact he changed his mind is irrelevant unless you use it to prop up a preconception. He decided to run because he can win and lots of people like him. Not that much different then Fred, except one raised a lot more money than the other.

What if Fred said when he left the Senate he was done with political office?

I’ll take your premise…

I don’t see how it is comparable to what Barack Obama is doing.

Barack Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004, I believe. He was elected to be a Senator. He assured people that he would serve as a Senator to his State and build up some experience, not abandon his Senate duties to then go on a Presidential campaign.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, has a career and experience as a politician and counsel in politics and then decided to retire. By getting back into politics, he is not going back on any promises to serve the people of Tennessee to pursue the Presidency. He could easily say that he saw the absence of conservatives in the GOP race and felt that he needed to give America the option of voting for a Conservative.

What could Barack Obama say to explain away his change of heart? ‘Yes, I know I still don’t have any experience, and I haven’t even fulfilled a full term expected of me in the Senate on behalf of the people of the State of Illinois, but I think the time is right for someone with no experience to run for President.’

So what is it Spirit?

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Whew. Obama and Edwards just went back to back on this. Hillary misunderstands the voters, she always says ‘the Bush administration’. Change means her too. Voters are tired of BDS and CDS. That is why Obama/Edwards/Clinton in Iowa.

My point was that his supporters claim he is this great guy running on integrity and all, yet he is just as slimy as all the other politicians and will go back on his promises like all the rest if it suits his desire for power.

Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Right. That is a predetermined judgment on your part. Compare that to Fred. What if Fred said when he left the Senate he was done with political office? Would you stop supporting him because he is “slimy”. Careful with your answer:) it might be a trap!

Entelechy on January 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Sorry E, I was over in the debate thread. I was actually hoping MiM would take another shot at it. I was trying to suggest that proverb – keep a clear eye when you shoot! ie remove personal opinion.

If you ask a supporter why they support him, none will say he is naive or ignorant. That is, in fact, what Hillary will say. So temporarily disregarding the voters that will switch because of a HC attack ad, what motivates his base?

I think its a series of things that are encompassed by the word ‘change’. He did something that politicians talk about but rarely do…he pulled the youth out to vote. That means he sold the idea that they matter. What drives the youth? Idealism.

I’m breaking here. I’ll come back, the dems are up now.

No I’m not a multiculturist.

You wrote, “Yes, English is our official language and people who want to live and work here should learn it. BUT let’s not get so
sensitive about seeing signs, documents, etc. translated into
other languages.” That’s pretty much a multiculturalist sentiment to me.

No way I’m trying to altering this nation’s custom, convention, and continuity.

You haven’t ruled out Obama, which says pretty much the opposite. Pull up the biographies of all previous presidents and find me one who had a parent from anyplace outside Western Civilization.

I don’t care what shade his dad was, or what color he is, what I care about with Obama is that the handed-down stories he was told as a child absolutely must have imprinted him to be overly accommodating toward alien ideals. There just isn’t any way that the guy could ever fully comprehend what it means to have an American heritage or respect my ancestors properly.

Continuity of this sort is a prerequisite for me, and for conservatism. Even considering his candidacy requires abandoning affinity for custom and convention also. Obama’s dad disqualifies him in my book, and since you don’t reject him, it makes your contention that you respect these three conservative principles quite laughable.

I went to public schools just like everyone else.

That’s not a very good indicator of attachment to custom…it’s almost an admission that you haven’t learned to respect custom.

I went to college and I’m trying to find a good job to be like everyone else.

So? You might have gone to college in Japan and have the same feelings…except that you wouldn’t be welcome there at all if you weren’t Japanese.

I go to church every weekend like many other Americans.

Superficial. It’s not indicative of cherishing continuity.

I do my civic duty and vote.

Congrats. That’s one that actually works. And you apparently try to remain informed. Kudos.

How I’m trying to alter our nation’s customs?

You aren’t intolerant enough of aliens. Seriously. All the gibberish people believe about this “nation of immigrants” junk and how “tolerant” we have historically been toward immigrants is bunk. This nation became what it is thanks to its harsh treatment of immigrants…even the term “immigrant” was coined and used as a slur of reference to those who came after the sacrifices of the founding generation…and has until recently compelled large percentages to leave.

In the past, the custom was that those who stayed were those who most successfully abandoned the ways of their ancestors. You wrote on your blog…

But I’m just getting tired of all this complaining of illegal immigration and no one coming up with any viable solutions.

…what you’re saying is that nobody has given you a solution you can live with. The attrition through enforcement solution is the closest thing we have to following our tradition of intolerance in immigration. It appears you reject it and would prefer another way and my guess is that any solution we might devise that compels all illegal aliens to leave and not ever return would not be a “viable solution” in your mind.

Instead, you’d have us alter custom to accommodate these people.

…be more inclined to vote for him in ‘12, all other things being the same. If not, then I doubt that criticism even has weight in your own mind:)

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 7:21 PM

To answer your question, unless he somehow radically changes his ideology to align with conservatism, then no, I would never consider voting for him.

My point was that his supporters claim he is this great guy running on integrity and all, yet he is just as slimy as all the other politicians and will go back on his promises like all the rest if it suits his desire for power.

I don’t think you’ve hit on it yet;)

Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 7:10 PM

So what is it Spirit?

‘Would I be’… what, Spirit of 1776?

Weird, that’s twice in two days I’ve lost a piece of a post.

…be more inclined to vote for him in ‘12, all other things being the same. If not, then I doubt that criticism even has weight in your own mind:)

Let me put it this way, would you be

‘Would I be’… what, Spirit of 1776?

Is he guilty by association?

Yes. If a Republican (or any) candidate were known to belong to the Westboro Baptist Church, I would not be supporting that candidate either.

He also hides his apparent Black supremacism

Is he guilty by association?

He also went back on his word to get experience in politics before running for President.

He changed his mind. Let me put it this way, would you be

His popularity comes from his idealistic naivate, ignorance of the real world and by being vaulted into the spotlight from a great idealistic speech he gave at the 2004 DNC.

Just like Fred, just like Paul, just like Rudy, etc his popularity comes from something, but (aside from ‘the speech’) I don’t think you’ve hit on it yet;)