Bye Bye Fred
I had just started to think that Fred Thompson might have been the least-bad candidate in the race, so of course he just quit.
Posted on January 22, 2008 at 02:32 PM | Permalink
Same exact sentiment here. The one candidate with a reasonably good limited-government record drops out just as I begin to be interested in him.
Posted by: Ari | Jan 22, 2008 2:51:03 PM
Perhaps he was overawed at the thespian skills of The Tearful One.
Posted by: dearieme | Jan 22, 2008 5:31:21 PM
Have you looked at Ron Paul's limited-government record?
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
He has never voted to spend a penny of the Social Security Surplus.
For those who say Paul can't win: He came in second in Nevada and has beaten front runner Guiliani in every state so far except New Hampshire. Paul raised almost $20,000,000 last quarter. He has the funds and the grassroots support to run a nationwide campaign. His performance is even more remarkable considering the current media blackout of his campaign.
Getting back to the post topic. If Paul was not in the race, Fred would have been my first choice.
Posted by: Wiseburn | Jan 22, 2008 7:44:34 PM
That would be great if only Paul weren't a loon.
Posted by: Mark Alger | Jan 22, 2008 8:44:40 PM
I don't know why you guys can't just say "...except for Ron Paul..." in all of your statements. Because that's what you really mean. It doesn't matter whether you think he is a loon or not, you can't twist reality to meet your whims. Consider: "The one candidate with a reasonably good limited-government record drops out...". That statement is false. While I won't dispute the implied claim on Thompson's record, that statement is not accurate until you insert on the disclaimer: "The one candidate with a reasonably good limited-government record, except for Ron Paul, drops out...". That is because Ron Paul has the best limited-government record of all the candidates. Like it or not.
Posted by: Brandybuck | Jan 22, 2008 11:19:06 PM
I can see the confusion. Wikipedia description of "loon"
The plumage is largely black-and-white, with grey on the head
clearly matches Dr. Paul's campaign attire and his advertising has been briefly mistaken for a bird.
The 10 term congressman and champion of the constitution is in fact human and not an aquatic bird.
Posted by: Wiseburn | Jan 23, 2008 10:10:32 AM
IMO, many voters would seriously consider Ron Paul, given his limited gov. credentials, were it not for his isolationist foreign policy ideals. That's a deal-breaker for many conservatives and independents in today's globalized world, myself included. His brand of isolationism seemed feasible in the first half of the 20th century, but is not welcome by many voters in today's world.
The world is not what it is because of our foreign intervention. Rather it is not worse off because of it.
Just my $0.02, with respect to Dr. Paul.......
Posted by: Gerald | Jan 23, 2008 10:26:08 AM
I don't understand why people consider Dr. Paul an 'isolationist'. He simply doesn't want our troops deployed in foreign nations without a just cause. He is very supportive of free and global trade with many nations of the world. He believes we have a moral obligation (not a constitutional mandate) to spread democracy throughout the world. He simply thinks it is morally wrong for us to do so with the barrel of a gun. Rather, we should promote democracy by showing the world how we enjoy our freedoms, economic strength and liberties. By doing that, and not interfering with the social, political, and economic issues of other nations, we just might gain a lot of the respect we have lost in the last few decades.
The 'isolationist' label for Dr. Paul is simply incorrect.
Posted by: Damon Gentry | Jan 23, 2008 11:25:09 AM
Has Ron Paul ever actually accomplished anything to limit government, or has he just made a series of protest votes in Congress? I will give him credit for bringing up ever-increasing government programs in debates that would otherwise be all about what various politicians are going to do "for" us, but that's been more than canceled out by all the times he came off as a complete loon. Thompson could have won and would have at least slowed down the growth. Ron Paul can't win, and if he did, all he'd accomplish is to set an all-time record for the number of vetoes overridden by Congress...
Posted by: markm | Jan 23, 2008 1:49:04 PM
The difference between isolationist and non-interventionist is as plain as the difference between North Korea and Switzerland.
Paul also introduced amendments to end the pursuit of a National Identification card as well as to ban federal teacher tests, both of which successfully made their way into federal law.
From another list (without bill numbers) of Paul's legislative successes.
1. Thanks to RP we do not have a uniform medical identifier
2. Thanks to RP we do not have UN taxes*
3. RP was a leader in the successful battle to not subject American Troops to the
International Criminal Court*
4. RP lead the effort to get language in No Child Behind prohibiting national teacher
7. Ron passed an amendment to the PATRIOT Act explicitly protecting political activity.
Here's a progressive view [and list] on the many bills Paul has introduced.
In addition, he is known for his great support of helping Veterans and all the things Congress Critters do to help the people in his district.
P.S. A big thanks to Warren for letting us hijack this thread.
Posted by: Wiseburn | Jan 23, 2008 5:55:17 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.