Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference
Fred Thompson FAQ: THE Fred Thompson Web Resource
Posted on 06/22/2007 8:24:58 PM PDT by Josh Painter
A new study from David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, and David Kirby, executive director of the America's Future Foundation, have released a new study that asserts that - surprise! - libertarians are the swing vote in national elections...
Any group that is 13 percent of the electorate is big enough to swing elections, if they're positioned right on the political see-saw. It's not really the size of the libertarian vote that matters so much as it is where they stand on issues - and whether or not they currently feel more at home or less at home in the Republican coalition. Some Bush administration policies are making them feel less comfortable voting for Republicans. But Bush won't be on the ballot in '08. That's the good news for Republicans.
The bad news for Republicans is, if the party nominates a presidential candidate who is too liberal on social issues, in hopes of attracting more libertarian votes, they may cost themselves votes among social conservatives.
Ronald Reagan was able to thread that needle and keep both social conservatives and libertarians in the coalition in sufficient numbers to win two landslides.
In this current polarized age I'm not so sure that anyone in the current Republican field can do the same, though Fred Thompson's federalist view of government, I believe, gives him a pretty good shot at doing it. That's because, fundamentally, federalism is a libertarian-leaning view of government as it prefers leaving more decisions and power in the hands of states rather than the central government...
(Excerpt) Read more at elephantbiz.com ...
Most people who call themselves Federalists are selective in their application, seeking a different goal entirely, but borrowing the label when convenient. It does seem that Fred is genuine, though I would make an exception for his federal regulation of political speech vote.
It was a lousy vote. But not for federalist reasons. CFR regulates federal elections. Probably within the implied powers of congress if otherwise constitutional. Of course CFR grossly violated the first amendment.
All this Dim talk of socializing health care ain’t gonna play with libertarians. Of course, the Pubbies had better start standing up to the Dhimmies on the health care issue.
They may have been for federal office but they were state races except for the Presidential race. My comparison is lousy anyway in that states can’t regulate speech either. It isn’t about federalism. It’s about the fundamental God-given right to freedom of speech. Shame on Congress, Bush and the Supreme Court.
I am a conservatarian (or neo-libertarian) who will probably back Fred in the primary, but you better believe, I will support the party’s nominee against the Hildabeast or Hussein Obama.
I would love JC Watts or Michael Steele for VP.
It’s a huge fallacy that social liberalism = libertarianism. If that were true, libertarians would simply vote for liberals. Many social “liberals” are much too big-government authoritarian to appeal to many libertarians (unfortunately, the same is true for too many republicans these days).
I believe social conservatives and libertarian conservatives are natural allies, for at least two reasions: because we all believe in voting (and governing) on principle, rather than in party lockstep; and we all believe that there is a higher power than government (God, the individual, or both).
There are some libertarian anarchists, and some social conservative authoritarians — those folks will never get along. But I think the rest of us can quite comfortably unite around a return to Constitutional principles. The Founders intended the States to lead on contentious social issues — that way we can each live in much the way we like, and our 50 laboratories will determine what works and what doesn’t.
In short, from this libertarian conservative — GO THOMPSON!
Not even Close:
Brownback,I want govt off the backs of people and I don’t support someone who wants to ban certain video games. That’s not what govt is for.
Paul, No sorry, never. Not even a real libertarian, cannot deal with Islamofascism. Ron Paul supporters can’t even explain his position on spending from the debate, they are still spinning. They have been given two weeks and they stil cannot come up with a single answer.
McCain, Res Ipsa loquitur. He’s like Newt Gingrich in that once he starts to sound good, he will come out and say something pretty dumb.
Tancrado, I don’t know what planet he’s from. Shows no political acumen, he may have solid views on immigration, but he comes off as being Xenophobic at best. Oppose the surge in Iraq.
Tommy Thompson, Why is he running??
Well, but:
Gilmore - Good guy, Not ready for prime time (NRFPT).
Hunter - Good guy, NRFPT. Would not even carry California in the general election.
Hukabee - Good guy, NRFPT.
The Contenders:
Guiliani - Good Guy, too socially liberal, but he would probably run the country from a centre-right view. I would vote for him in the general election, but I don’t know how tough he really is. He sounds too good to be true at times.
Romney - Good guy. I just don’t know. He’s a lot like Rudy in that he sounds better than his past.
Not so ran:
Gingrich - See McCain above. Attention seeker
Hagel - Is Hagel even running? I hope not.
I believe we are political brethren, we are conservatarians.
I like it! Some people also call me contrarian. :)
B U M P
No more using the initials "CFR" and just use the full name?
It has gotten annoying with folks debating totally different topics.
Council of foreign relations and campaign finance reform.
They have the same initials, but to many freepers do not realize that they are arguing different things.
“I would love JC Watts or Michael Steele for VP”
So would I, but Mike Pence would be a great choice as well.
The party’s nominee will be Ron Paul.
Well then we are not in agreement.
Yes, Mike Pence would be great. I agree.
I was thinking about what you said so I looked up the history of the FEC. Very interesting.
It does seem that Fred is genuine, though I would make an exception for his federal regulation of political speech vote.
For election to federal office, federal regulation makes sense, and is essential to avoid a situation where citizens of one state are allowed to make large donations, and citizens of another are not, due to differing state laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.