Subscribe: Comments on: Fred Thompson — Federalist?
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/07/29/fred-thompson-federalist/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
big  campaign  correct  doug mataconis  doug  federal  government  internet  issues  liberty  much  paul  pretty much  ron paul  ron  thompson 
Rate this Feed
Rating: 3 starRating: 3 starRating: 3 starRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Fred Thompson — Federalist?

Comments on: Fred Thompson — Federalist?



Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time.



Last Build Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:48:48 +0000

 



By: Jive Dadson

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:23:51 +0000

Doug, electing a president who CAN get his measures through congress may be suicidal. First do no harm. I do not think this country can stand four more years of war-mongering or socialism.



By: Jive Dadson

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:17:23 +0000

Thompson is laying back, deciding what kind of makeup will sell his basset hound visage, and what the vulnerabilities of Rudy and Julie are. Notice he hasn't said much? He and Julie are both trying to co-opt some of Ron Paul's platform, but it's all inconsistent.



By: Jive Dadson

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:12:59 +0000

Brad: Nope, Ron Paul is the only one in the two big parties who is worth voting for. All the others are big government demagogues. If he doesn't get the nomination, we are screwed. But vote Libertarian anyway. Yar: I am not a staffer, but... Give it 11 days. The big push right now is on the Iowa Straw poll. Furthermore, the internet is being used to get boots on the ground through meetup.com. You ARE in a meetup group, right? Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkjUimC1owY



By: yar

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:34:19 +0000

URGENT MESSAGE FOR ANY RP CAMPAIGN STAFFER!!! : It's time for the campaign to shift both money and effort into realtime mail/TV exposure over the primarily free internet focus. I've examined the internet interest and campaign benefit created by the internet for RP, and it has now PEAKED. Ron Paul internet news is more and more jaded and circular in argument. It is time for the campaign to move into the next phase!!!



By: robert haley

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:12:51 +0000

Back about 1960, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller published a book called, "The Future of Federalism." It was a laudatory discourse on the great value of the federal system as a "laboratory" for the federal government in much the same terms that Thompson describes. It was not at all a defense of state's rights. So Thompson's views pretty much parallel those of Rockefeller. More significantly, Thompson is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a hard-line neo-con think tank. It's doubtful that there's an intervention in the wind that he wouldn't like. He's George Bush with a deeper voice. Even the conservative positions that he does spout are the result of a flip-flop somewhere in his career.



By: savealife

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:29:33 +0000

Also, those in Congress who "dont agree with" RP on Fed Reserve, Empire, the entitlement state, are barely cognizant of these issues to begin with. There is truly no discussion of any of these critical source issues because the Federal environment isnt condusive to even acknowledge these issues. The Federal environment isnt even condusive to acknowledge that the Fed Reserve, the US plan for Empire, or the gargantuan entitlement system even exist. Isnt it your job as a libertarian to try to change the media and political dialogue to include and even center around some of these foundational realities? Or is the American public and most of the American politicians just too dumbed down and sophmoric for that?



By: savealife

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:22:41 +0000

It always amuses me to see people equate people who point out the hypocrisy of trade agreements and how the agreements themselves in toto are anti-free trade. Real international trade that's free was going on throughout all of human history without benefit of WTO or any of the pantheon of daughter agreements. Also, no one can approach RP over foreign policy issues, seeing as how his is by far the most intelligent and sustainable. If you mean the global entities that expect more American subsidizing of foreign ventures will balk at RP being elected, why would you care? A real libertarian would never use the people's income for these ventures. It seems that no one on Earth can imagine a United States without the entitlement largesse motherland thing.



By: Doug Mataconis

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:01:31 +0000

Brad, If nothing else a Ron Paul Presidency would guarantee four years of gridlock unlike anything we've ever seen. And I've long believed that, when I comes to the operation of the Federal Government, gridlock is liberty's best friend. And, except for the pesky matters of foreign policy and international trade, a Ron Paul Presidency would be quite nice.



By: Con Law Geek » All the Same to Me

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:46:15 +0000

[...] Warbiany’s post at The Liberty Papers mentions some similar criticisms I’ve had toward Fred Thompson’s alleged championing of [...]



By: Brad Warbiany

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:29:56 +0000

Doug, It would still be a hell of a lot better than electing Rudy or Hillary, wouldn't it? At least we'd be having the discussion. And think of the sort of Supreme Court justice a guy like Ron Paul would appoint. They'd make Alito and Roberts look like big-government social conservatives... Or, rather, MORE like big-government social conservatives... Say it with me: Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown :-)



By: Doug Mataconis

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:24:04 +0000

Monitor, That's what I'd like to think will happen, but Paul seems to be building his entire campaign around one issue --- opposition to the Iraq War. It might be a smart strategy electorally, but it belies the fact that when it comes to issues like those you mention, there's virtually nobody in Congress, Republican or Democrat, who agrees with him. If the goal is really to change the political system, electing a President who couldn't get any of his programs through Congress isn't the way to do it.



By: Monitor

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:00:40 +0000

Here's the thing if Ron Paul DOES get the nomination: That necessarily means that the whole basis of political dialog will have shifted into previously undiscussed areas of monetary policy/Fed Reserve, empire building, the legitimacy of the current welfare state, and other fringe things. I dont see this happening other than the usual "debate moments" and other soundbites. I see America as "embracing the stupid" pretty much for the forseeable future.



By: Doug Mataconis

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:25:33 +0000

JS290, Then why did he also say that he would have supported something like the Defense of Marriage Act ?



By: js290

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:13:59 +0000

As I noted myself last week, Ron Paul essentially holds to a Federalist line when it comes to gay marriage and, while that may be Constitutionally correct, from an individual rights viewpoint, itâ€(image) s not necessarily the correct position to take.
How do you explain his statements made at Google when asked specifically about gay marriages (about 12 minutes and 30 seconds into it):
I support all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want.
That's about the most succinct statement on individual rights as you're going to hear from any politican. Ron Paul's federalist point of view seems to simply be "don't let the central govt fuck it up for everybody." He pretty much states this on his abortion view. While you're correct that federalism isn't necessarily pro-liberty, it's at least pointed in the right direction.



By: Doug Mataconis

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:39:23 +0000

Brad, I'm not convinced that Federalism is always pro-liberty. As I noted myself last week, Ron Paul essentially holds to a Federalist line when it comes to gay marriage and, while that may be Constitutionally correct, from an individual rights viewpoint, it's not necessarily the correct position to take.