Stop. Look. Listen. To Fred

h.t. Leaning Straight Up

One thing that struck me was what Fred said about the possible efficacy of his candidacy in… salvaging the Democratic party:

You know, when I’m asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn’t matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.

So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It’s time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.

So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven’t left the Democratic party so much as their party’s national leadership has left them.

As I’ve said before, only one man is running as a truly presidential candidate. The others all seem to be running for sophomore class clown.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Blog @, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

6 Replies to “Stop. Look. Listen. To Fred”

  1. I was afraid you would say “Fred.” I do not agree with you but I respect your right to believe that Fred is the man for the times – on a personal note I trust him less than any of them. For me he is unclear and is inconsistent and unlike Rudy or Huckbee I do not see what I would ge getting.

    Happy new year my friend to you and yours and may it be blessed with health and prosperity. 🙂

  2. Layla,

    Compared to Rudy and Huckabee, Fred’s public life (and voting record in the Senate) and his statements are the very model of consistency. Rudy has only one semi-conservative bone in his body: he’s about as set on the war on terrorism as Bush is (and that’s not really saying much, now is it, in light of Bush’s refusal to go after the chief funders and sponsors of Islamic terrirism, the Saudis, now is it?). Huckabee is a pure nannystater and typically corrupt Arkansas politician (and believe me, I’;ve live a LOT closer to his public life than most folks you’d meet–and both my children are working in the state where he never saw a tax hike he didn’t like). Huckabee is at least consistent in one thing: his life is consistently hypocritical. He has only ONE redeeming stance, and it is in complete and total and absolute opposition to his public life to date: his support (such as it is) of the Fair Tax.

    And that support is a complete flipflop from his stance on taxation while governor of Arkansas.

    And his recent quasi-conversion from being “The Governor From Tyson Food”–the single largest employer of illegal aliens in the country–to a sorta supporter of regulating our borders? Strictly for political ends and completely insincere, as with most of his “positions”.

    Read Fred’s position papers at Compare them to his voting record in the Senate.

    Consistent conservatism–a kind of conservatism foreign to ALL the other candidates but one that would find its place at George Washington’s dinner table–all the way through. Especially as compared to EVERONE else in the Republican’t field to date.

    In fact, get ahold of a copy (I believe it’s six volume, IIRC from my last readings in them 18 years ago) of Washington’s collected letters. Compare his thoughts on federalism and his voting record to Washington’s (heck, the thoughts found in the Federalist Papers). Remarkably close alignment.

    No one else. NO ONE in the republican’t field comes anywhere near Fred’s consistency in public life and recorded acts.

    Guiliani? Never was, never will be a conservative. He’s got two strikes against him on the second amendment to begin with. His active support of killing babies is enough to place him beyond the pale in a presidential race, alone.

    Huckabee? Consistent? As I said, only in hypocrisy. I literally would not vote for him for dogcatcher. Heck, we’d end up with free-ranging dog packs running the town (with free food and vet care thrown in to boot) to such a degree that his curtailing of our other freedoms through his nannystatism wouldn’t even be noticed.

    As dogcatcher.

    McCain? Against free POLITICAL speech! The best I’d ever offer him were I to see him would be an engraved invitation to a necktie party hosted by Dr. Tarr and Mr. Fether. And that’s even before considering that he LIED–FLAT OUT LIED–about the Senate amnesty bill for illegal aliens.

    Romney? Every position he holds now, he’s held at least two positions that directly contradict them before. He has no consistency, no integrity whatsoever. None. Zero. Zilch. I’d not trust him with ANY position.

    Who’s left? Ron Paul? Please. Too easy. Not even going there. Twice a day he’s right about something. Just about as good as a stopped clock. Better than Rudy, Mike and Mitt rolled into one, but not good enough for president.

    And on the other side of the aisle we have three candidates, pretty much: Barack Billary Hussein Obama Winfrey, Mr. Plagiarism Biden and My Little Pony.


    There is only one presidential candidate.

    Happy New Year back atcha.

  3. Thanks for the tip to the FA post, Debbie!

    As to holding my nose and voting for one of the Republican’ts… I dunno. Fred’s set the bar so far above the rest of the candidates that it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between the other Republican’ts and the Democraps, by comparison.


    Yes, I know of several votes he made while in the Senate that I disagree strongly with, but that’s several votes as against lifetimes of dishonorable behavior, pandering for office, etc., among the rest of the field.

    No comparison, none at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *