« Hillsdale: A College for Conservatives | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

Fred Thompson's Speech at the Lincoln Club of Orange County Dinner

Thursday night the Republican candidates for president held their debate on MSNBC. The following day, probable presidential contender Fred Thompson gave a speech at the Lincoln Club of Orange County dinner. Today, RealClearPolitics published Fred's speech. Here's a portion:

A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as two dollars worse off.

To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle class -- don't stand anywhere near that target. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could work together on how to make the pie bigger?

Read the rest of Fred's speech. In it he outlines his positions on a variety of issues, including globalization, securing our borders, and entitlements.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fred Thompson's Speech at the Lincoln Club of Orange County Dinner:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with GOP candidates straddle fence on Iraq

Comments (52)

The reason I love this man,... (Below threshold)

The reason I love this man, he reminds me of my daddy. Say what you mean, mean what you say. All cards on the table. No ifs, and or buts about it.
Prayers up for this man of strenth. As much as I love W, the "new tone" has to go.

Ye gods... would this man ... (Below threshold)

Ye gods... would this man just bite the proverbial bullet, throw his proverbial hat into the proverbial ring, and make it official already? Do we need to hook a not-so-proverbial ring into his nose and drag him in?

Washington is in such desperate need of this manner of down-to-earth-ed-ness, it stopped being amusing decades ago.

I think he would make a gre... (Below threshold)

I think he would make a great candidate... but why be so coy about running? Perhaps he will enter the race later, when many candidates are running out of steam...and funds. Also, what about the cancer thing? Is it in remission?

I've got the video of the e... (Below threshold)

I've got the video of the entire speech here.

By announcing later than th... (Below threshold)

By announcing later than the heeelllooooo 18 months advance of the current crop, he gains in two ways. First the weak will drop out, thinning the herd. Second people won't be burnt out at the sight of his name. Good overall plan, the real test is selling the American middle. If he keeps talking like he has, no problem.(in my opinion)

That speech made more sense... (Below threshold)

That speech made more sense than any I've heard in a long time.Go directly to the people(Ronald Reagan any one) is the only way to inform and advise the population.He has my vote.

Brian, he has contractual o... (Below threshold)

Brian, he has contractual obligations to NBC and ABC radio until June, I think. Also, when he announces, the equal time provisions would kick in, so all the other candidates might be entitled to equal time on NBC and ABC.

When Reagan ran for president, his movies wern't shown on the late show during the campaign.

There is an issue noted on other blogs about the reruns of Law and Order on cable (and how much money the other actors make in residuals). Since Thompson is only in short scenes, they could always be cut.

And Wethal gets it right!<b... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

And Wethal gets it right!

Anyone remember him in the ... (Below threshold)

Anyone remember him in the Gene Hackman - Kevin Costner - Sean Young film "No Way Out?"
He was great.

Don't you think that taxes ... (Below threshold)

Don't you think that taxes need to be evaluated in the context of other economic variables----spending, for example?

What happens if the government is spending zillions of dollars on, for example, the occupation of Iraq. Is this free? Or can the government simply print money to pay for it?

What happens if the government spends money it doesn't have? Can it just get a "free ride"?

Publicus, I know this is a ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Publicus, I know this is a difficult concept for the left to grasp as they really want all the money not just part of it. Then they get to dole out what they think you need. When Kennedy cut taxes, federal revenues actually went up. Same thing when Reagan did it. By growing the economy, more revenue is produced. These facts are so easy to check, a caveman can do it.

President Fred Thompson s... (Below threshold)

President Fred Thompson spells the end of Democrat Perpetual Fraud. His voice alone will make democrats cry and in full blown tantrum mode.

Fred Thompson has my vote.

>Wouldn't it be great if, i... (Below threshold)

>Wouldn't it be great if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could work together on how to make the pie bigger?

Oh man- that's Reagan talking.

Publicus,The only ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


The only chance that government spending is going to be cut lies with Republicans. Democrats are not going to do it. Republicans are probably not going to do it either, but at least they sometimes give lip service to "smaller government." It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire.

The interesting thing is that the only time a Democrat brings up spending concerns is in regard to the military - otherwise all bets are off.

Also, when he announces,... (Below threshold)

Also, when he announces, the equal time provisions would kick in, so all the other candidates might be entitled to equal time on NBC and ABC.

This has never actually been litigated. A common sense reading of the equal time clause would only bring it into effect when someone actually buys time on a network.

How refreshing. Someone wh... (Below threshold)

How refreshing. Someone who actually "gets it". He seems to be from the Arnold school of thought; if the people are to win, government has to lose.

Jeff:How'd the Rep... (Below threshold)


How'd the Republicans do at cutting spending for the past 7 years or so? How'd they do at making government smaller?

JFO,They haven't. ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


They haven't. Prsesident Bush's record in this regard is nothing less than embarrassing. That is why I said, "Republicans are probably not going to do it either" and at "least they sometimes give lip service to "smaller government" and "It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire."

I am very disappointed with the Republican leadership in this regard. We elect them and they refuse to do what we put them there for. It is very frustrating. They seem more interested in cowing to Democrats and making friends in the media than serving their constituents.

Still, they are the only ones who even hint that there is an infinitesimal chance of cutting spending. It is not an easy thing to do. Any government programs cut will bring accusations of starving children and dirtying water. A least with the Repubs there is a glimmer of hope that spending might be cut. With Dems there is not even a glimmer.

Where's BryanD(imwit) to ba... (Below threshold)

Where's BryanD(imwit) to bash Fred?

Maybe he got scared off after seeing evidence that there's more than one person interested in Fred here?

Jeff:I think both ... (Below threshold)


I think both sides are incapable, as of this time and place, of reducing spending/making government smaller. Politics is so polarized now, there are really no gifted leaders on either side in Congress and there seems to be a complete unwillingness on either side to accept suggestions or compromise from the other. Politics is now big business beholden to special interests on one side or the other. It's very discouraging, especially when I have lived long enough to have experienced true bipartisanship in government as well as competent leaders.

Blogs like this and ones on the left are a reflection of the current state of politics in our country. It's an all or nothing approach. One must disagree with just about anything someone from the other side posits. Each side sees the other as evil and wrong. Name calling is inevitable.

It's sad really. We and the rest of the world have huge problems facing us and there seems to be no ability to bridge the gaps needed to address and solve issues.

JFO,"I think both ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


"I think both sides are incapable, as of this time and place, of reducing spending/making government smaller."

I think history proves you are correct. However, if government is ever going to get smaller, it must first be a stated goal. Whether progress is made or not, it is something to "pin on the refrigerator" as it were. Republicans need to keep it pinned there. Maybe one day they'll really get inspired. The best we can hope for at present is a decrease in the rate of growth of government - and even that much seems a little pie in the sky. I keep hoping.

By contrast, Democrats are not willing to even state the goal. They seem bent on a socialist nation.

Jeff: I am a democ... (Below threshold)


I am a democrat and to the left of center. I think your perception that we want a socialist state is off the mark. There are deep philosophical differences between both sides, but I surely don't believe that the majority of democrats want a socialist state. What you posit is what I'm talking about - pinning extreme labels on the side you don't agree with. I'm not being critical of you as many on the left do the same thing. In a nutshell that's the problem. We don't really listen to one another enough.

JFO:If I wanted to... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


If I wanted to be extreme, I would have said "communist" instead of "socialist."

We'll just have to disagree here. If the average Democrat does not want a socialist nation, they are doing nothing to stop it. You side has at least one avowed socialist in congress, I dare say many others are just unwilling to admit it.

Nationalized health care, enforced price controls/managed economies, wealth redistribution, equal outcomes not equal opportunity [i.e. "fairness"], holding up European nations as an ideal to be emulated, housing as a "right", the Social Security ponzi scheme, workplace democracy, and general anti-capitalist sentiment are all hallmarks of socialism just to name a few.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Jeff:One socialist... (Below threshold)


One socialist in congress is not exactly a mandate for socialism, come on. Have you ever read the Democratic Platform fo4 2004? If you have, I'd like to point out where it calls for nationalized health care or wealth redistribtion ot any of the other matters you cite. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do so and try and find the things you cite.

JFOI don't see "an... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


I don't see "anti-war protester" in the Democratic Party platform either. I guess if it is not in writing, it must not be characteristic of the Party. Silly me. Are you telling me that the Democratic Party does not fancy itself the modern day Robin Hood? Now you are in denial.

Jeff:As I said in ... (Below threshold)


As I said in one my first comments the dialogue always seems to resort to name calling. Too bad, I had some hope we could debate. But since you clearly know nothing about the democratic platform and aren't willing to investigate it no sense chatting.

There's a philosophical posit by Herbert Spencer that defines contempt prior to investigation as ignorance. Wish we all would do some more investigation.

Where's BryanD(imwit) to ba... (Below threshold)

Where's BryanD(imwit) to bash Fred?
Maybe he got scared off after seeing evidence that there's more than one person interested in Fred here?
Posted by: C-C-G

Oooo! "More than one..."

Like I always say, beware of people who wear their "Christianity" on their sleeve, ie. ChristianConservativeGeek. It's like wearing a cross outside of one's shirt, and the bigger the cross, the bigger the "show". Phoneeeey!

Why, just yesterday morning, I pulled CCG's fat out of the flophouse of incomplete posts. Lewis, Chesterton, Muggeridge; there's not too many Brit Christian pundits to choose from in the 20th century. But leave it to CCG to Draw a Blank! Lay off the trania. Which reminds me: once more: Kirk or Picard?

Re: FT: I needn't revisit his neocon and lobbyist past, nor his Libby-loving present ("pardon him!"); the poor guy has cancer, the Big C; his body is destroying itself at a molecular level. I wish him well.

So he won't run, but if he does, it will become a Veep contest, which would reinforce the reasons why Fred shouldn't have run in the first place.

And his frantic Bushbot supporters wouldn't "scare" anyone. Remember the old Oscar Mayer Wienie Parades? Sc-sc-scaaary!

JFO-I feel sorry f... (Below threshold)
sad poster:


I feel sorry for you, as it appears you are a new and naive poster, thinking that you will have a civilized, engaged and intelligent discussion here. I have seen it all before. You will soon become disillusioned, however, when you realize that the right wing deadenders will only prove to you that all of your stereotypes about them are, in fact, not enough to describe their actual stupidity.

Once you see a swarm of them defend racism, you will then be thoroughly disillusioned. But I wish you luck- perhaps you will succeed where others have only failed. Good luck.

JFO,I have looked ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


I have looked at the Democratic platform and I must say it does not do much for me - and frankly, I don't care if it contains the entire text of "Big Rock Candy Mountain." A person, or a party, is defined by what they DO, not by what they say. As such, the Democratic Party is defined by race and class warfare, among other things. To deny this is to deny reality.

So far, it looks like the main difference between us is that I am willing to look critically and honestly at my own party, while you are not.

One tiny example: Democrats are incapable of debating tax cuts on the merits. A Democratic leader is incapable of saying the words "tax cuts" without appending "for the rich." If I had a nickel for every time a Democrat attacked "the rich" (a euphemism for the middle class) for failing to "pay their fair share" (a bald faced lie), I'd be rich myself.

Incidentally, pointing out that you are in denial is not "name calling."

Jeff:I' m glad you... (Below threshold)


I' m glad you took the time to read the platform. I'm not trying to convert you and it's fine that it doesn't do much for you. The Republican philosophy/platform does little for me. I only asked you to read it to challenge your list of assertions resulting in labeling democrats socialists.

I am most certainly willing to look at my party critically - e.g. I am fiscally conservative and hate our history of "binge" spending. I am also critical of several presidential candidates - most specifically Hillary Clinton.

Like you, I don't like the "rich" label either. Though I do believe the tax cuts heavily favor some people as opposed to others. You don't need labels to argue the merits of tax cuts.

As for defining us as racists and class warfare that's really insulting. What i read so much on blogs like this is the assumption that some democrats - such as Sharpton, whom I don't care for) represent the body of the party. It's like saying David Duke is representative of the Republican party. That's absurd.

I hope you read enough and reflected enough to realize
labeling democrats as "socialists" is really not a valid label. It's as valid as saying republicans are all "right-wing, christian zealots." Neither label is true.

1996 was the first election... (Below threshold)

1996 was the first election I legally could vote for President. I have voted in every one since, and have voted Republican in each one.

Fred Thompson is the first Republican candidate that has been available to me that I want to vote FOR. All of the others were primarily a lesser of two evils choice, leaving me with no other choice than to vote against the Loony Toon Democrat by voting for the Underwhelming Republican offering.

Run Fred, RUN!

"Underwhelming Republican o... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

"Underwhelming Republican offering"

This is true so much of the time.


I certainly did not define Democrats as "racists" - I said they engage in race warfare. That is to say, they divide people into as many subgroups as possible, then pit them against one another fomenting as much angst and division as possible. They constantly emphasize people's differences and abhor unity. Especially the unity borne of patriotism. Hence the "multicultural" movement.

JEFF:I stand corre... (Below threshold)


I stand corrected. Sorry.

You're still so wrong, making huge generalizations. Who the hell is "they"? That's a term I see frequently used by folks from the right. broad, huge generalizations. And if you really believe democrats abhor patriotism I feel bad for you. What can I say to someone who believes that?

Kennedy cut taxes?... (Below threshold)

Kennedy cut taxes?

President John F Kennedy cut taxes?

I'm 28 years old, American, lived in America all my life, and I NEVER knew that! I have NEVER heard that before in my ENTIRE life!

I wonder why...

Another note: If we left I... (Below threshold)

Another note: If we left Iraq and ceased spending that money, do you think there's a snowball's chance in Washington DC that a dime of that will make it back into your pocket? No.

jfo,Your reading c... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


Your reading comprehension is slipping. I am going to stop before you become apoplectic.

You wanted me to investigate the (official) Democratic platform and I did. Now I have an assignment for you. Who supports multiculturalism and what is it?

You may begin here and here.

Try to get beyond the "respect for other cultures" pablum to the meat of the issue. I truly wish you all the best.

Jeff:When you can ... (Below threshold)


When you can give some substance to who "they" may be I'll gladly read your links and respond.

I am far from apoplectic. Instead am enjoying our back and forth.

Also, you challenged me but have not responded to my initial challenge about your list of socialist ideas you claim democrats advocate:

"I'd like to point out where it calls for nationalized health care or wealth redistribution or any of the other matters you cite. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do so and try and find the things you cite."

blueknight - re: <a href="h... (Below threshold)

blueknight - re: Kennedy's tax cuts.

Why is it that you didn't know that? Are you a Republican? that might explain it... Look at all the things kim knows absolutely nothing about, and she's a Republican.

jfo,Ok. It is not ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


Ok. It is not my intention to make you angry.

Quoting myself: "I certainly did not define Democrats as "racists" - I said they engage in race warfare."

It should be plain from the reading that "they" are Democrats. More specifically the far left, whose home is the Democratic Party. This is of course a broad generalization but an accurate one. The far left is the rudder that currently steers the ship of the Democratic Party.

On class warfare:

Hillary Clinton on wealth redistribution: "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Analysis in brief: Some people are "well enough off" that they should be required to give their money to others "for the common good." Hillary is one of the most prominent Democrats in the country. This view is certainly not antithetical to the party.

Backing up just about everything else I said:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the single largest caucus in the United States House of Representatives, and works together to advance progressive {codeword, ed.} issues and causes.

The CPC was founded in 1990 by the socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who remains a member even though he is now in the United States Senate. It represents about a third of the House Democratic Caucus (with 72 members as of March 2007). Of the twenty standing committees of the House, eleven are chaired by members of the CPC.

According to their website, the CPC advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare," fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in strike actions and collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of gay marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on free trade and what they see as corporate welfare, an increase in income tax on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, {? the poor pay no income taxes, ed.} and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government. {Newsflash: this is wealth redistribution! ed.}

P.S. The CPC was o... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


The CPC was openly allied to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) until 1999; all mention of the alliance was removed from the Progressive Caucus and DSA websites after press reports called attention to the link. The DSA hosted the CPC's website during the 1990s

JFO,"We can no lon... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


"We can no longer seek gradual reforms or provide insurance companies with financial incentives to solve the problem. The time has come for a single payer national health care system that provides complete care to all Americans." - John Conyers, Jr.

Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race. "I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." - Barack Obama

Jeff:Thanks for yo... (Below threshold)


Thanks for your response. I agree with some, and disagree with some. The far left is certainly not the rudder that steers the democratic party. I assume you are referring to the bugaboo of the right, moveon.org et al. Perhaps I am wrong about that. But, if that is who you mean they are one of many influences and their strength lies mainly with the bloggers. There are many disparate elements in the democratic party - it's one of its beauties as well as one of its problems - lots of loud voices and lots of clamoring. Messy but beautiful. As opposed to the republicans who pretty much walk in lockstep with little imagination. Your fringe (to me) are the fundamentalist xtians who want to determine and tell the rest of us what our morals should be and how we should exercise them. That is as abhorrent to me as anything. It's a principal reason I could never be a republican at this time in my life.

Hillary Clinton is an opportunist and an intellectually dishonest politician - just as McCain is now the republican holder of that title. I wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances; nor would I now vote for him (I may have in 2000 by the way). Yes, she's leading in the polls and one can only pray that she loses. The "class warfare" label/card is a canard and a talking both with no merit nor is it grounded in the platform or policy of the party.

The CPC is an element of the party. Again I refer to the disparate factions of our party as opposed to the republican party. It doesn't speak for all or most democrats just as jerry falwell et al don't speak for all republicans.

I refer you again to the platform and the party's position on health care. As an aside, are you against everyone being given access to affordable insurance? Just curious. John Conyers has his view - again we welcome differences in our party.

And, I am personally in favor of universal health insurance. the issue is how to do and how to pay for it. Seems to me that in a country like this it's criminal that people can't afford it. If that makes me a "socialist" in your eyes I wear the label proudly.

More later as I must go for now. It's been great having this chat with you.


JFO,"...are you ag... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


"...are you against everyone being given access to affordable insurance?"

Of course not - as long as it can be accomplished within free market parameters. How about limiting malpractice awards to reasonable sums so as not to bankrupt doctors and their insurance companies?

Government managed, price controlled health care is not going to work. All it will accomplish is to give every person in the U.S. a much poorer standard of care than we now enjoy. It will be an economic disaster. You just think we have problems now.

"The CPC is an element of the party. Again I refer to the disparate factions of our party as opposed to the republican party. It doesn't speak for all or most democrats just as jerry falwell et al don't speak for all republicans."

Clearly your pain tolerance is extremely high. A 72 member congressional caucus is no small wing of the party. Contrary to your assertion they can and do steer Democratic policy.

"Your fringe (to me) are the fundamentalist xtians who want to determine and tell the rest of us what our morals should be and how we should exercise them."

This is a mere canard. It is very ironic that you say that in a time of libertinism not seen for 200 years. I cannot imagine what practical restraint "xtian" morals can have on your life. There are a very view islands of virtue left worth defending. You can just about count them on one hand. Abortion & homosexual marriage are two hot-buttons that come to mind. The homosexual marriage restriction has little practical effect on actual conduct. The abortion issue should be left to the states to decide. Given the chance it would probably be outlawed post haste. This is no fault of "xtians" who are a small minority. Your blame must rest on the American people as a whole who have ceased to have the stomach for it - not the they ever did to begin with.

This is my main problem with the left. What they cannot achieve by honest democracy they force-feed using corrupt activist judges.

Bush v. Gore: What the righ... (Below threshold)

Bush v. Gore: What the right cannot achieve by honest democracy they force-feed using corrupt activist judges.

Aren't you people tired of your own bullshit yet? I know I am.

Briand et alre the... (Below threshold)

Briand et al

re the cancer thing. Hate to break it to you, but we're all dying right now. Our bodies are breaking down, and there's no where to run away from it. Fred's neoplasm may not be cured or curable, but he also is likely to live many years. He probably has better odds than someone who's had a heart attack. So why pick on him and one possible route of demise? Hilary's a woman and likely to die of breast or colon cancer if she gets it tomorrow before Fred would die from his problem. Obama has genetic risks for prostate Ca and heart disease with similar longevity risks. Etc.

Snide stupid and pre-adolescent verbiage and buffoonery describes your post. Good to see you haven't grown up yet. Enjoy your childhood while you can.

Jeff:Another canar... (Below threshold)


Another canard - that insurers are bankrupted by malpractice verdicts. That said, I would be in favor of reasonable caps. I also agree that the free market should play a role in universal health care. I don't want government managed health care either.

Jeff, what ultimately steers politics in the country is the individual voter. And the vast majority of the time it's the middle, not the extreme left or the extreme right. The CPC doesn't steer the democratic rudder, the voters do. As do the voters steer the republican ship with some exceptions. If you think the pandering to and using the fear cards of the xtian right didn't play a major role in getting Bush elected you're just plain wrong. (When I get to the Pearly Gates I'm going to have one request - that I be a fly on the wall when the likes of Falwell and Robertson show up for their judgment).

As for "activist" judges, Exhibit A is our Supreme Court in 2000.

slingshot:You're a... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


You're a liar. A recap of the facts:

Bush wins presidential race in a close call, despite the fact that the left wing media assures everyone that Gore has already won and there is no need to go to the poles, which have "closed" anyway. In fact, Bush narrowly wins both the initial vote and a recount fair and square.

Gore, refusing to accept defeat with honor, decides to go to his corrupt friends in the courts to shove his "victory" down the throats of the American people - it has worked so often for he left after all. The supreme court intervenes to stop the Stalinesque charade.

This is somehow translated by the Leftist brain into "Bush stole the election."

It would be funny of it weren't so alarming. You people can't get any lower. You are without honor. You play to the most base instincts in people. You should be ashamed.

Jeff:Take a deep b... (Below threshold)


Take a deep breath buddy. The truth is "activist" is in the eye of the losing side.

By the way this has been most enjoyable - nice to carry on a reasoned civil debate with someone you disagree with isn't it?

JFO,Likewise.... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:



I disagree totally with your perception of "activist." There is a status quo and there is a militant side. When issues such as homosexual marriage fail at the polls or legislative level they are forced on the public though the courts. "Activist" in this instance means substituting the will of the court for the will of the people. It does NOT depend on who wins.

You asked for evidence to back up my claims that the Democratic party is pursuing a socialist agenda. I provided that in spades. I now expect you to investigate the issue of multiculturalism as you promised.

Jeff:I believe in ... (Below threshold)


I believe in the idea of a multicultural society but not in it's political ideology. Does that make sense?

As you may have figured out by now i would call myself more a centrist democrat than a liberal - I have some liberal values and some conservative values.

I reject both multiculturalism and monoculturism as I see both as extremes. I certainly reject the Ayn Rand Institutes view as an extreme interpretation from the right. On the other hand I also reject the idea that, for example, voting should be allowed in more than one language - at the same time rejecting "English as the official language" statutes. Thankfully, in Iowa the legislature repealed our statute in this past session.

I think some of my views are best expressed in the following blog post:


Regards and peace

jfo,Thanks for the... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:


Thanks for the response. I think this thread has run its course. We seem to have hijacked it pretty roundly. My apologies to admin. It is the nature of an evolving debate.

Fred makes one speech and t... (Below threshold)

Fred makes one speech and the majority of the listeners fall in love. The man has a way. How about the way he has run his campaign so far. It gives his competitors indigestion and they try to pick at him but he does not waiver.

He will run his campaign his way also. Who said we have to get up and debate and spend and debate and spend. Why debate with a sure loser. You just possibly take an arrow or two and help the loser a bit, but not enough.

Debates are not what I would want as a campaigner. I remember Harry Truman coming to town and we all went down to the rail station and listen to him speak off the back rail car.

See the people, talk, see the people, speak. I think that is what you will see.

When we are all finished watching Fred, he will be President. Then we can watch in amazement again.

Don Jones






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy