Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.

Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.

In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?

On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.

In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.

Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.

I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.

There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.

As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”

————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format.  To listen to it click here.

Technorati : Fred Thompson

Speaker Harrell goes on to promote McCain as a conservative. My question is, what is Speaker Harrell’s definition of conservative?

It seems that the term conservative, much like many other terms in our day, has undergone a redefinition. Apparently it no longer means committed to limited government. It no longer means being dedicated to the Constitution of the United States, as written. If John McCain can be considered a conservative then the very word conservative has lost its meaning altogether.

You will remember that McCain, in his misguided attempts to blame his own shortcomings on others, managed to bulldoze through McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. That legislation represents the single biggest assault on constitutionally protected political speech in my lifetime, perhaps ever! But Senator McCain was convinced that we needed it. In fact, he is not satisfied to stop there and now wants to go after the 521s that resulted from his previous legislation.

What McCain has done is make it more difficult for anyone to challenge incumbents while severely limiting the ability of individuals to make their voices heard when it comes to politics. If the First Amendment’s free speech clause protects anything, it protects political speech in all forms but John McCain, apparently, disagrees or doesn’t care. His view of things takes precedence over the Constitution it seems.

John McCain, who has worked hard to build his reputation as a maverick, is anything but a conservative. He is an opportunist. He wants to be President and has done everything in his power to keep his face in the news to that end. His protege, Lindsey Graham, is following close in his footsteps. Neither is a conservative and neither will ever have my support.

I still subscribe to a more traditional definition of conservative. I believe in limited government and individual responsibility to go along with individual rights. I believe, as did most of our founding fathers, that a religious electorate is necessary to a republican for of government. I believe that political speech is protected by the first amendment but pornography is not. Call me old fashioned but that is how I view conservatism. John McCain has a different view. He opposed the tax cuts that he now thinks should be extended but he will not say that he was wrong in opposing them in the first place. He supports the troop surge but it that appears to be political expediency. While his position cost him support initially, he has clearly gain conservative support as a result. He is attempting to remake himself in a conservative mold. He has rightly judged what most in the Republican party have missed. That is, that conservatives have had it with Republicans who abandon conservative principles. Had John McCain stood for these things all along he would have me in his camp. But not only has he NOT stood for these things, he will not repudiate his prior positions.

John McCain does not meet my definition of a conservative. He never has and I expect he never will. I still do not believe he can get the Republican nomination but if I am proved wrong, I will have to do a lot of soul searching before I could vote for him. His motivation is his personal aspirations. He is not motivated by principles and I cannot support anyone who votes for or opposes anything based on how it will reflect on him personally.

So while Huckabee favors President Bush’s capital gains tax cuts, he also wonders if his faith “confuses Republicans who are only concerned about how we preserve wealth.” He is for a flat tax while also advocating increased funding for arts education, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and an enlarged government role in preventive health care.

This, it seems, is the logical extension of “compassionate conservatism,” the bane of true conservatives. President Bush has surely had evangelicals on board with him when it comes to his pro-life stance and tax cuts. But every conservative I know laments the fact that Bush and the Republican Congress presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ with dubious items like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

As a Christian I am all for carrying out Christ’s desire for us to care for the poor. Where I differ is in the approach. First, I think Jesus directed His intentions at individual Christians and churches, not governments. One look at how (in)efficiently governments handle social programs is all one needs to understand why.

The government itself warns individuals to check out charities before contributing to them to ensure that most of the money collected actually goes to the purpose for which the charity exists. When more than 50% or money raised goes to overhead, it is generally a bad idea to contribute to that charity. Well if the government could approach 50% efficiency I’d be astounded. Charity should be the work of legitimate charities who are equipped to do the job, not the government.

While America is the most giving nation on earth, Americans are hampered in their ability to give because of confiscatory taxes. Churches and other charities have less to devote to helping the poor because their members have less to give. Add to that the compelling notion that we don’t need to give to charities because the government will take care of the poor and you have a problem. Huckabee’s stint as governor is a case in point. In oder to pay for his compassionate conservatism, he had to increase taxes. He went from being “one the best governors in America to one of the worst.”

President Bush, Mike Huckabee and others like them are not conservatives. They don’t seem to understand what a conservative is. And, in my view, they have misinterpreted the scriptural mandate to feed the poor. I agree with Huckabee that when we prevent a baby from being aborted we need to be concerned about the life that child will have. I part company with him on how that should be approached. Using the government as the vehicle for assistance relieves the Christian of the responsibility for providing assistance. And unlike most charities, government assistance too often comes without accountability which amounts to no help at all because it often encourages the behaviors that caused the need in the first place.

Generally speaking conservatives, whether Christian or not, have a desire to help those who genuinely need help. But Conservatives understand that help should be provided in the most efficient way possible. At the least that allows for more people to be helped and if it’s done properly, those who really need help will not continue to need help in perpetuity.

Matt 25:34-41says:

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
ESV

What we have to understand is that this is a call to individual Christians. It is not a call to enact government programs. It is a call for individuals to voluntarily give of their treasure to help others. It is not a call to take anyone’s treasure against his will in order to help others. Charity is only charity when it comes voluntarily from the heart. And “help” provided by a faceless institution will never be the equal of help provided by loving individuals providing that help because they love their neighbor.

Throughout all this I have had a nagging feeling that so called “values voters” contrary to conventional wisdom, will not stay home on election day. I have tended to believe that, like me, they understand what is at stake and they will “do the right thing” so to speak and go vote for Republicans. But I’ve also wondered if that isn’t just the typical tendency to believe that others think like I do.

If there is one thing I’ve endeavored to do, both personally and in this blog, it is to be as honest as I can be. I recall a political science project I had to do for a class on campaigns and public opinion during the 2004 elections. My assignment was to follow all 34 Senate races. I had to know who the candidates were, what the issues in each race were, what the polls were showing and, in the end, I had to make predictions. Another student in the class was doing the same project I was. When it came time for our predictions I predicted that Republicans would pick up seats in the Senate. The other student predicted a Democrat take over of the Senate. My question for him at the time was, “do you really believe that or is your prediction just wishful thinking?”

Of course my predictions turned out to be accurate and his were wildly off base. Both he and I had looked at the same races, the same polling data and the same issues and we had reach wildly different conclusions. I ended up missing only one prediction in all 34 races and that was Colorado, which ended up surprising me. But my goal throughout the project was to try to be as objective as I could manage. Of course I am not objective in terms of desired outcome but if my opinions are to be worth anything to others, my analysis of the races needed to be objective.

My goal in this blog is no different. While I am distinctly partisan and unashamedly so, I have to be able to look at the facts and reach conclusions that are, not simply justifiable, but ultimately accurate, if I am to be taken seriously.

In light of all I’ve just said, I hope my readers will pay attention to what I am about to say. It may appear to some to be wishful thinking. In the end, I suppose it may turn out to be just that but I don’t think so. I think I’ve stumbled on some very good news for conservatives.

_____________________________________

I’ve been a Rush fan for years but I’ve found myself listening to him very little of late. There are a number of reasons for that, none of which have much to do with him. But yesterday I found myself tuned in to his show. He was talking about a podcast from Advertising Age entitled Opinion Fatigue: Inside The Marketing-Research Crisis, in which the author, Jack Neff, was lamenting the declining ability of companies to do effective product research. The author was concerned because it was becoming increasingly difficult to reach enough households to get a sufficient polling sample so the results can be considered reliable. There are, apparently, several reasons for this. Among them are people who use caller ID to screen phone calls, those who simply won’t talk to polling companies and those who have moved exclusively to cell phones so they are not reachable by pollster at all. This makes it almost impossible for pollsters to get accurate samples. And then there are those who, for what ever reason, simply lie to pollsters.

While the article dealt specifically will product research, the pollsters refereed to are no different from political pollsters. Both face the same difficulties. So if product research firms can’t get accurate samples, there is no reason to believe the political pollsters fare any better. And who are the people least likely to answer the phone or to be off the grid entirely by virtue of having gone totally cellular? I submit that they are, by and large, conservatives. Of course we never hear any talk that pollsters can’t get accurate samples. But according to the Ad Age article, the base for an accurate sample is at least 30% call acceptance rate and what they are typically getting is closer to 20%.

If I am right, that means that the current crop of polls are from inaccurate samples and they will be strongly biased to the left. There can be little doubt that, if this is correct, the pollsters are aware of it. And since many of the pollsters are in the media, they are also aware of it, yet they continue to report the polls as if they are accurate. I think that is by design.

There are two reasons for conducting a poll. The first is to find out where the public stands on an issue or issues. The second is to attempt to influence public opinion. We are all familiar with push polls, polls designed to illicit a particular response. This is similar except the poll itself is designed to influence wider public opinion. So if the public at large can be convinced that most of their neighbors have given up on the Republican party, perhaps they’ll give up to! We saw this in the 2004 presidential election where the Democrats managed to slant exit polls, knowing full well that the results would be leaked before the polls closed. The desired result was to suppress Republican turnout by implying that Kerry had already won so there was no reason to waste time going to vote. Thankfully, it didn’t work.

The second piece of information I gleaned from Rush was from an op-ed in the Boston Globe entitled Cleaning up the Mess by Robert Kuttner. The premise of the article is that for Democrats, winning the mid-term elections might not be such a good thing! Kuttner goes on a totally partisan rant about budget deficits, the war in Iraq and his view that Bush has so screwed up everything that it will be a tough road for Democrats to clean up the mess. Kuttner opens with this paragraph:

I’ve heard smart people argue that George W. Bush has left such a mess that maybe the Democrats would be better off just letting the mess fall on the Republicans in 2008.

After all, there seems to be no good way out of Iraq. The administration dithered for nearly six years on Korea, and now we have Pyongyang with nukes, not to mention Iran’s nuclear challenge. And the budget and trade deficits continue to be time bombs. Why should the opposition party want to share responsibility for these serial disasters?

He goes on to list all the failures he perceives in the Bush administration and why they would be difficult at best for a Democrat controlled Congress to deal with before the 2008 presidential election. Beginning with budget deficits, Kuttner claims Republicans have caused the country to bleed red ink.

Begin with the budget deficit. As recent elections have shown, there is little political profit in being the fiscally responsible party. Democrats, once known as the Keynesian party of deficits, have led two thankless rounds of fiscal stewardship, cleaning up after Ronald Reagan’s tax-cutting orgy in 1982-83, and then mopping up the red ink of Reagan’s second term and that of Bush I with the heroic Budget Act of 1993, passed in both houses by a single vote.

Ignore, for the moment, Kuttner’s completely ignorant view of tax cuts and deficits (Bush has cut the deficit in half three years sooner than projected. The Bush tax cuts, just like the Reagan tax cuts, dramatically increased revenue to the federal government). What is the point of Kuttner’s op-ed? Why, just three weeks before the mid-term election, does Kuttner come out with this piece? Rush opines, and I tend to agree, that he is setting the stage for a Democrat loss. Remember, Democrats are infamous for taking defeat and calling it victory.

The fact is, Democrat pollsters and those in the know in the Democrat party are well aware of what the polls show. They know what the shortcoming of the polls are, even if they are unwilling to share those shortcomings with the public.

Then, also from Rush, there is the Republican irritation with Bush for not having a plan for the eventuality that the Democrats may take control of Congress. Bush seems strangely optimistic. In his interview last night on O’Reilly, Bush stated flat out that he is convinced Republicans will prevail come November.

Now, the left has attempted to paint Bush as a moron for more than six years but honest pundits admit that Bush is no moron. He has repeatedly painted Democrats into a corner and he’s pulled off some amazing feats in foreign policy and in his legislative efforts. No, Bush is no moron. He is a Harvard MBA who had better grades that did John Kerry! So it is fair to ask whether Bush knows something the rest of us don’t know.

Liberal pundits will think what Bush knows is some sort of late October surprise but I think it is more about the polling data. Bush knows just what the Liberal pollsters know, that their polls are wildly skewed to the left. And I suspect that the object of liberal hatred, Karl Rove, has polling units that are more effective than the liberal pollsters. Who really knows? The bottom line is, Bush is planning for victory, not failure.

Admittedly, there is a lot of conjecture in my analysis. I may be guilty of what I am striving to avoid, wishful thinking. But I don’t think so. Each of these items, taken individually, doesn’t add up to much. But collectively they seem to me to form a trend. Combined with outstanding economic performance, a dramatically shrinking budget deficit and the fact that, despite the best efforts of Democrats, most people are still fearful that this country will be less safe if Democrats are in control, I find it difficult to accept the idea that Democrats will win in November.

I could be wrong but I’m going out on a limb. I predict that Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress.

by TD of The Right Track

A quick and dirty search through Google News for articles, news, and editorials revealed no less than 14 pieces written in the last month regarding the FairTax. Fully 1/3 of those were editorials agreeing with the need for the FairTax.

A sampling:

From the Denver Daily News, an editorial titled “FairTax, not flat tax, needed to fix nation’s taxation woes“:

Dear editor,

The IRS needs to be eliminated and replaced with the FairTax, not the flat tax, as suggested by columnist Aaron Harber in Monday’s Denver Daily News.

The flat tax changes absolutely nothing – the IRS, tax code, regulations, 16th Amendment, corporate taxation and payroll taxes (the way Social Security is funded) stay exactly the same under the flat tax.

At best, the flat tax is temporary, the wrong direction to move towards simplification.

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, “The Fairer Tax“:

The Fair Tax (FairTax.org) will make our true tax burden — most of which is concealed in the price of goods and services — visible to all and is a necessary first step toward smaller and less-intrusive government.

We cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

So first, let’s replace the current complex and dishonest system of taxation with a fair and transparent system that will allow the people to choose how much government they can afford in full knowledge of how much it really costs.

The Raleigh/Durham News & Observer has an editorial headlined “Total Replacement“:

Our tax code has grown steadily more complex, unwieldy, expensive and out of control ever since its overhaul in 1986. The IRS is increasingly unable to cope with the tax code, and puts much of its resources to uses unrelated to raising revenue and contrary to the wishes of the Founders.

Like Icarus flying ever closer to the sun, the tax system appears to be headed for self-destruction. It is far beyond any fix and is losing respect and credibility. The only reasonable solution is to finally and completely scrap it and replace it. I support the revenue-neutral FairTax plan. (http://www.fairtax.org/ 1-800-FairTax).

This is just a sampling of what people are saying all across the country. Truly a grassroots effort, it takes people willing to step up and show public support for the FairTax to convince politicians that it’s in their best interest to support the bills.

One way to show public support is to write an editorial to your local paper, no matter how large or small. Use the FairTax category that may appear on this participant blog, visit http://www.fairtax.org/, or read the FairTax book by Boortz and Linder to learn more. Get your facts straight, then write your editorial and submit it. Many papers now have a way to submit online or via e-mail.

However you decide to do it, your public support for the FairTax is vital.

The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

Technorati : FairTax IRS Taxes
Del.icio.us : FairTax IRS Taxes
Ice Rocket : FairTax IRS Taxes
Flickr : FairTax IRS Taxes
Zooomr : FairTax IRS Taxes
Buzznet : FairTax IRS Taxes
Riya : FairTax IRS Taxes
43 Things : FairTax IRS Taxes