Sunday, September 14, 2008

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has formed a political action committee that will financially support candidates “who believe in limited government.”

The senator – the most underperforming Tennessee senator in 30 years – said he is now on the look-out for high-performing candidates who share his conservative bona fides.

As for us, we wish him well. We just wish his notion of “limited government” included getting the federal government out of the reproductive decisions of women, arguing against the Supreme Court decision that established the right of privacy, and removing the federal government from a decision on what constitutes marriage and the myriad other ways that he has supported the expansion of federal government authority and activity in our lives, particularly in the erosion of our Constitutional rights in the name of homeland security.

It’s one of the curious realities of the Republican Revolution. After years of decrying government bureaucrats and liberal judges (although the majority of federal judges was appointed by Republicans) for intruding into the lives of Americans, once they gained power, they did the same.


Zippy the giver said...

They are called red herring issues, they have never been resolved and they probably never will be because they can get people buzzed up and sway people to vote for candidates based on things that never happened and most likely never will.
I wouldn't get too bent outta shape over them, they are meaningless until someone actually does do something about them.

Zippy the giver said...

Hey, how about term limits? There's another red herring that when you hear a politician talk about it you know the subject just got changed without warning, usually in response to a probing question that if answered would embarrass. Never do they speak about it with any real intent.

antisocialist said...

Fred! has said abortion should be left to the states to decide. That is "getting the federal government out of the reproductive decisions of women".

Leave it to me to expose the lies. I doubt you'll have the courage or intellectual honesty to retract your defamatory statement.

"I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about." - Fred Thompson

Bring on the smears. It's all you lefties got against me.

I vote present!

Zippy the giver said...

Did he say anything about "stopping all this partisan politics" and "acting like one government working together for the people", that's also a classic.
Maybe it was "campaign finance reform" That's another classic used in place of a real answer to an embarrassing question or inconvenient truth. Maybe you've noticed that none of these BIG ISSUES never seem to get resolved or get any traction past the camera lens and microphone.
Society's tendency to bend at the knees must be genetic.

Zippy the giver said...

Yu know what I meant and I know my typing stinks.

Smart City Consulting said...


We think you are so prepared to be mad and didactic about something that you don't really read things clearly. We weren't saying that Fred Thompson necessarily had any of these views, but we were making a point about how the Republican Party (whose candidacies he will fund) have these big government ideas. And as an antisocialist, what's your opinion of the way this Administration has socialized AIG?

antisocialist said...

First of all, I am not mad at all. In fact, I am quite happy!

As for being didactic - I've been called worse.

I believe my initial reply was based on a fair reading of your post. I believe I read it clearly (even read again just a minute ago) and took it exactly at face value. I even had a borderline leftist read your post and proof my reply before I posted it (maybe that was my mistake!).

But if you claim you didn't intend to attribute the sentiment to Fred!, then that's good enough for me.

What evidence is there that Fed!'s PAC will fund big government candidates, other than an R next to their name?

As for AIG, I was traveling over the past few days, had limited media access, and have not spent any time looking into the details of the AIG bridge loan. Whether or not a bridge loan is a proper function of the federal government is one thing, but I hardly believe a bridge loan equates to socializing AIG.

Another question for you, SCM - in this post you also seemed to express concern about arguments against the so-called "right to privacy". Are you outraged by the perverse violation of the
"right to privacy" directed towards Governor Sarah Palin in the form of illegal access to her private e-mail account? You've been curiously silent about this "privacy right" violation.

Anonymous said...

I know something about the AIG bailout.
1. This isn't he last bailout or the first this year,
2. Secretary of the Treasury Paulson said that the loans/bad debt, and empty property would be put in a separate place, i.e. packaged for sale.
3. Paulson said that they were going to sell them to foreign governments.
4. Paulson said he could not reveal who, yet.
5. He had to be prodded to reveal that info and seemed extremely nervous when he did. Stammering speach.
We just gave the federl government authority to sell fully 1/3 of our land and banks to an undisclosed foreign government without our consent!
Anyone care to guess who?