Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Ron Paul and Fred Thompson: A Comparison

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Excelsior Springs, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    http://republicanrenaissance.blogspo...omparison.html
    Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes … Those who are in charge of applying the conservative litmus test should wonder why some of their brethren continue to try to federalize more things—especially at a time of embarrassing federal mismanagement and a growing federal bureaucracy.
    He has covered this ground elsewhere too, and in a fashion that actually sounds a lot like Ron Paul talking:
    Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism—that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws … Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled.
    “Limited enumerated powers”. Those are three words that we don’t hear so often anymore. The fact that someone of Thompson’s evident stature is saying them is heartening indeed. The federalist system we once had, with a very small central government rigidly defined in its jurisdiction, has in fact been turned on its head. It needs to be righted. Rep. Paul has been saying this for a good long time and I’m glad that Mr. Thompson is helping bring attention to it as well. None of the other candidates have shown much interest in the subject.

    So how do these two, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, stack up to one another? Judging strictly by the rhetoric, they don’t appear all that dissimilar. But of course it’s action that counts, and that’s where we should look to see who wins on the federalism front; to find out which one of them is really the most conservative. Luckily both have worked in Congress and have thereby provided us with a handy roadmap. Our comparison is abetted by the Congressional voting records published at Project Vote Smart.

    Let’s start with Mr. Thompson. Out of some 50 appropriations bills the former Senator voted on between 1995 and 2002, he voted for all but 2 of them. These bills he voted to pass spent billions upon billions of dollars on, among other things:
    • Agricultural subsidies (to dairy farmers, tobacco growers, livestock producers, peanut farmers, and others)
    • Federal crop insurance
    • Guaranteed subsidized loans to farmers
    • Subsidized loans for rural housing, electricity and telephone service
    • The National Endowment for the Humanities
    • The National Endowment for the Arts
    • The Peace Corps
    • The Job Corps
    • The Federal Railroad Administration
    • Discretionary education spending
    • School violence treatment and prevention
    • The Commodity Credit Corporation (for the purpose of influencing production, prices, supplies, and distribution of agricultural commodities)
    • The National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education
    • The Smithsonian Institute
    • The United States Holocaust Memorial
    • The National Science Foundation
    • The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development and its various community development initiatives
    He also voted for the No Child Left Behind Act and the McCain-Feingold Act. He voted for increasing benefits to workers who have been displaced due to increased imports, voted for many tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid, and he voted to double the President’s salary. (On a side note, Mr. Thompson’s penchant for having the federal government underwrite insurance appears to predate his term in the Senate, going back to his lobbying efforts for the Tennessee Savings and Loan. I would ask Mr. Thompson how extending government support of the S&L industry through the FDIC figured into his concern for the principle of federalism).

    Now let's look at Congressman Paul’s record. Out of 166 appropriations bills voted on between 1997 and 2007, Ron Paul voted against all but 6. His rare “yea” votes were reserved for bills which:
    • Prohibited subsidizing crop insurance for tobacco farmers
    • Reduced funding for the Dept. of Labor and the Dept. of Education
    • Prohibited the use of federal funds to restrict travel to Cuba by United States citizens
    • Prohibited federal funding of adoption in D.C. for couples not related by blood or marriage
    • Allocated funds for the military quality of life functions of the Department of Defense (housing allowances, health services, veteran’s health benefits and pensions)
    Paul also voted for a Constitutional amendment that mandated a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress in order to increase taxes (requirement waived if war is declared), voted against McCain-Feingold, against No Child Left Behind, and against the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.

    The two candidates’ records are almost exactly the reverse of each other. The answer to the question, “Who is the more conservative?” is clear. Fred Thompson talks a good game (and I for one do appreciate him for that), but his record reveals a tendency to stray far and often from those “limited enumerated powers” that he references in his TownHall.com articles. Probably no less than 95% of every non-military piece of legislation he’s ever voted for has been non-federalist and un-conservative, as well as blatantly unconstitutional, having no basis whatsoever in those particulars set forth for Congress in Article 1, Section 8. In this respect he may be no different than the vast majority of others who have spent some time on the Hill, but it will no longer do for him to use the rhetoric of federalism and limited government while the money hose still bears the impression of his grip upon it.

    They say the problem with actors is that they never stop acting. This country needs a leader who actually lives his message.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Excelsior Springs, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    I thought kelly j would have jumped on this thread.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    mimmerzim wrote:
    I thought kelly j would have jumped on this thread.

    Seeing as how you are a home town boy I don't want to let you down. There are two things to say about these two men.

    First I will opine on Ron Paul, I have said many times that I like and Admire the man and his record speaks volume for him and his positions, but the brutal truth is he is not elect able, he is considered by a vast majority of people as a man a bit off plum, which is not a true statement but he does come off that way, which is why I say he is not Elect able as President, No disrespect intended.

    Thompson on the other hand seems to be just the opposite of Paul, in many ways and I agree that while he served in the Senate, (A different House than Paul) there is a much different atmosphere to deal with, and a much smaller group to contend with, where the rule of the day is Compromise and I personally hate that word, but the fact remains there are a lot more skilled negotiators in the Senate than the House, and Compromise is the name of the game, just a Political Fact.

    Thompson has voted on several different issues but did you take the time to read the reasons behind his votes, you might be suppressed at the outcome.

    Last point is this it is my personal observation of the difference between Paul and Thompson, is Thompson is Elect able.



    Do you feel better now?


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Ho hum, more of the same.........."He's not electable.................."

    Fine, go vote for who you think may WIN, but don't dare vote for who's the most QUALIFIED. See you at the next American revolution, brought to you in part by the majority of Americans who caused it. Hint: go look in the nearest mirror if you don't have a clue.

    MY, MY

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    KellyJ wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Ho hum, more of the same.........."He's not electable.................."

    Fine, go vote for who you think may WIN, but don't dare vote for who's the most QUALIFIED. See you at the next American revolution, brought to you in part by the majority of Americans who caused it. Hint: go look in the nearest mirror if you don't have a clue.

    MY, MY
    Hehe. I've been reading Mark's posts on keepandbeararms.com for years. Like him or not he speaks his mind. That website, of course, allows unregistered posting of comments, which leads to a more, shall we say, intense flamethrower posting environment.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the writeup! I've been trying to get a clear answer from the FT supporters as to why he would be a good president. Never got one. I see now that there isn't one!



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Ho hum, more of the same.........."He's not electable.................."

    Fine, go vote for who you think may WIN, but don't dare vote for who's the most QUALIFIED. See you at the next American revolution, brought to you in part by the majority of Americans who caused it. Hint: go look in the nearest mirror if you don't have a clue.




    The problem is that "I Am" isthe most qualified, but being so far below the radar that no one knows who I Am is, forget that.

    When it comes to political office, it is unfortunate but true that we are left with choices between a bunch of people who are not qualified.

    Heaven help us all if we allow someone to get elected who will trample our rights, because we voted for someone who, to us,is better qualified, thus taking away votes from a good candidate who is electable but maybe notthe best qualified candidate.

    Look what happened this last election. We got a bunch of Yo-Yo's because the guys we elected before weren't exactly what we wanted.

    Back in 92 we got Clinton, because Bush I wasn't exactly what we wanted.

    We have to get real or we will lose, even what we have.

    Go ahead and vote for who YOU want and the rest of US.



    If we let it happen again Shame on US.




  8. #8
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    It still boils down to the viable candadates to choose from regardless of the other factors inplay.

    It makes no difference who the candadate is if the person is not selected by the party to be their choice, then the others are left out in the cold.

    Personally I admire Paul for his positions and the fact that he has to the best of my knowledge never waviored from the Constitutional writings, and rules, one could never take that away from him, but is that working in his favor in this Election bid, i'm sorry to say no, you know as well as anyone else if you are in a position to be the very best person running for any political office, if you don't have the support and backing of the party you choose to represent then you are totally left out in the cold.

    Paul if I remember correctly tried to rununder the Libritarian platform and got no where,and I am pretty sure those people that were with him then still are, perhaps he could run under the Constitution Platform, which I believe is actually more in line with his positions but it is a very small Party and would leave him in the same can of soup.

    Perhaps someday!

    Additional thought, it is true the Republicans lost in 06 but it wasn't because they were on the wrong track with the War, Domestic Frone, or General positions it was because of over excited Speending that agrivated the Base, they became Democrats in Republican Clothing and were speending our money like drunkin Sailors in port after a long tour at Sea. That is not what the Party Stands for so they got punished for it.


  9. #9
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    I heard today on the Fox News Channel that Paul's moving up in the polls but I didn't see the total that they showed for him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I think Paul would have a bigger following if the establishment, media and party, weren't constantly trying to ignore or suppress him. Face it, he's a radical, and that scares the powers-that-be, even if its radical in a good way. So CNN et al pretends he doesn't exist, and the Republican party would like him to shut up and go away. It's only because of a growing minority of liberty-minded Americans that Paul has such a strong cult status and stays in the news. If he was to pull off the long shot and get the nomination, I think the Republican party will scuttle him Goldwater-style by refusing to support him in the general election. They'd actually feel more comfortable with Hillary or Obama in the driver's seat than an old school constitutionalist republican.

    So, even as I realize it's a long shot, I have to say that Paul's the only candidate who inspires me. The others, including non-candidate Thompson, are just more of the same. So it's Paul or Mickey Mouse for me. Or whomever the Libertarian Party nominates, which is like the same as Mickey Mouse, anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •