Chuck Baldwin, on which Republican could beat Hillary Clinton

[SpeedRacer 1]

Thompson Surge Means Conservatives Are Desperate
By Chuck Baldwin
September 14, 2007


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070914.html


Many conservatives (including Christian conservatives) seem to be
jumping on the Fred Thompson bandwagon. As far as Republican
presidential contenders go, the biggest loser of the Thompson surge is
Mitt Romney. Many conservatives were supporting Romney only because
they perceived him as being the best chance to beat Rudy Giuliani. A
Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani presidential el ection is a
conservative's worst nightmare. Romney has the charm and money and is
now saying the "right" things. Hence, he has enjoyed moderate support
in the early goings of this campaign season. However, Romney's liberal
track record is very disconcerting to conservatives. In their hearts,
conservatives cannot trust Romney.

The entrance of Fred Thompson in the presidential race immediately
took a toll on the Romney campaign. Romney's support is dropping like
the temperature in northern Idaho in the wintertime. That trend will
probably continue, as more conservatives catch the Thompson wave.

The problem is, Thompson is not a conservative. Worse still (for the
GOP), Thompson cannot beat Hillary in a general election. Mark my
words, if Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee next November,
Hillary Clinton is your next president.

For that matter, I see only one Republican contender who might be able
to beat Hilla ry in the 2008 general election: Ron Paul. Yes, you read
it right. Ron Paul.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, conservative Christians will
stay home or vote third party. (It is past time for conservative
Christians to abandon the GOP, anyway. I encourage readers to check
out the Constitution Party as a viable alternative. See
http://www.constitutionparty.com/ )
A Republican cannot win the White House without widespread support
from evangelical Christians. And Giuliani will never have widespread
support from evangelical Christians.

Newt Gingrich is toying with the idea of entering the race, but the
truth is out about Newt. His infidelities, his membership in the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and his past betrayal of
conservative principles precede him. Newt is damaged goods. He has
little chance of obtaining the Republican nomination, and even if he
did, he has no chance of beating Hillary. None. Zero. Z ilch.

The only Republican with the potential to pull an upset victory over
Clinton is Ron Paul. He is extremely popular among constitutionalists,
independents, and many Christians (including me). He is doing very
well in fundraising and on the Internet. And if Paul's message was
given a fair hearing, evangelical Christians and traditional
conservatives would come to support him.

The only reason that some conservative Christians do not already
support Ron Paul is because they, themselves, do not understand
constitutional government. Years of Republican chicanery and
compromise have taken a toll on conservatives to the point that many
of them don't understand truth when they see it. However, this could
change. The more people learn about Ron Paul and constitutional
government, the more they like him and it.

On the other hand, the more people learn about Fred Thompson, the more
they will dislike him. As with Gingr ich, Thompson is a member of the
sinister cabal, the CFR, whose principle purpose for existence seems
to be the construction of one-world government and the destruction of
U.S. independence and sovereignty. This means Thompson will do nothing
to stop illegal immigration. (See
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070905/NATION/109050083/1002
)
He will do nothing to stand in the way of the emerging North American
Union, and the NAFTA Superhighway, and he will continue the push for
globalization.

In addition, Fred Thompson is the personification of a Washington
insider-lobbyist. Thompson was a lobbyist for twenty years before
being elected to the U.S. Senate. He represented organizations like
the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association and deposed Haitian
President Aristide. He continued lobbying after he left the Senate,
including representing a British insurance company that wants to limit
payments to the familie s of those who died from asbestos exposure. In
fact, Thompson's presidential campaign is literally overflowing with
advisors and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees
of lobbying firms. (See
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296339,00.html )
If Thompson was elected President, he would be the country's first
Lobbyist-in-Chief.

On the life issue, Fred Thompson's record is clearly pro-choice. In
1991 and 1992, Thompson was a paid lobbyist for the pro-abortion
organization, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Association. He also lobbied against the Republican Party's pro-life
plank. According to Terry Jeffrey, "[W]hen Fred Thompson was in the
United States Senate, both times he ran for the Senate he ran as a
pro-choice candidate."

One of the Religious Right's most respected leaders, Richard Viguerie,
recently said this about Fred Thompson: "Fred Thompson's record may
appear to be ' conservative,' but only by comparison with Rudy
Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government
Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of
conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to
expect conservative leadership from him as President."

However, there is another glaring (and I mean glaring) reason why any
Republican presidential contender outside Ron Paul will not defeat
Hillary next November: every other Republican presidential contender
supports the Iraq war. That means every one of them (except Ron Paul)
is completely out of touch with over two-thirds of the American
electorate. And the longer our troops keep dying in Iraq, the more out
of touch the GOP will become with a vast majority of the American
people.

President Bush has already made it clear that he intends for American
troops to remain in Iraq for years--if not decades--to come. And it
also seems clear that the GOP presidential candidates (except Ron
Paul) plan to follow Bush's madness.

Republicans need to wake up to reality: people are sick of George
Bush, and they are sick of the Iraq war. Good grief! In less time than
our troops have been in Iraq, our men and women in uniform defeated
the combined forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy during World War II.
In Iraq, we have not been able to secure the city of Baghdad.

When America's top military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus,
was asked if all the efforts in Iraq--including the latest surge--make
America safer, his answer was an astounding, "I don't know." That is
an incredible statement. After more than four years of combat in a
country approximately the size of Texas, more than one-half trillion
dollars in cost, and the sacrifice of thousands of American lives, our
top military commander cannot honestly say that America is any safer.
Yet, Bush says we are "winning," and he wants our troops to stay in
Iraq indefinitely.

I dare say that by the time November 2008 rolls around, support for
the Iraq war could be so low that the Republican Party may be lucky to
even be competitive in the national elections, no matter who their
candidate is (unless it is Ron Paul). This is because every single one
of the other GOP presidential contenders (including Fred Thompson) is
on record as supporting a continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq. In
addition, most of them are on record as supporting an expansion of the
war into other parts of the Middle East. (Interestingly enough,
however, none of them wants to discuss--much less threaten--the real
sponsors of terrorism: Russia and China.)

That Fred Thompson is surging to the position of Republican
presidential frontrunner means that conservatives are desperate.
Unfortunately, they do not seem to be desperate enough to look at
their own erroneous policies. Neither are they willing to look at the
recipe for their own recovery: principled, constitutional government.

I already hear the fat lady warming up.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

I disagree with the entire point of view of this article.

While Hillary Clinton might be able to secure the Democratic nomination, I think if the Republicans run just about any reasonably middle of the road candidate against her, she loses the Presidential Election.

I think the "problem" with the Republican party is that they're trying to find a "perfect" candidate that will appeal to both the far right and middle. I think that's foolish because for most people, one inch to the right of middle would be enough to win against Hillary.

If Hillary wins the nomination and runs against say, McCain, he's getting my vote.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

One-dimensional thinking. There's more than just left/right/middle going on here.

With Ron Paul you're dealing with someone with strong libertarian leanings. He's pro-life which appeals to christians, small government & protecting the borders, which appeals to real conservatives (but not to neo-cons) and anti-war/foreign intervention, which appeals to, well, anyone who's sick of the war, be they liberal or conservative or something else.

as a microcosm, look at all the people of different opinions on this web forum who support him. Ok, the pro-war, foreign-interventionist Bushies don't like him, but except for them Ron Paul has wide appeal for a variety of reasons.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

What I'm saying is that if there is a sliding scale from 0 to 100 with 0 being the most left and 100 being the most right, I'd say Hillary falls at the 33 mark and she also carries a LOT of baggage with her.

My point is that the Republicans don't have to go so far to the right in order to win against her. The people that want a 66 or higher aren't going to vote for her anyway, so there's really no point in stressing about finding somebody that appeals specifically to them. They already think that anything is going to be better than Hillary. So what remains is really the middle.

What they SHOULD be worried about is somebody on the Democratic side that is a 49.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

What I'm saying is that if there is a sliding scale from 0 to 100 with 0 being the most left and 100 being the most right, I'd say Hillary falls at the 33 mark and she also carries a LOT of baggage with her.

My point is that the Republicans don't have to go so far to the right in order to win against her. The people that want a 66 or higher aren't going to vote for her anyway, so there's really no point in stressing about finding somebody that appeals specifically to them. They already think that anything is going to be better than Hillary. So what remains is really the middle.

What they SHOULD be worried about is somebody on the Democratic side that is a 49.

My point is that with all the different issues, it's hard to assign someone a point on a one-dimensional axis. How about authoritarian vs. libertarian axis? Foreign interventionism vs isolationism axis?

Ron Paul is to the "right" generally of both Clintons, and yet he is more staunchly anti-war than the Clintons.

This is the problem with the whole "left wing/right wing" model for assessing candidates. There are just too many different issues. The single axis model is just too simplistic.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

The single axis model is just too simplistic.

Agreed to a certain point, maybe 20 or so years ago, but I think that the current realities of the voting public don't require all that much complexity either. The US has basically become an unthinking mass following, more or less, whichever media outlet they subcribe to and have been influenced by.

I'd bet you a bajillion dollars that you could do a fairly decent prediction of how a person is going to vote based off what radio station they listen to on the way to work.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the pro-war, foreign-interventionist Bushies don't like him,

and that's another point in his favor

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I'd bet you a bajillion dollars that you could do a fairly decent prediction of how a person is going to vote based off what radio station they listen to on the way to work.

I listen to NPR.

On the topic of Ron Paul. He doesn't stand a chance!!! He's part of the "et al" group.... doesn't really register on the radar.

Even if he was able to get his message out to the masses, the GOP power base would make sure he didn't get the nomination. NOKD (not our kind, Dear)

And as far as him beating Hillary... that line of reasoning has a whole lot of "what ifs". IMO, it's a house of cards.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I'd bet you a bajillion dollars that you could do a fairly decent prediction of how a person is going to vote based off what radio station they listen to on the way to work.

I listen to NPR.

I said "fairly decent." not absolute.

Take 100 people that listen to NPR and 100 that listen to Rush and tell me how far off the numbers would be from reality. I'm guessing not far.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

well you might be right for some people.

But not with others. Ever here of the term "Republicrats?"

It's a term used by people who are fed up with the same old BS. Ron Paul is unique because he's not a pandering, tow-the-party-line political hack like most of the rest of them.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

Ron Paul is unique because he's not a pandering, tow-the-party-line political hack like most of the rest of them.

No. He's just a "do away with all taxes" kind of panderer. Lemme tell ya, if THAT doesn't appeal to most Republicans, nothing does.

And as much as I would love never having to pay taxes again, I'm realistic enough to understand that SOMEBODY has to finance the government's basic functions to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,".

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And as much as I would love never having to pay taxes again, I'm realistic enough to understand that SOMEBODY has to finance the government's basic functions to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,".

It always seems to me that the vast majority of Republicans that want incessant tax cuts tend to want something for nothing....I always ask them WHO is going to pay for all that nice stuff they EXPECT...roads.. police.. fire...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I always ask them WHO is going to pay for all that nice stuff they EXPECT...roads.. police.. fire...

cheese, housing, pants, health care, museums, art, poetry, drug research, space exploration, food, detox, sidewalk snow melters, college, hats, umbrellas, cat food, siding, shingles, lawn mowing, gasoline, ...........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I always ask them WHO is going to pay for all that nice stuff they EXPECT...roads.. police.. fire...

cheese, housing, pants, health care, museums, art, poetry, drug research, space exploration, food, detox, sidewalk snow melters, college, hats, umbrellas, cat food, siding, shingles, lawn mowing, gasoline, ...........

And somewhere we can draw a line, but Ron Paul wants to do away with it ALL. How's that going to work?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

It always seems to me that the vast majority of Republicans that want incessant tax cuts tend to want something for nothing....

I don't think that's entirely true, they seem to know that somebody has to pay for it, they just don't want it to be their current generation or Administration. Better to let the next party in power or great grand children deal with it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Is that guy a hitlery worshipper?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

It always seems to me that the vast majority of Republicans that want incessant tax cuts tend to want something for nothing.

You might want to try and see things a little more objectively. That statement above is laughably off the mark.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'd bet you a bajillion dollars that you could do a fairly decent prediction of how a person is going to vote based off what radio station they listen to on the way to work.

I listen to NPR.

I said "fairly decent." not absolute.

Take 100 people that listen to NPR and 100 that listen to Rush and tell me how far off the numbers would be from reality. I'm guessing not far.

LOL

The Rush listeners make up what? One... maybe two percent of the population. Your statement was about the average person... not extreme rightwingers!!!

As far as NPR goes, I'd guess it's a 60/40 split favoring the lefties. Again... we're talking about a small portion of the population. What about the remaining 90% who don't care for Rush or "Morning Edition", who have never heard of the Tappet brothers.

[quade 4]

Quote

What about the remaining 90% who don't care for Rush or "Morning Edition", who have never heard of the Tappet brothers.

My guess, most of those folks don't go to the polls. Have you seen voter turn out lately? So, again, it's a fairly decent predictor. Not "perfect", but I'd take the odds if laying bets of the general population.

Again, here's my line of reasoning; if a person is interested in politics, he is generally going to tune into something that fits his world view. Lefties basically head to the left, righties head to the right and the appathetic listen to neither. The people that are interested and what could be called "motivated" listeners and those people are far more likely to go to the polls in the first place.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

What about the remaining 90% who don't care for Rush or "Morning Edition", who have never heard of the Tappet brothers.

My guess, most of that 90% doesn't even go to the polls. Have you seen voter turn out lately? So, again, it's a fairly decent predictor.

LOL Love the steady backpedal

Lately? Voter turnout in 2004 was the highest ever. As a percentage of the population, it was the best in 32 years,... 70% of registered voters participated... 55% of people over 18 voted.

You keep lobbing then in and I'll keep swatting them outta here.

[quade 4]

Quote

You keep lobbing then in and I'll keep swatting them outta here.

Look Babe, I didn't make up the "90%" number, YOU did. You'll notice I edited my responce fairly shortly after puttting it up because I knew that number was bogus and wanted to elaborate on my responce.

We have, almost without question, one of the lowest voter turn outs of any democratic country.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

You keep lobbing then in and I'll keep swatting them outta here.

Look Babe, I didn't make up the "90%" number, YOU did. You'll notice I edited my responce fairly shortly after puttting it up because I knew that number was bogus and wanted to elaborate on my responce.

What IS your point? You gonna try making this about the 90% figure being bogus? LMAO... too much. You make a claim about how a (typical) person votes, based on their morning radio listening... and then justify it by talking about two very small parts of the general population.

Quote

We have, almost without question, one of the lowest voter turn outs of any democratic country.

Hope your heels don't catch on anything, lil miss thang.