C.T.
I was cruising RCP reading some of the articles submitted by amateurs, such as myself. There is a surprising amount of insight in many of them. There was one in particular that jumped out at me. It was written by Mike Volpe, at his website "The Provocateur" here on Blogspot. It's a fairly concise post titled Right Blogoshpehere Demeans, Distorts, and Demagogues vis a vis Fred Thompson. , nicely written, but here's where I had some problems with it.
Mr. Volpe first takes issue of right wing blogs "attacking" the different conservative candidates. I.E. Michelle Malkin on Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani with illegal immigration, and Rick Moran of the Right Wing Nuthhouse's review of Mike Huckabee. He goes on to say,"Now, I couldn't believe how scathing this piece was. After all, even if you don't support Huckabee, why would a fellow conservative treat him with such venom?" [1]
My response was,"Huh?" Agreed, not the smartest thing I could have come up with, but can you understand my confusion? This is just the primary season, it is the time when the ranks of the party divide into perspective camps. From centrists, to far right wingers, and everything in between. Why WOULDN'T there be criticism and scathing reviews by people who do not support these other candidates. This is politics, there are no niceties, it is all out war. If a candidate cannot take issue from his or her own party then how will they fair against their real competition? Beyond that, how will he face up to the realities of the world and the enemies this country has?
We are conservatives, some moderate, some extreme, but in the end conservatives. We tout ourselves as the one's who use reason and intellect, not feel good tactics. If you follow the conservative dogma, then you will use your cognizance to determine your candidate. Trying to convince others that he is in fact the man for President. If you are and worried about people attacking your candidate's political record then I suggest you find a party that likes sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya, holding hands, and eating marshmallows. By my definition that is not the conservative Republican party.
The next line that, naturally, caught my eye was this, "The fact is that most of the candidates, short of Fred Thompson, have at one time or another been treated with unbelievably venom on the right blogosphere." [1] Absolutely, couldn't agree more. This is mainly because right wing bloggers tend to be fervent conservatives. Now, this, is in fact, a matter of opinion and I have no hard data to back up this claim. The blogs I read, mostly have a favorable review of Senator Thompson's record as a conservative. This does not mean they support him, it just means they like most of his politics. If they did not support him I would not whine about it. If he comes under attack I will defend him based on his record. As I have already pointed out, this is the nature of the primaries.
This next part really had me scratching my head. Mr. Volpe states, "Therein lies the rub. Thompson has no record. He served undistinguished in the Senate for a few years. Big deal. That is why I would never support him. To me, a few years as an undistinguished Senator doesn't qualify anyone for the most powerful office in the world. I could care less what their position on anything is. Anyone's record is easy to attack. That's if they have a record. Thompson has no record. He only has campaign promises." Interesting, because by my analysis he has a record and it is not an easy one to attack. Do a Google search on any of his issues he voted on and cross reference it against his campaign promises. It will give you a clearer picture of what the Senator stands for. Now, with that in mind. Does a lack of air time qualify a person as having no record or being undistinguished? I would say not. In fact the opposite is true. If a candidate is out there just buying up camera time, it is simply to get their face into everyone's head. Marketing 101. That is not an automatic pass for their stances on issues nor does it lend any depth to their campaign.
Mr. Volpe also had this to say, "To me, a few years as an undistinguished Senator doesn't qualify anyone for the most powerful office in the world." [1] What qualifies Giuliani? Why is he so special? He was Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Harold "Ace" Tyler during the Ford administration. In the Reagan administration he was named Associate Attorney General, the third-highest position in the Department of Justice. He was a mayor, albeit of a very large city, 8.2 million people. He cleaned up the city, lowered some taxes, and made New Yorkers feel good about being New Yorkers again. That's nice. Where does any of this qualify him to be this nation's President? Sounds to me like he would make a great Attorney General. He also has some notoriety with his name. If that is a qualifier for President than let's vote in Paris Hilton. In contrast look at Thompson's federal record. First off he was a Senator, obviously. But while serving he was a member and Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, for eight years was a member of the Finance Committee, and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Early in his career he was also minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee and assistant United States attorney in Nashville. Thompson has a vast record on fighting government waste and abuse, lowering taxes, and a plethora of experience in dealing with national security problems. Uh-oh, this looks like a political record and one that might qualify him as a feasible nominee for President.
Now the above paragraph is not intent on comparing Giuliani to Thompson, or even to state that Thompson is better suited to be the Republican nominee. This is just an example of some of the procedures that I used to conclude my support for the Senator. Before his arrival on the primary scene I was going to put my support in with Giuliani. I realized, upon investigation of his past and his attitude toward politics I was going to have to make some concessions with my philosophies. Then Thompson came along. The evidence I drew from showed me, that as a conservative, his ideology is the closest to mine.
Next problem I have with Mr. Volpe's opinion is how he draws his conclusions, "No one even comes close to Rudy in terms of the things I am looking for and thus a deep analysis of anyone's record is unnecessary." [1] Okay, he has followed his career, he knows alot about Giuliani and his policies, again, that's nice. Where is the application of critical thought? What does he really know about the other candidates? Is it better to sit with your head in the sand and just go with the status quo? Or, see how your candidate matches up against the issues and other potential nominees? It is okay to be in a "comfort zone" with your candidate. But is sounds like this is an emotional choice rather than a logical one, which in my opinion is both irresponsible and faulty.
Mr. Volpe goes on, "The same cannot be said of Thompson supporters. Every single other candidate's record has been hyper analyzed by Thompson supporters for any hint of something that they would consider unforgivable." [1] Yes, their records have been hyper analyzed and good on the Thompson supporters for doing it. Most of the them came to their conclusions based on his record versus the records of the other candidates. They have educated themselves in the a murky sea of political diatribe and drawn a logical assessment of what they want in a candidate. Did I miss the memo that questioning the viability and claims made by a nominee is a bad thing now? I was not aware we had gone to listening to the idiot box, the MSM, or the taking a candidate at his or her word as the only source of information.
"That seems to be the conventional wisdom on the right blogosphere over the last few weeks. The Thompson campaign would be doing better if only the MSM gave him a fair shake. What a bunch of nonsense? Since when did the MSM ever decide a Republican primary?" [1] I do have an issue with this, not because there is some vast left wing MSM conspiracy against Thompson. But is it not out of the realm of possibility that because the Senator is so conservative, they do not want to touch him with a ten foot pole. If I were a Democratic strategist, I would use my contacts in the MSM and try to manipulate the field to get a Republican nominated that I know that I could beat. It would be politically naive and reprehensible to think that this sort of thing does not happen. Look at the list of Clinton plants, Perot back in the 90's, and even Nader, to some point, in the 2000's. Now, I am not just saying it is the Dems who solely practice the art of dirty politics. Republicans have demonstrated that they are more than capable of this mischief, as well.
In closing this dissertation of a post I will say. This has not been a personal attack on Mr Volpe. This has been a critique of his post, his conclusions, and how he arrived at them. As always, I will try and leave you with this, use your cognitive abilities, study the empirical data, do not just jump to conclusions. There is a vast amount of information out there on any potential candidate. The true challenge is wading through the muck and mire to get to some sort of semblance of the truth.
I was cruising RCP reading some of the articles submitted by amateurs, such as myself. There is a surprising amount of insight in many of them. There was one in particular that jumped out at me. It was written by Mike Volpe, at his website "The Provocateur" here on Blogspot. It's a fairly concise post titled Right Blogoshpehere Demeans, Distorts, and Demagogues vis a vis Fred Thompson. , nicely written, but here's where I had some problems with it.
Mr. Volpe first takes issue of right wing blogs "attacking" the different conservative candidates. I.E. Michelle Malkin on Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani with illegal immigration, and Rick Moran of the Right Wing Nuthhouse's review of Mike Huckabee. He goes on to say,"Now, I couldn't believe how scathing this piece was. After all, even if you don't support Huckabee, why would a fellow conservative treat him with such venom?" [1]
My response was,"Huh?" Agreed, not the smartest thing I could have come up with, but can you understand my confusion? This is just the primary season, it is the time when the ranks of the party divide into perspective camps. From centrists, to far right wingers, and everything in between. Why WOULDN'T there be criticism and scathing reviews by people who do not support these other candidates. This is politics, there are no niceties, it is all out war. If a candidate cannot take issue from his or her own party then how will they fair against their real competition? Beyond that, how will he face up to the realities of the world and the enemies this country has?
We are conservatives, some moderate, some extreme, but in the end conservatives. We tout ourselves as the one's who use reason and intellect, not feel good tactics. If you follow the conservative dogma, then you will use your cognizance to determine your candidate. Trying to convince others that he is in fact the man for President. If you are and worried about people attacking your candidate's political record then I suggest you find a party that likes sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya, holding hands, and eating marshmallows. By my definition that is not the conservative Republican party.
The next line that, naturally, caught my eye was this, "The fact is that most of the candidates, short of Fred Thompson, have at one time or another been treated with unbelievably venom on the right blogosphere." [1] Absolutely, couldn't agree more. This is mainly because right wing bloggers tend to be fervent conservatives. Now, this, is in fact, a matter of opinion and I have no hard data to back up this claim. The blogs I read, mostly have a favorable review of Senator Thompson's record as a conservative. This does not mean they support him, it just means they like most of his politics. If they did not support him I would not whine about it. If he comes under attack I will defend him based on his record. As I have already pointed out, this is the nature of the primaries.
This next part really had me scratching my head. Mr. Volpe states, "Therein lies the rub. Thompson has no record. He served undistinguished in the Senate for a few years. Big deal. That is why I would never support him. To me, a few years as an undistinguished Senator doesn't qualify anyone for the most powerful office in the world. I could care less what their position on anything is. Anyone's record is easy to attack. That's if they have a record. Thompson has no record. He only has campaign promises." Interesting, because by my analysis he has a record and it is not an easy one to attack. Do a Google search on any of his issues he voted on and cross reference it against his campaign promises. It will give you a clearer picture of what the Senator stands for. Now, with that in mind. Does a lack of air time qualify a person as having no record or being undistinguished? I would say not. In fact the opposite is true. If a candidate is out there just buying up camera time, it is simply to get their face into everyone's head. Marketing 101. That is not an automatic pass for their stances on issues nor does it lend any depth to their campaign.
Mr. Volpe also had this to say, "To me, a few years as an undistinguished Senator doesn't qualify anyone for the most powerful office in the world." [1] What qualifies Giuliani? Why is he so special? He was Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Harold "Ace" Tyler during the Ford administration. In the Reagan administration he was named Associate Attorney General, the third-highest position in the Department of Justice. He was a mayor, albeit of a very large city, 8.2 million people. He cleaned up the city, lowered some taxes, and made New Yorkers feel good about being New Yorkers again. That's nice. Where does any of this qualify him to be this nation's President? Sounds to me like he would make a great Attorney General. He also has some notoriety with his name. If that is a qualifier for President than let's vote in Paris Hilton. In contrast look at Thompson's federal record. First off he was a Senator, obviously. But while serving he was a member and Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, for eight years was a member of the Finance Committee, and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Early in his career he was also minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee and assistant United States attorney in Nashville. Thompson has a vast record on fighting government waste and abuse, lowering taxes, and a plethora of experience in dealing with national security problems. Uh-oh, this looks like a political record and one that might qualify him as a feasible nominee for President.
Now the above paragraph is not intent on comparing Giuliani to Thompson, or even to state that Thompson is better suited to be the Republican nominee. This is just an example of some of the procedures that I used to conclude my support for the Senator. Before his arrival on the primary scene I was going to put my support in with Giuliani. I realized, upon investigation of his past and his attitude toward politics I was going to have to make some concessions with my philosophies. Then Thompson came along. The evidence I drew from showed me, that as a conservative, his ideology is the closest to mine.
Next problem I have with Mr. Volpe's opinion is how he draws his conclusions, "No one even comes close to Rudy in terms of the things I am looking for and thus a deep analysis of anyone's record is unnecessary." [1] Okay, he has followed his career, he knows alot about Giuliani and his policies, again, that's nice. Where is the application of critical thought? What does he really know about the other candidates? Is it better to sit with your head in the sand and just go with the status quo? Or, see how your candidate matches up against the issues and other potential nominees? It is okay to be in a "comfort zone" with your candidate. But is sounds like this is an emotional choice rather than a logical one, which in my opinion is both irresponsible and faulty.
Mr. Volpe goes on, "The same cannot be said of Thompson supporters. Every single other candidate's record has been hyper analyzed by Thompson supporters for any hint of something that they would consider unforgivable." [1] Yes, their records have been hyper analyzed and good on the Thompson supporters for doing it. Most of the them came to their conclusions based on his record versus the records of the other candidates. They have educated themselves in the a murky sea of political diatribe and drawn a logical assessment of what they want in a candidate. Did I miss the memo that questioning the viability and claims made by a nominee is a bad thing now? I was not aware we had gone to listening to the idiot box, the MSM, or the taking a candidate at his or her word as the only source of information.
"That seems to be the conventional wisdom on the right blogosphere over the last few weeks. The Thompson campaign would be doing better if only the MSM gave him a fair shake. What a bunch of nonsense? Since when did the MSM ever decide a Republican primary?" [1] I do have an issue with this, not because there is some vast left wing MSM conspiracy against Thompson. But is it not out of the realm of possibility that because the Senator is so conservative, they do not want to touch him with a ten foot pole. If I were a Democratic strategist, I would use my contacts in the MSM and try to manipulate the field to get a Republican nominated that I know that I could beat. It would be politically naive and reprehensible to think that this sort of thing does not happen. Look at the list of Clinton plants, Perot back in the 90's, and even Nader, to some point, in the 2000's. Now, I am not just saying it is the Dems who solely practice the art of dirty politics. Republicans have demonstrated that they are more than capable of this mischief, as well.
In closing this dissertation of a post I will say. This has not been a personal attack on Mr Volpe. This has been a critique of his post, his conclusions, and how he arrived at them. As always, I will try and leave you with this, use your cognitive abilities, study the empirical data, do not just jump to conclusions. There is a vast amount of information out there on any potential candidate. The true challenge is wading through the muck and mire to get to some sort of semblance of the truth.
C.T.
Posts
