Thompson Surge Means Conservatives Are Desperate
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 election 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
Hillary 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
here.) 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. Zilch.
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 Gingrich, 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
Thompson soft on illegals in Senate votes, by
Stephen Dinan The Washington Times, September 5,
2007)
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 families 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
Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann) 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.
Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the
pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola,
Florida. He hosts a
weekly radio show. His
website is
here.
