Thompson Endorses McCain?
I was watching the Morning Joe and they claim the rumor is out that if Thompson does badly in Iowa he may pull out and endorse McCain. In 1999 Thompson did endorse McCain over Bush.
McCain jumps in New Hampshire poll
-
Your ad here.
Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.
23 Responses to “Thompson Endorses McCain?”
|
Why wouldn’t Fred endorse McCain. After all they’re both neocons.
Is Rudy a ‘neocon’ caroline?
If so, then please explain how all three can be ‘neocons’ with such disparate opinions on key issues.
bb,
anyone she doesn’t like is a neocon.
I think McCain and Huckabee are working together. If you notice they never take shots at each other. And both of them would help the other one as a VP candidate. Huckabee gains on foreign policy and McCain gains with support from social conservatives.
John,
Didn’t you mean to write, Huckabee gets support from social conservatives and McCain gains on foreign policy?
Bart
I am saying if they are on the same ticket.
bb,
Read what Irving Kristol, the father of neoconservatism, defines it as:
1. Social conservatism
2. Empire building
3. Tax cuts as a solution for all economic ills.
I think that Rudy doesn’t have the history of being one but he is promising all of the above. So while Rudy’s record in NYC wouldn’t fall into the neoconservative definition, his campaign for the GOP nomination has pretty much included embracing the neoconservative agenda wouldn’t you agree?
If Thompson ends up endorsing McCain, it would expose all the Georgia Legislators (Chip Rogers et al) who have endorsed Thompson. They should have know that Thompson was an establishment phony. I certainly did.
McCain is a mass third world immigration enthusiast. He is an amnesty supporter. So you would effectively have the Georgia Legislators endorsing Amnesty and the invasion by the third world. They are exposed big time. I hope the Georgia voters connect the dots this time!
caroline,
Actually Kristol’s ideals are summed up here:
From Wikipedia (sourced from Kristol’s book ‘The Neoconservative Persuasion)– Irving Kristol, the “god-father” and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other “movements” or “persuasions”. These policies, he claimed, “result in popular Republican presidencies”:
Taxes and Federal Budget: “Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth.” In Kristol’s view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: “One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.”
Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. “Neocons do not feel … alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.”
Traditional Moral Values: “The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives”. Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: “Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power.”
Expansionist Foreign Policy: “Statesmen should … distinguish friends from enemies.” And according to Kristol, “with power come responsibilities … if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.”
National Interest: “the United States of today, inevitably … [will] feel obliged to defend … a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces …that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II … that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today.”
Based on Kristol’s actual words (instead of your personal summation), it is hard to see how Rudy (or I for that matter) could be categorized as a ‘neocon’.
Interestingly, Barry Goldwater’s nomination is considered to be the first victory for ‘neocons’. Does that mean Barry Goldwater, Jr.’s endoresement of Ron Paul is based on neocon principles????
Did Barry Goldwater support expanding the Government? I thought he would be called “a small government” conservative. Goldwater was also pro choice and not a social conservative. Reagan was the one who brought the neocons to power not Goldwater. The neocons were LBJ/Vietnam people. When the dems kicked them out they wandered around lost in the seventies until they found a home in the GOP in the eighties with Reagan. Bill Kristol, Irving’s son was even chief of staff to Dan Quayle. Really I think you should read some history.
caroline,
You make my point about what total bs it is to attempt to label somebody a ‘neocon’.
Goldwater’s nomination is cited as “the first victory for neoconservatism”. You, John, Olberman, Paul and other dems label every GOPer who you do not like ‘neocon’. It cannot possibly be applied to Barry Goldwater, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney…you my dear need to study up on your use of labels.
Bart
You are cherry picking facts again! This was from the same Wiki article!
Criticism
The term is frequently used pejoratively by self-described paleoconservatives, Democrats, and by libertarians of both left and right.
Critics take issue with neoconservatives’ support for aggressive foreign policy; critics from the left especially take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations.[35][36][37] Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, “Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others.”
[edit] Jacobinism, Bolshevism
The “traditional” conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are “a variety of neo-Jacobins.” Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society’s institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins
are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)
Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that
Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, “moral clarity” in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America’s universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of “virtue.” (p. 384).
Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel: “They are not new conservatives. They’re Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre.”[38]
[edit] Conflict with libertarian conservatives
There is also conflict between neoconservatives and libertarian conservatives. Libertarian conservatives are ideologically opposed to the expansiveness of federal government programs and regard neoconservative foreign policy ambitions with outspoken distrust. They view the neoconservative promotion of preemptive war as morally unjust, dangerous to the preservation of a free society, and against the principles of the Constitution.
[edit] Friction with paleoconservatism
Main article: Neoconservative – Paleoconservative Conflict
Disputes over Israel and public policy contributed to a sharp conflict with “paleoconservatives,” starting in the 1980s. The movement’s name (”old conservative”) was taken as a rebuke to the “neo” side. The “paleocons” view the neoconservatives as “militarist social democrats” and interlopers who deviate from traditional conservatism agenda on issues as diverse as federalism, immigration, foreign policy, the welfare state, abortion, feminism and homosexuality. All of this leads to a debate over what counts as conservatism.[citation needed]
The paleoconservatives argue that neoconservatives are an illegitimate addition to the conservative movement. Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism “a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.”[39] The open rift is often traced back to a 1981 dispute over Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Mel Bradford, a Southerner, to run the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford withdrew after neoconservatives complained that he had criticized Abraham Lincoln; the paleoconservatives supported Bradford.
Ya … he’s endorsing McCain in his current presidential candidacy 8 years ago
how out of context and ridiculous that is to say that “this is Thompson endorsing McCain”.
Give me a break
The rumor I heard was on the news!
Ss, neo-conservatives and the regular type of conservative only differ in their prefence of gov’t size?
Jeez, Caroline, you toss around ‘neocon’ like a derogative. If the above is correct, I would think that you would prefer a ‘neocon’ over the regular type. You know, because of the whole ‘big gov’t’ thing and all.
bb,
Since when is Goldwater a social conservative? You seem to be spinning a big web to defend neoconservatism. Goldwater was more of a libertarian anti interventionist than the neocons. Did you even read what you cut and pasted?
Aubrey,
No there are conservatives who are anti interventionist like who are also known as the paleocons who are also largely social conservatives like Buchanan. There are also socially liberal conservatives like Goldwater. Goldwater wouldn’t be considered a neocon either. You have to meet those same three cornerstones to be a neocon.
Caroline
Bart does talking points only!
Aubrey
Also nation building!
John,
In your book, are Thompson, Romney, McCain, and Guiliani neocons because they wouldn’t yank us straight out of Iraq?
OK caroline…rrrreeeeaaaalllll sssslllllooooowwwww just for you….that is the point, BG is not a social conservative which according to you is the basis for neoconservatism. Yet the original leaders of so-called neoconservatism consider Goldwater’s nomination to be the first victory of the movement.
So again I ask, how can all these different people be lumped into neocon category? Just admit the obvious caroline, you have no freakin’ idea, just following along with others who have just as little concept of who they call what….
What Endorsement?…
Control Congress carried a rumor, today, that appears to have no legs.
I was watching the Morning Joe and they claim the rumor is out that if Thompson does badly in Iowa he may pull out and endorse McCain.
Whether or not McCain or Thompson might, at ca…
[...] This is not the first time we have heard this rumor! POLITICO-Several Republican officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign said they expect the candidate will drop out of the race within days if he finishes poorly in Thursday’s Iowa caucus. [...]
Hennessy
Fred Thompson may drop out, back McCain
This is not the first time we have heard this rumor!
POLITICO-Several Republican officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign said they expect the candidate will drop out of the race within days if he finishes poorly in Thursday’s Iowa caucus.
Thompson’s campaign, which last spring and summer was generating fevered anticipation in the media and with some Republican activists, has never ignited nationally, and there are no signs of a late spark happening here in Iowa, where even a third-place finish is far from assured.
READ MORE